The Grand KSP 1.1 Discussion Thread

[Kerbin vonKerbal]

Make a cockpit with the chair and panels and stuff? Idk, creativity and utilization of resources available could help if you're going for a Cessna-esque cockpit and trying to stay light. 

Edited April 22, 2016 by Kerbin vonKerbal

[zarakon]

7 minutes ago, Fallarnon said:

It functions fine as one, note the ultralight. The issue here is simply that you don't like the answer, not that the answer is flawed.

It's flawed because by the mention of "first landing gear" this thread is most likely about career or science mode, where the landing gear in question is in a tier 4 research node.  The chair is in a tier 7 node, which means it's irrelevant to the discussion of low-tech issues.

[Alshain]

1 minute ago, zarakon said:

It's flawed because by the mention of "first landing gear" this thread is most likely about career or science mode, where the landing gear in question is in a tier 4 research node.  The chair is in a tier 7 node, which means it's irrelevant to the discussion of low-tech issues.

Also a very good point there.  I forgot about that, I've been playing sandbox, lol.

[GoSlash27]

4 hours ago, FungusForge said:

There's this, which seems to be after fixing an issue much like the one you're having.

At any rate though, the fixed gear aren't supposed to be amazing, and you're better off landing them off to the side of the T1 runway if you happen to be on a career save.

 

 Yeah, that attempt is unfortunately a bust.

 I'm still experimenting with .cfg edits to make the gear behave, but I have it on good authority that the problem is in Unity.

Best,
-Slashy

[Alshain]

34 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

The yaw authority you need depends largely on 2 things:

1. How much adverse roll you're willing to accept from off-centerline rudders, and;
2. Whether you do your turns mostly by yaw or roll-then-pitch.

Given the vagueness of KSP instrumentation and control systems, I tolerate zero yaw-induced roll except on very small, simple planes with enough control authority by other means and/or on other axes to be able easily to ignore whatever an off-center rudder does to me.  I always turn (as opposed to orienting or hammerheading) via roll-then-pitch, so rudder only affects my delta-altitude (and thus my delta-speed) during the turn, but not the turn radius or turn rate.  Depending on plane design and flight regime, sometimes you need LOTS of rudder authority to keep the nose where you want it because that controls both of the desired speed and altitude during the turn. 

#1 Very little.

#2 Neither, I use roll then pitch with yaw to control that adverse pitch.  I'm no beginner here

34 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

Flaps in stock KSP do nothing but add drag and control force.  In real life, they usually increase effective wing area.  If you want that kind of functionality, use FAR.  If you want more control authority in stock, don't set anything as a flap/

I'm pretty sure they create lift since 1.0.  I have planes that nose dive out of the sky at landing speeds unless I enable the flaps.  It behaves the same as it did in old-FAR.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Alshain

[regex]

Sigh...  Sometimes I feel like the spirit has left this community.

I literally booted KSP up while making some Mac and Cheese for my kid and before the water had come to boil I had banged this thing out, took off from the tier 1 runway, reached 135m/s, turned around and landed on the tier 1 runway, using a keyboard for control.  Even lost a wing due to oversteering but nothing ventured, nothing gained, eh?

I'm not Scott Manley.

Anyone can do this.

The wheels are fine (even if they need some tweaking).

The tier 1 runway is fine.

Joints are plenty strong for KSP, you don't need a mod designed for RO to play it.

 

Edited April 23, 2016 by regex

[Alshain]

1 minute ago, regex said:

Sigh...  Sometimes I feel like the spirit has left this community.

I literally booted KSP up while making some Mac and Cheese for my kid and before the water had come to boil I had banged this thing out, took off from the tier 1 runway, reached 135m/s, turned around and landed on the tier 1 runway, using a keyboard for control.  Even lost a wing due to oversteering but nothing ventured, nothing gained, eh?

I'm not Scott Manley.

Anyone can do this.

The wheels are fine (even if they need some tweaking).

The tier 1 runway is fine.

Joints are plenty strong for KSP, you don't need a mod designed for RO to play it.

Now do it without part clipping it to death and use all the proper size adapters.  Face it, the wheels are broken.  They should not be so strict that you have to build that ridiculously ugly plane just to use them.  That is a perfect example of 'barely usable'.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

@Alshain, @regex It's possible that you're actually having two different experiences.  On @GoSlash27's thread, there is a description of wheels that goes like this:

Quote

If your wheels do pretty much what you expect them to, you're not having the problem. If they're jumping all over the place, not getting any traction, spinning around everywhere, exploding when they shouldn't, or any combination of the above, you will know you're experiencing the wheel jitters.

(From @cubinator)

I am not having that problem but some other people are.  @Alshain's wheels may be genuinely broken, while @regex's are not.

[Alshain]

Just now, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

@Alshain, @regex It's possible that you're actually having two different experiences.  On @GoSlash27's thread, there is a description of wheels that goes like this:

(From @cubinator)

I am not having that problem but some other people are.  @Alshain's wheels may be genuinely broken, while @regex's are not.

Hmmm.  Interesting.  Give me a minute and I'll make a video.

[regex]

3 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Now do it without part clipping it to death and use all the proper size adapters.  Face it, the wheels are broken.  They should not be so strict that you have to build that ridiculously ugly plane just to use them.  That is a perfect example of 'barely usable'.

Why should I use your arbitrary rules to arrive at the conclusion you want to reach?

[Vanamonde]

We are all learning about new aspects of play in 1.1, but if every person starts a whole new thread for his/her individual opinion or question, we end up with pages and pages of overlapping, confusing, and repetitive discussions. This is why we are still asking folks to submit their 1.1 reactions to this master thread, and why we are still merging so many individual threads into this one when we find them posted elsewhere. Please help us keep things sane and organized by discussing 1.1 here rather than starting new threads about it. 

[Alshain]

Just now, regex said:

Why should I use your arbitrary rules to arrive at the conclusion you want to reach?

Lol, why should I be forced into your arbitrary rules of play?  I can't use the wheels unless I a. Build a plane with a not-cockpit or B. build a plane that doesn't even look like a plane?  It astounds me you can't see how ridiculously restrictive that is and why we think the parts are barely usable in that condition.

 

[N3RdP4W]

In career mode from 1.0.5 I have a large mining craft landed on Ike, when I jump to that ship in 1.1 and the scene loads, about 1-2 secs pass, then the gear explodes.  I have another, much smaller vessel on the Mun, when I jump to that one, the gear "bounces" the craft but does not explode.  Hope this helps.  I have mod'd parts MechJeb, KAS, KIS, AviationLights on the Ike miner, but don't think that's the problem as the vessel on the Mun is older and has all stock parts.  I have a feeling if the Mun vessel were heavier, the gear would explode too.  Seems like it's a weight problem?  If need be, I can paste the vessels from persistent.sfs.

[Majorjim!]

I cannot find an open bug report on this but the LT-2 landing legs are far too weak now. I have a 45t lander sitting on 8 LT-2s and they break and or violently vibrate upon loading on the pad for testing. The legs that do survive vibrate the craft along the ground. The legs on 1.05 could EASILY hold that weight. They also break when landing below 1m/s..

 Can someone confirm that this will be fixed as it has broken mine and others craft which is NOT cool.

P.S please stop the petty back and forth, it is muddying up the thread. Thanks.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Majorjim

[Alshain]

2 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

P.S please stop the petty back and forth, it is muddying up the thread. Thanks.

It was a discussion only the wheels but it was merged by the infinite wisdom of some moderator.  It should have stayed separate.

[DanHeidel]

Has anyone else had an issue where your orbital speed suddenly shifts when changing craft?

I just started my first orbital rescue mission and can't complete it. Here's the sequence of events:

- Approach the stranded capsule, do a Hohmann transfer to the target and match speeds at ~150 m.

- Check the relative velocities.  In the game, I can see the target and the distance info is sitting rock steady at about 150m.  However, on the ball, the target relative speed indicator shows roughly 55 m/s, which is weird.

- Switch to map view and my rocket and the target have a large separation in the orbital display, probably 20km or so.  It also shows highly divergent orbital velocities, roughly 55 m/s difference.  However, the orbital tracks in the map display are perfectly overlaid on each other.

- Switch back to normal mode and the target is sitting there at 150m, 0 m/s relative velocity according to the data on the overlay.  The ball display still shows 55 m/s differential speed.

- I switch to the target capsule to get the target kerbal to EVA and I immediately notice that my rocket is now quickly receding at roughly 55 m/s.  This is now consistent between display on the ball and what is happening in game.

- I jump back to my rocket and the departure speed from the target is now consistent here s well.  My periapsis is now inside atmo and I have to do an emergency maneuver to keep from re-entering. 

- I re-establish a high orbit, redo the Hohmann transfer and velocity match.

- The same scenario plays out, everything looks fine in-game, ball shows relative velocity difference, map view shows identical orbital tracks, but with a large separation.  When I shift to the target craft, the two vehicles now have large differential velocities and in-game, ball and map view are all consistent in that I'm moving away from the target at high speed and I have a non-circular orbit, as if I had just applied a large radial burn anti-normal to the surface of Kerbin.

 

Has anyone else seen this behavior?  I'm running quite a few mods but they're almost all just part mods that shouldn't have any effect like this.  I did use MechJeb to do the transfer and velocity matching but it's hard to imagine that being the root cause since it's just a fancy SAS.

I wanted to see if anyone else has seen this behavior before reporting it as a bug.

Running in Linux, 64-bit.

[regex]

51 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Lol, why should I be forced into your arbitrary rules of play?  I can't use the wheels unless I a. Build a plane with a not-cockpit or B. build a plane that doesn't even look like a plane?  It astounds me you can't see how ridiculously restrictive that is and why we think the parts are barely usable in that condition

Plane with cockpit what "looks like a plane" using no clipping, heavier than the previous one, faster, same equipment, tier 1 runway, parts available same as previous, keyboard control:

 

Managed to land that one without losing a wing.

I'm still not seeing how these are useless, most especially in the early career game.

[Mad Elf]

It seems like there are a couple of unresolved issues with this new release, but (apart from one) the ones I've noticed don't seem to be mentioned either on this forum or on the bug reporting site. However, I thought it would be polite to ask if anyone else had noticed these, or if it's just me.

 

Rotating parts in VAB

I don't seem to be able to rotate parts unless they're actually attached to the vehicle. This is really awkward, especially if I'm trying to build something with a lot of radial parts that need aligned properly. For some reason the parts aren't rotating to match the mount points automatically either. Now, I'm not sure if this is a) a bug, b) an issue with my specific setup, or c) a really stupid "new feature". Can anyone comment?

 

Repeated crashes in VAB

If I roll over several parts in the menu in quick succession, the entire application crashes. This happened a ludicrous number of times on the first day after the upgrade. Might be a problem with my graphics card; has anyone else seen this?

[Alshain]

6 minutes ago, regex said:

Plane with cockpit what "looks like a plane" using no clipping, heavier than the previous one, faster, same equipment, tier 1 runway, parts available same as previous, keyboard control:

Managed to land that one without losing a wing.

I'm still not seeing how these are useless, most especially in the early career game.

Then you aren't having the same issue because that plane is the same mass as the one I put in the video above (actually heavier).  Lucky you, you don't get the bug, the wheels are still broken for many of us.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Alshain

[mcirish3]

Hmm.  I find the idea that different PC rigs have different physics interesting.  I wonder if the variation is due to various operating systems.

[regex]

Just now, mcirish3 said:

Hmm.  I find the idea that different PC rigs have different physics interesting.  I wonder if the variation is due to various operating systems.

I doubt it.

 

2 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Then you aren't having the same issue because that plane is the same mass as the one I put in the video above (actually heavier).  Lucky you, you don't get the bug, the wheels are still broken for many of us.

Post craft please.

[basic.syntax]

51 minutes ago, Alshain said:

... I can't use the wheels unless I a. Build a plane with a not-cockpit or B. build a plane that doesn't even look like a plane?  ....

I thought regex first design was entirely Kerbal    A kit-bash effort, from parts found laying on the side of the road.  But I looked at your video, and tried to make something like your craft, to play with the matchstick wheels. I did the same dance when the wheels looked perfectly straight up and down, but moving the wheels inward one notch, pretty much cured it. I am able to tap the steering right and left up to 40m/s, and the swaying dampens out on its own.

Stable flight is another matter... I need more tweaking or additions to move COM back, without SAS it just wants to nose dive  

[regex]

Make no mistake, the wheels still need work to handle multiple edge cases but, by and large, they're perfectly fine for general usage right now.

[Alshain]

2 minutes ago, basic.syntax said:

I thought regex first design was entirely Kerbal    A kit-bash effort, from parts found laying on the side of the road.  But I looked at your video, and tried to make something like your craft, to play with the matchstick wheels. I did the same dance when the wheels looked perfectly straight up and down, but moving the wheels inward one notch, pretty much cured it. I am able to tap the steering right and left up to 40m/s, and the swaying dampens out on its own.

Stable flight is another matter... I need more tweaking or additions to move COM back, without SAS it just wants to nose dive  

Your right, good find.  I rolled the wheels in on their edges and the problem went completely away.  So maybe the collider is off a little on the LY-01 then.

[GoSlash27]

All,

 I'm trying a new fix for the gear skittering problem. If you have a moment, please give it a go and report back your results.

 

Thanks,
-Slashy