The Grand KSP 1.1 Discussion Thread

[Bloodbunny]

I hate to say this, I really do... I've loved this game for the better part of 3 years; enough to have sunk 2940 hours into it, enough to dual boot an entire new OS for it, so it hurts to say but here it is: 1.1 has so far been the most disappointing update to KSP that I have yet seen. I waited and wished for 3 years for KSP to finally make the jump to 64 bit, so we could at last be rid of OOM errors, and really open up the mod community. Back in 2014, the 64 bit workaround was discovered, and I tried and tried to get it to work properly, but the random CTDs in the VAB killed it.. fast forward to 2016 and 1.1, and the same issue remains. 1.1 is about as stable as a house of cards on the wooden raft on a lake on the San Andreas fault...

 

And of the absolute WORST place to have a CTD problem...the VAB. I could sort of deal with crashes during flight, or transition, but the VAB is where I get (or could get) into my creative zone, and lose myself for hours designing, tweaking, and testing. Now, I can't even put together a simple 4 stage rocket without crashing to desktop..there is always the fear that if I click the wrong part, and set it aside, or click in the parts list to put it away, that the game will crash..its like trying to paint a portrait, with a bag of cinder blocks suspended above you on fishing line...hard to get creative with that.

 

The old versions had problems in that too many mods would crash the game, but at least you could use up to the limit without crashing. Now that 64 bit is here, you can use all the mods you want...for 5 minutes (if lucky, I've had VAB CTDs upon picking the very first part.)

[basic.syntax]

7 hours ago, Majorjim said:

Has anyone had any issues with the small rover wheels breaking when docking to another rover?

I had no trouble with this simple and quick test... docked one, and then a third without issue.

[Brotoro]

2 hours ago, MoeslyArmlis said:

Was there an issue that the outer planets rotate faster than the inner ones?  I have not noticed if that has been fixed but will observe on the next KSP time.

Yes, the old version had the outer planet moving too fast as well as all of them going the wrong direction. But, as I said, they are revolving properly now (this includes speed as well as direction)... although the code optimizations result in the animation staying on the screen for a shorter time...on my new machine, anyway. But I'm glad it was fixed. Attention to the little details as well as the big bugs is appreciated.

[Majorjim!]

1 hour ago, basic.syntax said:

I had no trouble with this simple and quick test... docked one, and then a third without issue.

Try docking to a large heavy craft that will not move.

1 hour ago, Bloodbunny said:

I hate to say this, I really do... I've loved this game for the better part of 3 years; enough to have sunk 2940 hours into it, enough to dual boot an entire new OS for it, so it hurts to say but here it is: 1.1 has so far been the most disappointing update to KSP that I have yet seen. I waited and wished for 3 years for KSP to finally make the jump to 64 bit, so we could at last be rid of OOM errors, and really open up the mod community. Back in 2014, the 64 bit workaround was discovered, and I tried and tried to get it to work properly, but the random CTDs in the VAB killed it.. fast forward to 2016 and 1.1, and the same issue remains. 1.1 is about as stable as a house of cards on the wooden raft on a lake on the San Andreas fault...

 

And of the absolute WORST place to have a CTD problem...the VAB. I could sort of deal with crashes during flight, or transition, but the VAB is where I get (or could get) into my creative zone, and lose myself for hours designing, tweaking, and testing. Now, I can't even put together a simple 4 stage rocket without crashing to desktop..there is always the fear that if I click the wrong part, and set it aside, or click in the parts list to put it away, that the game will crash..its like trying to paint a portrait, with a bag of cinder blocks suspended above you on fishing line...hard to get creative with that.

 

The old versions had problems in that too many mods would crash the game, but at least you could use up to the limit without crashing. Now that 64 bit is here, you can use all the mods you want...for 5 minutes (if lucky, I've had VAB CTDs upon picking the very first part.)

Try reinstalling as that should not happen.

[Foxster]

1 hour ago, Brotoro said:

Yes, the old version had the outer planet moving too fast as well as all of them going the wrong direction.

How could they go in the "wrong" direction? Surely it depends on whether the system is viewed from above or below, which is quite arbitrary. 

[Superfluous J]

14 minutes ago, Foxster said:

How could they go in the "wrong" direction? Surely it depends on whether the system is viewed from above or below, which is quite arbitrary. 

You could say the same of a map of Earth. But if it's upside-down it's gonna look wrong.

That said, the "orbits" never bugged me in that animation. They were the game's equivalent of the hourglass that says "chill out this thing's still running, just doing stuff you can't see." Spinning in the same direction as a clock seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[Foxster]

4 hours ago, Bloodbunny said:

 ...1.1 has so far been the most disappointing update to KSP that I have yet seen...

I agree. We were told that as 1.0 was the production release, Squad would keep KSP nice from then on and they wouldn't do bug-filled releases anymore. That was their call and decision, which I think most of us thought was an excellent decision. 

Well, 1.1 and 1.1.1 are the buggiest versions of KSP I have played. 

Now, I can live with some bugs and I suspect Squad will fix them eventually. But the outstanding game-breaking bugs were there and documented in 1.1 beta testing, so there was a deliberate decision made to release with them still there.  

There is also that it looks like a number of these bugs are down to the version of Unity and that won't be fixed for quite a while. So the game is going to have some things going on that make some parts of it pretty much unuseable for quite some time. Again, this was a decision taken by Squad to release with foreknowledge of known problems with Unity. 

So, is KSP really production now? Or are we actually still testing a product with lots of known bugs? Seems like the latter to me. 

Edited April 30, 2016 by Foxster

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Foxster said:

I agree. We were told that as 1.0 was the production release, Squad would keep KSP nice from then on and they wouldn't do bug-filled releases anymore. That was their call and decision, which I think most of us thought was an excellent decision. 

Well, 1.1 and 1.1.1 are the buggiest versions of KSP I have played. 

Now, I can live with some bugs and I suspect Squad will fix them eventually. But the outstanding game-breaking bugs were there and documented in beta testing, so there was a deliberate decision made to release with them still there.  

There is also that it looks like a number of these bugs are down to the version of Unity and that won't be fixed for quite a while. So the game is going to have some things going on that make some parts of it pretty much unuseable for quite some time. Again, this was a decision taken by Squad to release with foreknowledge of known problems with Unity. 

So, is KSP really production now? Or are we actually still testing a product with lots of known bugs? Seems like the latter to me. 

It is still 100% early access. I cannot think of it as anything else, it's too annoying to!

[steve_v]

7 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

It is still 100% early access.

AFAICT, both KSP and Unity3D are in perpetual beta. While I do like updates, I'm not so keen on updates that introduce more serious bugs than they fix. That's what beta testing and pre-release builds are for. I swear we just had one of those, yet a whole bunch of bugs from the PR remain unresolved?
I was under the impression Squad was trying to avoid the 1.0 - 1.0.5(.1) rushed hotfix shenanigans this time around, but that seems not to be the case.

[basic.syntax]

11 hours ago, Majorjim said:

It was odd, no shudder, no twitch, the ports are perfectly alligned yet the wheels break every time..

11 hours ago, Andem said:

It's possible that the combined mass of the rovers is messing with the small wheels when the vessel "reloads"

Agree with Andem.  I've seen the problem now: small wheel .5t rover docking to 40t fuel tank on the runway, at low speeds ~1 m/s. A physics load bounce of the combined craft sometimes breaks the small wheels. I think It's like an arrow that quivers when it strikes a hard target; oscillations at the far end are greater than at the impact point.  Docking seems fine to the same fuel tank, when empty, mass around 5t.  Potential wheel breakage also seems dependent on docking height; if it's a bit higher (only a little b/c otherwise the rover won't be able to dock) the wheels are lifted off suspension and are usually fine.  Looking forward to the 1.1.2 patch  

[Starhawk]

I'm happy to see that 1.1.2 is live.  Thank you to SQUAD for all your hard work!

I'm unhappy to note that there has been no mention of the still unresolved multi-port docking issue.  Very much hoping that this is considered a priority.

Happy landings!

[Majorjim!]

21 minutes ago, Starhawk said:

I'm happy to see that 1.1.2 is live.  Thank you to SQUAD for all your hard work!

I'm unhappy to note that there has been no mention of the still unresolved multi-port docking issue.  Very much hoping that this is considered a priority.

Happy landings!

I thought that was fixed in the 1.1.1 patch, patch. So should be ok in the 1.1.2 patch, patch, patch.

[Starhawk]

1 minute ago, Majorjim said:

I thought that was fixed in the 1.1.1 patch, patch. So should be ok in the 1.1.2 patch, patch, patch.

Nope.  Not fixed yet.  I just tested it in the 1.1.2 patch patch patch.

Happy landings!

Edited April 30, 2016 by Starhawk

[TriggerAu]

12 hours ago, LaytheDragon said:

I did notice the existence of this bug previously, but never noticed it was fixed. I don't recall seeing it in a change-log, so Squad may have unknowingly fixed this when upgrading the UI to Unity 5, having been unaware of the issue in the first place.

Can confirm It was noticed and fixed, but didnt make the changelogs in 1.1.0 cause of the amount of important stuff to cover

[Majorjim!]

2 hours ago, basic.syntax said:

 Potential wheel breakage also seems dependent on docking height; if it's a bit higher (only a little b/c otherwise the rover won't be able to dock) the wheels are lifted off suspension and are usually fine.  Looking forward to the 1.1.2 patch  

I fear we will have to wait much longer.. Same thing in 1.1.2 as wheels have not been addressed. 

 The problem with setting the port higher is the rear wheels break even if it saves the front ones from breaking.

it also seems that we cannot now switch off the wheels suspension..

Edited April 30, 2016 by Majorjim

[Starhawk]

8 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

it also seems that we cannot now switch off the wheels suspension

From the 1.1.2 changelog:

* Removed non-working "disable suspension" tweakable.

Happy landings!

[Majorjim!]

4 minutes ago, Starhawk said:

From the 1.1.2 changelog:

* Removed non-working "disable suspension" tweakable.

Happy landings!

Right. Ok. 

 Time to find a way around the wheels breaking when docking, sigh.

[smjjames]

29 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

Right. Ok. 

 Time to find a way around the wheels breaking when docking, sigh.

Could you make a bug report on that one? If there isn't one already.

[Ldrs1]

Help, my ksp wont update to 1.1.2 !

i keep getting this error, even after taking all the mods out of my game data, seems like the bug fix has a bug!:(

here is error:rsync: rename "/cygdrive/c/Users/Gerald/Documents/ksp-win-1-0-2/KSP_win/Launcher_Data/.output_log.txt.Nq6NoV" -> "Launcher_Data/output_log.txt": Device or resource busy (16)

[Majorjim!]

13 minutes ago, smjjames said:

Could you make a bug report on that one? If there isn't one already.

Sure

[Spaceception]

Oh Danny;

 

[Brotoro]

8 hours ago, Foxster said:

How could they go in the "wrong" direction? Surely it depends on whether the system is viewed from above or below, which is quite arbitrary. 

The standard convention in Astronomy is to show the revolution of planets around the Sun from "above" the plane of the solar system ("above" being taken as the side of the plane where the Earth's north polar axis points out), and in that convention the planets revolve around the Sun in a counterclockwise direction. Also, the orbits in the little animation are shown with the line thickness fading (the effect that was later built into map view), which most commonly adopts the convention of showing the direction of motion with the thicker part of the line behind the planet (as Squad adopted for map view...much to the displeasure of some because it made the forward part of the orbits difficult to see). The planets in the "wait animation" were moving backward by both conventions. The outer planet was also moving faster than the inner planets, which does not happen in reality. So I found it distracting (for the same reason that I would find "wait animation" of an hourglass that showed the sand flowing upward to be distracting).

Side note: By the standard convention of displaying rotation/revolution, our Milky Way Galaxy rotates in the CLOCKWISE direction as seen from "above" (the side of the galactic plane the Earth's north polar axis points out).

Edited April 30, 2016 by Brotoro

[smjjames]

36 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

Oh Danny;

 

Lol, we all know he'll manage to find more glitches and bugs to exploit though.

[peachoftree]

Being able to select multiple part windows at once is great for transferring fuel!

 

[JeanHavoc]

So, I've played KSP a bit since 1.1 was released.  I haven't got any of the (newer) updates but I do have a question.  It would appear that nowadays the most difficult mission profile possible is a simple suborbital launch from KSC itself.  I'm find it easier to get to Eeloo than to go up to 70 Km and come back down without exploding on impact.  I'm -not- going straight up and coming down again either; in fact I'm finding even an apoapsis of 50 Km to be too much.   Although it seems to be more dependent upon the velocity I reach - anything over 1,000 m/s prior to decent is a guaranteed death sentence.  This occurs even if I'm just coming down with a one-kerbal capsule, heat shield and parachute.  This isn't a huge problem but I like to progress in a natural way to orbit and I'm finding myself stumped by this problem.  Any advice, and is this how things are supposed to be?  Somehow I have a hard time imaging Freedom 7 being way more difficult than Apollo 8, but maybe I'm wrong there.