The Grand KSP 1.2 Discussion Thread

[Superfluous J]

31 minutes ago, Higgs said:

update: removed old ksp from the steam folder. redownloaded. now, it refuses to bloody load past 50%.

How did you remove it?

How did you redownload it?

How are you running it?

It looks like you're missing at least the GameData\Squad folder, or maybe it's there and you can't read it (permission issues?). I'm basing that off "Program Text" in the picture, which I've never seen before.

[Higgs]

1. dragged it out of the steam folder, relocated it manually.

2. via steam

3. KSP-64 bit short cut as admin.

had to make steam verify integrity. 1300+ files refused to validate... now it seems to work

[Superfluous J]

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

1. dragged it out of the steam folder, relocated it manually.

I'm no Steam Expert but I bet this is it. In the past, what I've done is copy, not move, then "delete local content" in Steam. I think by deleting the stuff yourself you confused Steam. That's why verifying integrity worked.

[RoboRay]

3 hours ago, pandaman said:

As @Ripper2900 said above. 

Also the amount of drag parachutes produce increases slightly with increased spread angle too.

This is a side effect of overlapping parachute area not counting for drag twice anymore.

[Higgs]

@5thHorseman Makes sense. Doesnt explain why auto update failed....

[pincushionman]

In one of the pre-release threads it was noted that the changes to some constants, "big G" in particular, were causing changes to geosynchronous orbits, and potentially changing the orbital parameters or masses of the celestial bodies as well:

Is the effect of this change fully understood yet? I've created an orrery tool in Excel called KOMET to help me with mission planning, and if the GM or orbital parameters of the bodies have changed, I'm going to have to update all the values and re-compute the orbits before I release it. It would be a shame to be using obsolete data. I used the wiki to get the data I have now, but I don't know if it's been updated yet to reflect the new parameters - if they've changed at all. Is there a way for me to extract planetary orbits from the game somehow?

[Vanamonde]

A few more overlapping threads have been merged. 

[SkyRender]

I would like the new contract system even more if it took note of the contract types you never accept/always reject and stop generating them so often.  No, I do not wish to perform aerial surveys, nor will I ever.

[DragonHalo99]

2 minutes ago, SkyRender said:

I would like the new contract system even more if it took note of the contract types you never accept/always reject and stop generating them so often.  No, I do not wish to perform aerial surveys, nor will I ever.

Very Easy money though.

[gilflo]

I confirm that the tweakable gears don't work at all, on stock game, only squad folder in the game data folder, new game in sandbox, mac osX El Capitan.

Here is the screen of a plane I begin to build: I don't see any possibility to set the gear at 110% or something similar to get a greater gear......Maybe i missed some settings in the general settings. on this plane no matter, but it matters on big planes...You cannot set so small gears!!

Edited October 14, 2016 by gilflo

[Mad_Scientist]

33 minutes ago, DragonHalo99 said:

Very Easy money though.

I have to agree with SkyRender on this. It takes for me forever to finish aerial surveys. But everybody plays differently, i guess.

[Wjolcz]

So I see that the contract system hasn't got fixed. Why am I not surprised? Good thing I didn't even touch the career mode.

We need Strategia-like filters, not more tweaks and weighting. The missions offered by the Mission Control are FUBAR. You can't keep tweaking something that is already broken.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Veeltch

[John FX]

One thing I have wanted for a while is milestone contracts regarding `fly by Mun//Minmus/Duna` or `Explore Minmus` onward to always appear. I get launch, escape atmo, orbit, fly by mun, explore mun then they sort of just stop.

I refuse all other contracts to try to get them to appear but they just don`t.

I would have hoped that those milestone contracts would be weighted to always be on top.

Sometimes it seems there are only three types of contract, test part X, carry civilian Y or do some science at point Z...

EDIT :

1 hour ago, SkyRender said:

I would like the new contract system even more if it took note of the contract types you never accept/always reject and stop generating them so often.  No, I do not wish to perform aerial surveys, nor will I ever.

 

I thought they were supposed to do that now? I have not seen any behaviour from the game to suggest it though.

Edited October 14, 2016 by John FX

[Azimech]

This may come as a surprise and it certainly did to me. The first 1.2 pre builds were a lot faster than 1.1.3. At max I had my unpolished Excelsior flying over the screen with 2300 parts. Now with 2056 parts in the released 1.2 everything crawls. 

I've built this 1992 part "kraken worm" to test the perfomance of both 1.1.3 and 1.2. I've used the same settings in both installs, both graphics and physics. I've used no new features like autostrutting (another CPU hog). I hacked gravity and set the SAS modules on rotate. Counting the seconds, it seems to me 1.1.3 performs at 25% of real time, while 1.2 does it at 25% and sometimes 20%.

 

If anyone has an early 1.2 pre build sitting on the HD, we can compare results even more.

It looks to me all the optimization is levelled out with all the new features, a new optimzation run would be very helpful.

[Gameslinx]

2000 parts? Some beast processor/video card you have there.

I'm barely managing 400 with a i7 4790k and Asus 1080 strix

[Azimech]

Nope, budget CPU (Pentium G2140) with a very good core performance and a videocard from 2008 (Asus GTX 260).

[Majorjim!]

Yup I have noticed this too man. 

 Large part craft run slower than they did in the previous version.. What gives...??

[Azimech]

I've just tried it with all GFX settings on minimum. For a moment I was scared my graphics card was the bottleneck. Result: no difference at all.

[Majorjim!]

I've noticed in the past that graphic settings make zero difference to frame rate. Testing my atlas V MSL in 1.2 I immediately felt it was running slower than before.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Majorjim!

[Azimech]

Well ... surprisingly enough: I switched off the lights, testing in 1.1.3. In the editor, everything was high framerate. In the simulation ... same crawl, no difference. Going to test with 1.2 now.

[kokospl]

14 hours ago, pandaman said:

@kokospl

Why wait for mods to check it out?

I'm a sucker for things like EVE, Scatterer etc.

[Azimech]

Done testing with 1.2. I'm puzzled by the fact lights have such a huge impact on FPS in the editor in both versions, while in the simulation the lights have no impact.

 

[Dafni]

25 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

Yup I have noticed this too man. 

 Large part craft run slower than they did in the previous version.. What gives...??

Yes, what gives???

I was expecting an improvement, or at least the same performance. But worse??? After all the clean up they supposedly did??

[Muskrat]

14 hours ago, Higgs said:

update: removed old ksp from the steam folder. redownloaded. now, it refuses to bloody load past 50%.

Well, that is a question that took Deep Thought about 7.5 million year's to answer. How powerful is your computer? 

Edited October 14, 2016 by Muskrat

[Dafni]

4 hours ago, gilflo said:

 I don't see any possibility to set the gear at 110% or something similar to get a greater gear.....

Are you talking about making them bigger? Like the TweakScale mod does?? This has never been a stock feature as far as I am aware.

By advanced tweakables they mean other parameters, but definitely not absolute size.

 

If I misunderstood you I apologize in advance

 

Cheers

Daf