The Grand KSP 1.2 Discussion Thread

[Terwin]

15 minutes ago, John FX said:

This is my point. I don`t get minmus milestone/exploration contracts. Done the mun flyby, declined around 40 `test part`, `civilian`, `particular orbit` and `scan` contracts to try and get a minmus milestone contract to show but nothing.

I know how they are supposed to work but they don`t work that way. Not for me anyway. I now have Duna station contracts (which I am declining) and no fly by minmus or fly by duna yet.

Do you have an unfinished World's first contract for something else perhaps?  Rendezvous in LKO, Docking on Munar orbit, science from High over Mun, Crew Transfer in orbit of Kerbin, Orbit Minmus, Orbit Kerbol, etc.

it is not just fly-by, orbit, land any more, there are several options and one contract may have multiple.

(I have a fly-by Duna, science from space over Duna, and return to Kerbin from Duna world's firsts contract at the moment, with a probe en-route that should get fly-bys of both Ike and low over Duna to collect and transmit lots of science(to join my current pool of 700 post-tree science points).

If you are on 1.2, just search your current contracts if you do not see a world's first in the list of available contracts.

1 minute ago, regex said:

Now it does, as I understand it. Contracts you never accept get a small weight against. Contracts you look at but don't accept get a slightly larger weight against. Contracts you actively decline get a much larger weight against. Early on you won't see too much of a difference because the contract types it has available to generate, based on your reputation, are limited, but it makes a much bigger difference later on.

I believe contracts that appear then go away without you visiting the building have no impact, with -1 point for seen but not viewed, -2 points for viewed but not accepted and -8 points for rejected.  I think accepted contracts get +8 points, but not sure on that.

I think the floor is 20% of the normal probability, so even if you reject lots of something, you will still occasionally get some of that type so you can change your mind later if you like. 

[regex]

1 minute ago, Terwin said:

I think the floor is 20% of the normal probability, so even if you reject lots of something, you will still occasionally get some of that type so you can change your mind later if you like. 

Which is a real shame because I never EVER want to see a damn tourist or survey contract again. Yes, I know I can mod it, but if we're talking about the vanilla game that's a sore point in an otherwise fairly painless career.

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

Yup all i can do is confirm, any more than two large(ish) ships (maybe between them 1000parts) are in close proximity the frame rate takes a huge dive in 1.2  Back. in 1.1.3 with a bit of care (and bribing the kraken) I could have half a dozen plus scatterer hi res and have no frame rate issue at all . Adding scatterer into the mix now turns the whole thing into a slide show, far worse than I've experienced previously (except when spamming null refs) The logs abnormally are clear of errors, nothing, everything is playing as it should, So no reason apart from 1.2 full being less than spectacular.

[Higgs]

4 hours ago, Muskrat said:

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

In this case it wasnt a matter of how powerful my computer is. The game was corrupt. A new install by steam was bad. A verification of integrity fixed it. Still 0 clue why steam failed to auto update

[Fireheart318]

The game appears line-y. Any fixes?

[Anquietas314]

Just now, Fireheart318 said:

The game appears line-y. Any fixes?

"line-y"? A screenshot would probably be clearer.

[Fireheart318]

Just now, Anquietas314 said:

"line-y"? A screenshot would probably be clearer.

I would, but they're all rainbow static. Another bug.

 

Look at the science lab part. See the lines? Like that but finer and CLEARLY not meant to be there. Occurs in parts, particle effects, planets, even the menus for some reason

[Anquietas314]

1 minute ago, Fireheart318 said:

I would, but they're all rainbow static. Another bug.

 

Look at the science lab part. See the lines? Like that but finer and CLEARLY not meant to be there. Occurs in parts, particle effects, planets, even the menus for some reason

http://imgur.com/a/GowQA this lab part? Sounds like a graphics driver problem. Which platform, what graphics hardware?

[Fireheart318]

Just now, Anquietas314 said:

http://imgur.com/a/GowQA this lab part? Sounds like a graphics driver problem. Which platform, what graphics hardware?

Yes! I'm on mac. Macbook pro late 2015 stock. It's JUST KSP that has the issue.

[Anquietas314]

3 minutes ago, Fireheart318 said:

Yes! I'm on mac. Macbook pro late 2015 stock. It's JUST KSP that has the issue.

Hmm, you'll need to be more specific about the hardware; there's a few different variants of macbook pro for any given year.

Could be related to http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/12808 , but I'd try asking in the tech support forum. Be sure to include log files and such; there're stickied topics with the information on how to get those.

[Muskrat]

25 minutes ago, Higgs said:

In this case it wasnt a matter of how powerful my computer is. The game was corrupt. A new install by steam was bad. A verification of integrity fixed it. Still 0 clue why steam failed to auto update

Sorry, I think my pop culture reference went over your head. That wasn't a serious answer. I was looking at the loading "hint" and referring back to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minor_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_characters#Deep_Thought

[Arran]

I just downloaded your craft, tested it with both versions (1.2 and 1.1.3 with no mods) on my i7:4820k CPU (GPU doesnt really matter in KSP, its mostly CPU power needed, but for those who want to know, using a GTX750Ti) but i cant see any differences between FPS rates, even if i use a third party testing tools for preformance measuring.
Granted, the monstrosity does give my PC a preformance hit, but this hit is nearly the same, and both games with this monstrosity i'm getting about 85FPS in 1.2 and 87 in 1.1.3
I do see an increased amount of memory used abeit slightly more in 1.2 (2795MB in 1.2, vs 2745 1.1.3).

Then i repeated my steps on a older Q6600 with a ATI Radeon 7900 in it, and i saw some supprising differences, 1.1.3 ran about 25 FPS, while 1.2 barely make it above 15 FPS with this testship, so there it seems to be getting a huge preformance hit.

Now comparing a Q6600 with an i7:4820k is like comparing apples with oranges, still the difference between versions on both PC's are not really comparable, i mean, on the i7 the difference is minimal, while on the Q6600 like said with above posters is substancial.
 

[Xavven]

On 10/11/2016 at 7:29 PM, Runescope said:

So I need some help understanding the new Fuel Flow.  I was taking a look at it, but it's not making sense to me.

Here, I'll show you what I mean.
This first picture is straight forward, fuel in container goes to engine.  Noooooo problem, I can see that easy.
 

The second picture, not so straight forward.  I've added two tanks with symmetry and turned on the fuel crossfeed of the decouplers.  But the fuel is flowing from the right tank THROUGH the main tank into the left tank!  What?  Shouldn't it be flowing from both outside tanks INTO the center tank?

So then I thought I'd disable the fuel crossfeed and just use fuel lines.  You can only see one here, but rest assured the other side is the same.  Back to normal, side tanks feeding into center tank.  But then something strange happened.


I added a small tank on top and now the fuel is flowing from the big tank on bottom to the small tank on top? Again ... What?  That doesn't make sense.  It's the same on the other side as well.
 

I've tried changing the numbers, increased them, decreased them, reversed them totally and as far as I can tell, the numbers make ZERO difference. 

Am I missing something?

I'm at work so I can't test this, but do the arrows change when you select the engine instead of the tank? The way I understand it (and I could be wrong) is that when you pick a tank, it shows all the parts it can supply fuel to. When you select an engine, it shows all the parts it can take fuel from. The second picture in your list is the only one that doesn't make sense, since you selected a central tank it should be able to supply fuel to both of the radial tanks. I'll do some experimenting when I get home.

And while I'm here, I just want to say that 1.2 is by a landslide the best version of KSP I've ever played. CommNet has breathed new life into the game for me, and has made unmanned missions feel realistic and tense, and satellite contracts meaningful and impactful (I always add a relay antenna to any sat contract even if it doesn't ask for one). The small tweaks to contracts and the tech tree even have me satisfied enough with career mode. It still could use an overhaul with an annual budget and monthly expenses, and life support, but surprisingly these incremental improvements in 1.2 have all added up to make a significant difference in its enjoyability. I feel like 1.2 is what 1.0 should have been. This last dev team really delivered. Outstanding work!

[Azimech]

9 minutes ago, Arran said:

I just downloaded your craft, tested it with both versions (1.2 and 1.1.3 with no mods) on my i7:4820k CPU (GPU doesnt really matter in KSP, its mostly CPU power needed, but for those who want to know, using a GTX750Ti) but i cant see any differences between FPS rates, even if i use a third party testing tools for preformance measuring.
Granted, the monstrosity does give my PC a preformance hit, but this hit is nearly the same, and both games with this monstrosity i'm getting about 85FPS in 1.2 and 87 in 1.1.3
I do see an increased amount of memory used abeit slightly more in 1.2 (2795MB in 1.2, vs 2745 1.1.3).

Then i repeated my steps on a older Q6600 with a ATI Radeon 7900 in it, and i saw some supprising differences, 1.1.3 ran about 25 FPS, while 1.2 barely make it above 15 FPS with this testship, so there it seems to be getting a huge preformance hit.

Now comparing a Q6600 with an i7:4820k is like comparing apples with oranges, still the difference between versions on both PC's are not really comparable, i mean, on the i7 the difference is minimal, while on the Q6600 like said with above posters is substancial.
 

And an early 1.2 build would probably have made 40 FPS on that Q6600.

[Temeter]

I've tried both, CPU is I5 4570. Getting a big boost, even though it does run fairly bad on both versions.

 

1.1.3 when moving runs at 6fps, and incredibly slow game speed. Unplayable.

1.2 is 9fps moving, and while I didn't check the physics rate, it was notably faster. Probably playable, assuming you got a lot of patience. Feels much smoother in comparision.

 

For disclaimer, I didn't decouple the two parts.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Temeter

[Tyko]

1 hour ago, regex said:

Which is a real shame because I never EVER want to see a damn tourist or survey contract again. Yes, I know I can mod it, but if we're talking about the vanilla game that's a sore point in an otherwise fairly painless career.

Can you remove contract types? The Survey and part test contracts are just noise for me and I'd love to shut them off.

[regex]

6 minutes ago, tjt said:

Can you remove contract types? The Survey and part test contracts are just noise for me and I'd love to shut them off.

Yeah, either edit Contracts.cfg directly or create a ModuleManager script to set the contract types to 0 available, I think. Pretty easy to do. Or get Contract Configurator and just disable them.

Edited October 14, 2016 by regex

[Runescope]

39 minutes ago, Xavven said:

I'm at work so I can't test this, but do the arrows change when you select the engine instead of the tank? The way I understand it (and I could be wrong) is that when you pick a tank, it shows all the parts it can supply fuel to. When you select an engine, it shows all the parts it can take fuel from. The second picture in your list is the only one that doesn't make sense, since you selected a central tank it should be able to supply fuel to both of the radial tanks. I'll do some experimenting when I get home.

And while I'm here, I just want to say that 1.2 is by a landslide the best version of KSP I've ever played. CommNet has breathed new life into the game for me, and has made unmanned missions feel realistic and tense, and satellite contracts meaningful and impactful (I always add a relay antenna to any sat contract even if it doesn't ask for one). The small tweaks to contracts and the tech tree even have me satisfied enough with career mode. It still could use an overhaul with an annual budget and monthly expenses, and life support, but surprisingly these incremental improvements in 1.2 have all added up to make a significant difference in its enjoyability. I feel like 1.2 is what 1.0 should have been. This last dev team really delivered. Outstanding work!

 

AHA!  Yes, it does depend on what part you request the overlay from.  Using the engine, the same layout shows the proper fuel flow.
As for 1.2, I haven't had much time to play with it (they always release updates when I'm busy or on holidays lol).  But I haven't seen any use for the CommNet yet, and the built in map system seems laughably inadequate.  Of course, I'm used to ScanSat, which is a MUCH more robust and useful mapping system.

 

[something]

In 1.0.5,  1.1 and 1.1.3 lights have been a huge drain of performance on my system. Things went from smooth to slide show in certain cases. (Cant comment on prior versions due to purchasing the game in January) Although 1.1.x was a giant leap forward in terms of performance,  the effect was still visible.

Haven't had the chance to play 1.2 yet.

[SpaceastronautX]

Please someone know to update the game?, because 1.2 is the first update I had and I don't know how to update, I had Steam... 

7 hours ago, Tr1gg3r said:

Allo mate,

have you had any luck working that new fancy fuel system out? Ive tried placing things in different order, moved numbers around without knowing what they mean or do, without any effect, so it seems.

looks nice but does nothing

Guy, that new thing is for equilibrate the fuel flow in this example: 1You fly a rocket 2You do a small flip and it don't equilibrate 3You out the fuel piority and 4Then it doesn't do any flip! So that help is importnt

[regex]

Has anyone tried turning off the PQS shaders and testing? My older i7 was slowed immensely by this by virtue of its Intel 4K graphics. Set:

UNSUPPORTED_LEGACY_SHADER_TERRAIN = True

in settings.cfg in the KSP game root if you want to give it a try.

[Superfluous J]

2 hours ago, Xavven said:

I'm at work so I can't test this, but do the arrows change when you select the engine instead of the tank?

Aha! Genius! However the fuel flow still displays oddly in certain circumstances even with the engine selected.

 

 

[Azimech]

Not yet, I'll try it. Thanks, regex.

[nightingale]

Yeah, there was some stuff that seemed to display either oddly or incorrectly (for the fuel delivery overaly) that was raised near the end of the 1.2 pre-release cycle.  I couldn't change it without diving into the fuel flow code (which is working 100% correctly).  It was way too risky to change anything.

@5thHorseman - Having multiple paths to the engine is an edge case that was never really tested.  Are you sure the decoupler on the left has crossfeed enabled?  For the one on the right, I think I'd prefer to see it show both paths (although I'm not sure if the underlying graph structure allows for loops, which is why it looks a bit odd.  Also, the fuel lines are another edge case (I think it's always drawing the line to the fuel line start, regardless of whether the graph shows it going anywhere).

[Superfluous J]

On 10/14/2016 at 4:46 PM, nightingale said:

Are you sure the decoupler on the left has crossfeed enabled?

It was added with symmetry. Before adding the fuel lines it showed a T-shaped fuel flow.

1. New game
2. VAB
3. Pod
4. Tank
5. Engine
6. Decoupler, symmetry-2
7. Tank on the decoupler
8. Turn on fuel flow, it shows as expected, one green line.
9. Enable symmetry on the decoupler, it shows as expected.
10. Add the fuel lines, get the above picture.

[defunct site link removed by moderator]