The Grand KSP 1.2 Discussion Thread

[Tr1gg3r]

On 12 October 2016 at 2:29 AM, 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?

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

[Azimech]

Tested both in and out atmosphere, because objects close to water have additional buoyancy calculations and drag/lift calculations are costly as well. Switched off all the thermal functions I could find. No effect, same performance.

[Majorjim!]

I'm seeing a yellow timer with my 650 part Ares and in the previous version it was solid green..

 I didn't save a copy of 1.1.3 so I can't do any like for like. 

@Azimech Can you do a like for like FPS test of both versions, same craft?

[gilflo]

5 minutes ago, Dafni said:

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

Yes that's what I am talking about making them bigger. I thought it was a stock implementation.....not a tweak scale one.

So if it is not stock, how do you use those tiny gears on big planes ?

[DragonHalo99]

5 hours 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.

According to the patch notes it will be less likely to generate contracts that you decline now.

3 hours ago, John FX said:

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 :

 

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

If you read streetwinds post above he explains how the milestone contracts are generated now and how they work. Thats in the patch notes for 1.2 also. For example once I completed a flyby of the mun for the record keeping society they next wanted me to fly by minmus. after that they want me to dock to vessels together in Mun orbit.

[Superfluous J]

12 minutes 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

Fuel flow seems to work flawlessly, it just DISPLAYS weird sometimes. The one thing you need to know is, when you get the green wavy lines like in the above pictures, that all the tanks that are so connected will drain in order, highest to lowest numbers, and all tank with the same number will drain at the same time and rate.

I seem, this morning, to be typing most every reply in long - sometimes with confusing in-line asides - run-on sentences that read back very confusingly, and for that I do, verily, apologize.

Edited October 14, 2016 by 5thHorseman

[Tr1gg3r]

8 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Fuel flow seems to work flawlessly, it just DISPLAYS weird sometimes. The one thing you need to know is, when you get the green wavy lines like in the above pictures, that all the tanks that are so connected will drain in order, highest to lowest numbers, and all tank with the same number will drain at the same time and rate.

Aah, highest to lowest, but theres + & - numbers..... Hmm. So in pics eg, with 3 tanks, if central tank is +10 and radial tanks is lesser than +9 or -10 then outside tanks 'should' flow into central?

why not just have 1-10 priority with engine/fuel tank groups - fuel tank A runs to Engine group A, i thought those numbers represented how much fuel u wanted to transfer, as in - minus would take from tank and + plus would add that much fuel to tank. Lol

....shakes head.....

cheers tho 5th, helped a bit

[Azimech]

This is interesting.

FPS KSP 1.2: idle 7, forces acting on it 6, with frequent spikes down to 4, game time 20-25% of real time.

FPS KSP 1.1.3: idle 6, forces acting on it 5, seldom a spike down to 4, game time a steady 25% of real time.

And I forgot to close 1.2 at first while starting 1.1.3 ... apparently they both do fine and run at 4 FPS. That's very cool, now I can sail my big ships while I'm building in another one!

[Kerbal101]

Is 1.2 collecting more logs/statistics, perhaps its the case?

[Majorjim!]

17 minutes ago, Azimech said:

This is interesting.

FPS KSP 1.2: idle 7, forces acting on it 6, with frequent spikes down to 4, game time 20-25% of real time.

FPS KSP 1.1.3: idle 6, forces acting on it 5, seldom a spike down to 4, game time a steady 25% of real time.

And I forgot to close 1.2 at first while starting 1.1.3 ... apparently they both do fine and run at 4 FPS. That's very cool, now I can sail my big ships while I'm building in another one!

Hmm, interesting. Try a different craft no lights? Try a more prosaic part count, around 6-700? 

[Azimech]

I had the lights switched off during this test. I'm done with it now, spent two hours with this. I've uploaded that thing to KerbalX so if anyone else wants to test :-)

It might still be possible to download 1.1.3 directly from Steam.

https://kerbalx.com/Azimech/77I--Performance-Tester

[Dafni]

1 hour ago, gilflo said:

So if it is not stock, how do you use those tiny gears on big planes ?

You don't. You should use the bigger gears for bigger planes.

If your planes are so big that even the biggest gear looks tiny on them you will have to rely on mods.

[Bluegillbronco2]

I found that having any of Kerbin on the screen really hurts my FPS. Why not try running your mega worm while looking in the sky?

[Gameslinx]

2 hours ago, Azimech said:

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

How do you get 2000 parts without a slideshow?! Wow I'm jealous

[Azimech]

34 minutes ago, Bluegillbronco2 said:

I found that having any of Kerbin on the screen really hurts my FPS. Why not try running your mega worm while looking in the sky?

I tried that, no difference.

[Majorjim!]

6 minutes ago, Gamel0rd1 said:

How do you get 2000 parts without a slideshow?! Wow I'm jealous

He does! 4-5FPS as shown above. 

  The game at that point runs the I game timer so slow it is almost impossible to play. Those kinds of part counts are for testing only. Not gameplay. 

[Terwin]

On 10/11/2016 at 7:08 PM, TriggerAu said:

The only change after the last prerelease was a fix to the flagpole context menu UI. 

All other awesomeness remains as it were  

That is unfortunate, in the last pre-release I tried, there is a CTD issue that seems to be related to using the aerodynamics overlay during a launch(#12510), but my test-launch last night was successful, so I was hoping the frequent but intermittent issue was fixed.  (it might be fixed, but you make it sound like it was not if it was in the latest pre-release)

Everything else has been great.

 

On 10/12/2016 at 2:08 AM, HebaruSan said:

Are we expecting there to be versions 1.2.1 or 1.2.2? I'm tempted to make a copy of 1.2 for mods, but it would be inconvenient to have to update it.

Unlike 1.0 and 1.1, I have not been seeing hair-on-fire 'this is broken and unplayable' posts, so there may not be a need for an immediate hot-fix like there was for previous versions.

On 10/12/2016 at 4:24 PM, Foxster said:

I'm saying that one of the main features of this release was the introduction of all the communication network stuff but so far I haven't found much use for it in terms of it supporting a more unmanned approach to the game than what was there before. Even with a 100% strength signal from a science-collecting probe, you won't be much better off than before 1.2. I rashly assumed that after setting up a system-spanning network of relays I'd get some use out of it. 

If nothing else, you need a connection to Kerbin for Kerbnet to work.

You also get higher science transmission returns if you have a better connection to Kerbin.

You can not transmit science to Kerbin at all if you have no connection.

Using a probe core or avionics hub with a non-pilot or a pilot below 3 stars also requires a connection.

 

Seems like plenty of uses on manned vessels for a good relay network.

On 10/13/2016 at 4:58 AM, MarvinKitFox said:

* convince science reports to display at some location *other* than directly in the middle of the screen, obscuring the very instrument or kerbal that created it?

That window is now draggable, so after my first experiment I will drag it to an un-needed corner of the screen and do all my science with it nicely out of the way.  Much better than when I had to open and drag the right-click menus out of the way of where the science window would appear, or before that, the need to close the science window after each experiment to be able to click on the next one. 

 

1 hour ago, Tr1gg3r said:

Aah, highest to lowest, but theres + & - numbers..... Hmm. So in pics eg, with 3 tanks, if central tank is +10 and radial tanks is lesser than +9 or -10 then outside tanks 'should' flow into central?

why not just have 1-10 priority with engine/fuel tank groups - fuel tank A runs to Engine group A, i thought those numbers represented how much fuel u wanted to transfer, as in - minus would take from tank and + plus would add that much fuel to tank. Lol

....shakes head.....

cheers tho 5th, helped a bit

1-10 makes it hard to have prioritized flows on ships with lots of stages/drop-tanks.  

Currently each set of auto-assigned values seems to jump by about 10, allowing you to adjust within that stage however you like.

Personally I found it very useful when I had a LFO adapter-tank on an upper stage that I was intending to launch empty for later filling of LF by ISRU, but I wanted a little extra LFO on my launch stage.  I was able to set that one tank to drain right after the LFO tanks attached to the SRBs so that it would be empty when I staged the lifting core, even if I did not drain it dry(which would probably not happen on purpose, but I would not want to be stuck with unusable oxidizer on a ship that was intended to be Duna capable), without the risk of having my other LF tanks drained by the launch stage.

 

The +/- for adding/removing fuel from a tank is a different slider.

[fourfa]

Someone check me on this?  Currently in 100% stock 1.2 release (1586, Windows10, 64-bit), I am not seeing any distance-to-target indicators on screen.  It's making rendezvous pretty tricky

[Curveball Anders]

1 minute ago, fourfa said:

Someone check me on this?  Currently in 100% stock 1.2 release (1586, Windows10, 64-bit), I am not seeing any distance-to-target indicators on screen.  It's making rendezvous pretty tricky

I see them, at least in space while doing rendezvous, rescues and docking.

[fourfa]

Thanks.  I'll re-install.

[Anquietas314]

16 minutes ago, fourfa said:

Someone check me on this?  Currently in 100% stock 1.2 release (1586, Windows10, 64-bit), I am not seeing any distance-to-target indicators on screen.  It's making rendezvous pretty tricky

Try pressing F4. that toggles those markers.

[fourfa]

Gahhhhh how did I never know that all this time?  Thanks @Anquietas314

[John FX]

2 hours ago, DragonHalo99 said:

According to the patch notes it will be less likely to generate contracts that you decline now.

If you read streetwinds post above he explains how the milestone contracts are generated now and how they work. Thats in the patch notes for 1.2 also. For example once I completed a flyby of the mun for the record keeping society they next wanted me to fly by minmus. after that they want me to dock to vessels together in Mun orbit.

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.

 

On 13/10/2016 at 0:52 PM, Streetwind said:

* Exploration contracts now always appear in Mission Control if there is not one currently available.

It seems they do not. I have the same situation as Mad Scientist. I do not get minmus milestone/exploration contracts in the right order and have jumped right to Duna station/bases before I have reached Minmus.

[SkyRender]

The problem is that the game does not look at your actual achievements before generating contracts.  Or rather, it looks one level ahead now.  So if you've done a fair bit of Mun work but have an active Mun exploration contract, for example, you'll start getting Minmus contracts.  If you have an active Minmus contract, you'll start getting Duna contracts.

[regex]

8 hours 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.

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.