Jump to content

Dying for bug 9619 to be fixed

sigmareaver
 Share

Recommended Posts

sigmareaver

sigmareaver

Posted
Posted

I almost feel like version 0.90 was the "golden age" of modded KSP... I hope that KSP development will stabilize for a while and more great mods will flourish.

I spent about 400 hours on 0.90, and not much since then. I recently tried to start playing again, only to run into this bug that is making it utterly impossible to play the way I want to play (have things in orbit).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sharpy

Sharpy

Posted
Posted

Wait...

So the problem is that if your orbit skims the atmosphere, you're losing altitude, even while not in the atmosphere.

My answer?

Don't do this then.

I really, really fail to see what's the big deal. 

Why the heck do you require to have things in orbit that passes through the atmosphere?? What a bizzarre playstyle do you have that this bug makes the game so impossible to you? Because the with PE>70km the effect does not occur.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
p1t1o

p1t1o

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Sharpy said:

Wait...

So the problem is that if your orbit skims the atmosphere, you're losing altitude, even while not in the atmosphere.

My answer?

Don't do this then.

I really, really fail to see what's the big deal. 

Why the heck do you require to have things in orbit that passes through the atmosphere?? What a bizzarre playstyle do you have that this bug makes the game so impossible to you? Because the with PE>70km the effect does not occur.

 

Im not sure if this bug still exists, or if it is a different bug, conceptually, from the one mentioned in my previous post but...

You are entirely missing the point.

For starters, I can think of at least 1 (actually pretty common) situation when you would want this orbital configuration (and would want the non-atmospheric part to still be very much predictable), and if I can think of 1 then guaranteed there are others. Then there are many situations where you might enter this configuration transiently. And that is discounting situations where you might end up in that situation by accident.

Secondly, this game is entirely built around the simulation of physics!

Yes, concessions have to be made for the sake of CPU cycles and practicality of programming, so we don't have n-body gravitational simulation, we have floating-point errors and all sorts of other things. But here we have a situation where our spacecraft is *visibly* moving through space in a manner incongruous to physical reality. It is not an approximation of real movement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sharpy

Sharpy

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

For starters, I can think of at least 1 (actually pretty common) situation when you would want this orbital configuration (and would want the non-atmospheric part to still be very much predictable), and if I can think of 1 then guaranteed there are others. Then there are many situations where you might enter this configuration transiently. And that is discounting situations where you might end up in that situation by accident.

Care to share? Because other than a mild annoyance at airbraking, I really can't think of one.

And if you enter *that* situation unintentionally/transiently, then do you really care about keeping your *current* orbit absolutely perfectly stable? If it's transiently, then it's far too short to affect your orbit. If it's accidentally... how the heck do you get an orbit of precise parameters you absolutely require to cross the atmosphere accidentally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
p1t1o

p1t1o

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Sharpy said:

Care to share? Because other than a mild annoyance at airbraking, I really can't think of one.

And if you enter *that* situation unintentionally/transiently, then do you really care about keeping your *current* orbit absolutely perfectly stable? If it's transiently, then it's far too short to affect your orbit. If it's accidentally... how the heck do you get an orbit of precise parameters you absolutely require to cross the atmosphere accidentally?

Perhaps you have only found it a minor annoyance but can you be *sure* that the bug wont screw you over when you try some other approach in the future?

You are still missing the point, you cant just say "Well our physics simulation is inaccurate in places but *we assume* that every player who finds this area will be in the process of screwing things up so *we think* he should just quit and start over at this point, so we're gonna go ahead and leave the bug in."

To be clear Im not saying its a hugely significant problem - at this point Im not even sure the problem exists - just that it IS one and that simply "playing around it" is not a solution.

Edited by p1t1o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlexisBV

AlexisBV

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, Sharpy said:

Care to share? Because other than a mild annoyance at airbraking, I really can't think of one.

And if you enter *that* situation unintentionally/transiently, then do you really care about keeping your *current* orbit absolutely perfectly stable? If it's transiently, then it's far too short to affect your orbit. If it's accidentally... how the heck do you get an orbit of precise parameters you absolutely require to cross the atmosphere accidentally?

I would imagine attempting a suborbital rendezvous would fit the bill (e.g. ascent of rescue mission, or rendezvous with an asteroid with Pe < 70k)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sharpy

Sharpy

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

Perhaps you have only found it a minor annoyance but can you be *sure* that the bug wont screw you over when you try some other approach in the future?

I'm SURE the KSP bugs WILL screw me in the future.

I manufactured and deployed launch clamps on my Minmus base, because it would occasionally jump up good 100 meters, and crash down. I gave up on a design where four long-distance rescue pods were mounted on a quadcoupler, because it would enter a wild wobble and rip itself apart. I intentionally destroyed the materials bay inside an orbital lab station around Minmus, because it would begin to bounce erratically and lead to the whole base suddenly falling apart. I dismantled a mining vessel for parts, because its own "brother" underwent a RUD due to physics bug, and I just knew this one would explode too. Yesterday I had to load a quicksave as instead of phys-warp the game entered a normal warp, and the rover I was driving at the time drove under the surface of the mountain it was climbing, vanishing entirely. I had to redesign the gantry entirely. The operator's cabin of the first model currently is crossing Jool orbit, on its way out of the system, such was the RUD on the runway when my 'folding' mechanism was activated.

The orbit drifting by a couple meters if I make it cross the atmosphere is really not on my list of things to worry about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sharpy

Sharpy

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, DarthVader said:

#5954 is the real deal breaker. The cargo bays dont occlude drag of the things inside them like they should. This was supposed to be fixed , but evidently it wasnt 

It's a nasty thing, but not critical unless you're going to Eve. The things not occluded are not huge, so no murderous drag there, and you can curve your trajectory more steeply so that you won't burn them. On descent to Kerbin that would be a problem except the class of items not occluded is not the kind you need landed undamaged :D Laythe's and Duna's atmospheres are thin enough you won't destroy them. But yeah, if you want to land a rover on Eve, you have a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sigmareaver

sigmareaver

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

I'm opening up my game (1.2) to see if I'm still experiencing this problem. My comment about 0.90 is just that it seemed like it was the golden age of mods. Other than reminiscing about the "good old days", totally unrelated to the current situation. Sorry for the confusion.

Last time I played, I was experiencing massive orbital decay at the Mun. Not so much at Kerbin, but my last launch attempt ended up falling back into the atmosphere due to this orbital decay, all the while my apoapsis was out by the Mun. Then, due to the extreme atmospheric drag of stock atmospheres, I got pulled back down pretty fast. Again, all the while my apoapsis was by the Mun. I'll post back here once I do some test runs.

Edit: My PE(73km)/AP(95km) is changing on its own around Kerbin. The PE starts moving ahead of the vessel (and getting lower), but it changes about once per second, not continuous. If I recall correctly, perhaps this is the issue of atmosphere extending beyond 70km?

Edited by sigmareaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sharpy

Sharpy

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, sigmareaver said:

Edit: My PE(73km)/AP(95km) is changing on its own around Kerbin. The PE starts moving ahead of the vessel (and getting lower), but it changes about once per second, not continuous. If I recall correctly, perhaps this is the issue of atmosphere extending beyond 70km?

You have sooooomething broken. Maybe some mod or something.

Just yesterday I had a rescue mission from LKO ~80km orbit, early into the career, still crap engines, so instead of going to some 150km to wait for the encounter, as I'd normally do, I circularized at 70.300/70.500 or something along these lines. Due to large difference in phase angle and small in orbital period, I had to finish at least 6 orbits before I got the encounter. My orbit didn't move a iota.

BTW, are you using the x64 version? Because 32-bit KSP goes the way of the dodo, gets little love from the developers and may have precision problems most people don't see simply because they don't use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sigmareaver

sigmareaver

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Sharpy said:

You have sooooomething broken. Maybe some mod or something.

Just yesterday I had a rescue mission from LKO ~80km orbit, early into the career, still crap engines, so instead of going to some 150km to wait for the encounter, as I'd normally do, I circularized at 70.300/70.500 or something along these lines. Due to large difference in phase angle and small in orbital period, I had to finish at least 6 orbits before I got the encounter. My orbit didn't move a iota.

BTW, are you using the x64 version? Because 32-bit KSP goes the way of the dodo, gets little love from the developers and may have precision problems most people don't see simply because they don't use it.

I will ditch the mods and test without them. I'm on 64-bit. If what you say is true, then worst case I guess a clean install will fix it.

Edit: Are you using default settings? Orbital drift compensation?

Edited by sigmareaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...