Kerbal Space Program 1.7: “Room to Maneuver” Grand Discussion Thread

[Serenity]

4 hours ago, GeneCash said:

SQUAD FIXED IT! SQUAD FIXED IT!

Squad fixed the issue in 1.6 where you needed World Stabilizer because small probes on low-gravity moons would leap to their deaths "because physics" (they'd spawn slightly "under" the surface collider)

 

I can confirm!My base at Minmus was jumping almost one meter when i was going from full Warp to full Stop.

Now it only makes a small bump!!!

They definitely did some tweaking!!!

Edited April 11, 2019 by Boyster

[prototype]

From the release notes:

* Previously Revamped Parts moved to zDeprecated.

How do I undo this? You've broken my save game and saved craft. This is why I play stock.

I need those parts back.

[OHara]

Having orbital information in flight-view is a very nice surprise. 

The maneuver-node tool will be good, as well.  Squad chose wisely to include the gizmo that has been desired for a long time, and implemented in the Precise Maneuver mod.

On 4/10/2019 at 3:36 PM, DMagic said:

Am I doing something wrong, can you not edit the maneuver node in flight view?

You are not the only one who was confused.
You need to click the cycle-advance arrow through Orbit -> Maneuver 1 -> Maneuver 2  to the node you want to adjust.  You should be able to click the desired node and have that one be in the panel, but this sometimes gives me the wrong node (or maybe just the wrong title bar).

There are some usability improvements and bug fixes to be discovered and requested in the coming weeks, but this new feature seems to be worth that effort.

23 hours ago, prototype said:

You've broken my save game and saved craft. 

That was certainly not their intention  A similar move to zDeprecated happened with version 1.6, but KSP found the parts in zDeprecated as needed for my old craft.   

[Edit: The new behavior is that KSP 1.7 edits craft and saves to replace parts that went into zDeprecated a few versions ago with 1.4]

Edited April 12, 2019 by OHara

[Raptor9]

@prototype, the purpose behind "soft" depreciating parts (in that they are hidden from view in the VAB/SPH, but still present in the game) is so that it doesn't break your existing saved games.  This allows you to still use any existing craft that are in orbit, landed, etc.

However, any parts that receive a revamp should be considered on a temporary grace period before their older versions are "fully" depreciated (removed from the game entirely, as is the case with those zDepreciated parts in the changelog).  The parts that were fully depreciated in the 1.7 update have been "soft"-depreciated for over a year (since March 2018), meaning that players had a full year to gradually phase in craft with the updated parts into their save.  Once parts are fully-depreciated, this allows them to be removed from the KSP folders, reducing the overall memory footprint.

Since you said you only play stock, you essentially have two options: 1) remain on 1.6.1 until you are finished with your current save, or 2) before deleting your pre-1.7 KSP install, replace those depreciated parts on any existing craft in the VAB/SPH, launch (or Alt-F12) the replacement craft to the older craft's location, and once you have phased in all the new parts, then upgrade to 1.7.0.

As it stands, any part that has received a revamp since 1.4 or later should be considered on a similar temporary grace period, but will eventually be removed from the game entirely.  So it is wise to upgrade craft sooner rather than later.

[Gapone]

oh no they are removing te deprecated parts

[JPLRepo]

1 hour ago, prototype said:

From the release notes:

* Previously Revamped Parts moved to zDeprecated.

How do I undo this? You've broken my save game and saved craft. This is why I play stock.

I need those parts back.

copy the files for the parts you want from zDeprecated back into \Gamedata\Squad\parts folder.

[Dappa]

5 hours ago, TriggerAu said:

The text in the Maneuver Mode tool was set to match the existing one on the map nodes, if you'd like a change to the text a feedback would be the best way to proceed as we would change all for consistency if we did - I didnt find one for this request in a quick search.

 

I'd say intersect is definitely the correct term. Even the example above clearly shows that the two trajectories intersect, yet closest approach is 6025.1km, so there is no intercept! Leave it as is.

[Wolf Baginski]

9 hours ago, Kergarin said:

Oh my... you have killed my favourite absolutely op allround lightweight spark engine 

I slowly get the feeling you are following me, making everything impossible, that I did max out to unexpected levels 

With the module manager mod (seems to work with v1.7) it would be trivial to revert the changes.

[klgraham1013]

1 hour ago, Wolf Baginski said:

With the module manager mod (seems to work with v1.7) it would be trivial to revert the changes.

Even without MM.  Do as I do and play with the configs to your heart's content.

[finn3]

YES!!! This is what we need in base game. Especially the fine adjustments for maneuver nodes, it has been so fiddly in the past.

[Maxsimal]

11 hours ago, Poodmund said:

That's great to hear... existing craft files be damned! If a part is 'broken' and could be fixed, it would be great for it to be 'fixed' even if it meant the playerbase has to adapt to the newly correct part.

 Its refreshing to hear that you're not scared of making changes!  

I think you're reading too much into this!   First, that this is a solo effort by me - it's hasn't been and won't be, the whole team is on board with making fixes and improving the situation for players.  And second, we do consider people's existing craft and games, there's no 'damn the torpedoes' attitude here.  

That said,  I'm happy that people are responding positively to the fixes we are making, incremental as they may seem to some of you.  It can be a scary thing coming onto a game with KSP's long history and devoted fan base and then tinkering with the bits of it.  Feedback about what changes you want done, and how you perceive the changes that have been made, is useful.  Thank you.

 

[Maxsimal]

10 hours ago, klesh said:

 

Please dont take this the wrong way; I’m not trying to be a jerk.  

The 12 upvotes didn’t make you guys aware of it?   Users were semi-recently told to vote more on the bugtracker to bring items to dev’s attention and help prioritize things.  12 upvotes makes that entry tied for 11th place in most upvoted bugs.   What more, other then @ing individual developers in the forums and linking you specific pet peve bugs, can we do to make you aware of these issues?

Actually, I meant adding it to the tracker when i was thanking the community, sorry not to be clear.  However, please do also understand that there's a lead time on all fixes, and while something may be near the top of the list right this moment, it may not have been when we triage the issues we're planning to address for a particular version.  And even if it's in the top 10 of the public tracker, we have a lot more plates to spin than just addressing the tracker.

That said, I  I know it can be hard to wait for the issue you perceive as your top priority to be fixed.  I hope you'll be patient - and take comfort in the fact that the last couple of versions, at least imho, have proved to be pretty stable and addressed some of the bigger performance and stability issues we had, and I believe our team has been doing a really great job in balancing developing new features and addressing existing issues.

[klgraham1013]

@Maxsimal I think it was more the complete lack of communication, on the thread asking for votes and even on the tracker itself, after being explicitly told to communicate with you by posting to the tracker and voting.  One way communication is frustrating in any situation.  Let alone developer / player communication.

I know you're afraid of false promises and upsetting people, but silence can be even more destructive.  I'm glad the bug I wanted fixed was, but that bug was around for a year, and for a year I received little to no communication.  This despite the videos and files I'd post on the bug tracker for each and every update the bug remained.  I was trying to communicate.  After months and months, it shouldn't really be a surprise I got snarky about the whole thing.  It turned out to be a Unity problem, but that's still a Squad problem.  The consumer should not, or need not care what engine their favorite game was made on.  All the consumer should be required to see is whether the game is fun and whether it works as expected.  I don't expect any of my customers to know who made their furnace or how it works.  Their furnace is broke.  That is all.

It also doesn't help that the silence is occasionally accompanied by the request for free labor.  A request which occasionally comes off as being...or assuming we should be more than willing to do things for free which some people are actually paid for.  It's just as likely a problem with text not being able to transmit intent or emotion.

I understand where you're coming from.  I'm just trying to elaborate where some of us are coming from.  We're all people, and I think both sides forget that sometimes.

Edited April 11, 2019 by klgraham1013

[Corw]

2 hours ago, finn3 said:

YES!!! This is what we need in base game. Especially the fine adjustments for maneuver nodes, it has been so fiddly in the past.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have found that single person that didn't use Precise Node or some variant of it

[Poodmund]

2 hours ago, Maxsimal said:

I think you're reading too much into this!   First, that this is a solo effort by me - it's hasn't been and won't be, the whole team is on board with making fixes and improving the situation for players.  And second, we do consider people's existing craft and games, there's no 'damn the torpedoes' attitude here. 

My previous post was done with a little tongue in cheek, however, my view that if a part has an obvious issue then it should be resolved even if it 'unbalances' existing craft still stands.

Players shouldn't have to gimp their design process to accommodate inherent flaws within the parts themselves... but that is obviously just my opinion and may not reflect the wider community.

[klgraham1013]

5 minutes ago, Poodmund said:

Players shouldn't have to gimp their design process to accommodate inherent flaws within the parts themselves... but that is obvious...

I stopped reading right there.

[FreeThinker]

6 hours ago, JPLRepo said:

copy the files for the parts you want from zDeprecated back into \Gamedata\Squad\parts folder.

Where is zDeprecated  folder located?

Edit: found it at "Kerbal Space Program\GameData\Squad\zDeprecated"

Edited April 11, 2019 by FreeThinker

[DMagic]

7 hours ago, OHara said:

You are not the only one who was confused.
You need to click the cycle-advance arrow through Orbit -> Maneuver 1 -> Maneuver 2  to the node you want to adjust.  You should be able to click the desired node and have that one be in the panel, but this sometimes gives me the wrong node (or maybe just the wrong title bar).

I'm still not seeing it. I know the button you are talking about, and it works that way when in map mode, but in the flight view it is always greyed out.

In the screenshots you can see that the maneuver node exists, but the cycle button is greyed out in flight view, it works fine in map view (this is with a clean, stock installation of 1.7):

Spoiler

So my question remains. Is it intended that you can't use the maneuver node panel in flight view? And if so, why?

There is no technical limitation that I'm aware of that would prevent this, so it seems like a strange decision. In particular, I would imagine that lots of people would want to be able to use this function from the IVA view

Edited April 11, 2019 by DMagic

[Jestersage]

8 hours ago, prototype said:

From the release notes:

* Previously Revamped Parts moved to zDeprecated.

How do I undo this? You've broken my save game and saved craft. This is why I play stock.

I need those parts back.

It is stock. You will have to stay 1.6 for old saves/start a new one. And they gave you 3 releases to change it -- and I released some text files that allow you to do in-place replacements.

That being said, I did some experiment, and notice that with stock loader, any parts that are zDeprecated will automatically upgraded to new parts. So at least your crafts will be fine. Just saved games may have issues.

[Azimech]

Interesting. The vernor and RCS ball have a 15m/s impact rating now.

Although it's more realistic, it does effectively kill off any future development of a lot of technical ideas. No turboshaft engines, no gears, no piston engines etc.

To give you an example:
 

Those hardcore technical things are a niche but Tory Bruno (CEO United Launch Alliance) loved it when I showed him this GIF.

What's your opinion, @klond?

[Serenity]

We have to remember that the ability to build some insane ''kraken'' devices is a wonderful stock SIDE EFFECT combined with the players that come up with all these crazy stuff.

If the game is improving and again as a SIDE EFFECT people get less room to work(although i am still pretty sure they will figure it out) its fine, at least for me.

[DMagic]

8 minutes ago, Boyster said:

We have to remember that the ability to build some insane ''kraken'' devices is a wonderful stock SIDE EFFECT combined with the players that come up with all these crazy stuff.

If the game is improving and again as a SIDE EFFECT people get less room to work(although i am still pretty sure they will figure it out) its fine, at least for me.

It might be true that balancing and part adjustments are generally considered "improvements" but I've never heard anyone complain about the crash tolerance of the RCS balls, and given those parts' importance to this kind of wacky designs I think it would be prudent to consider that when changing their properties. If making a few tiny parts a little bit less crash tolerance means they no longer work for this kind of hinge, or bearing type of design, then maybe they should just remain unchanged. A lot of the attention KSP gets outside of its own community comes from these kinds of designs, and that is worth considering.

This is a perfect example of where more community input could really help. The game's designers aren't generally going to be the people most familiar with things like part balance and their nitch uses.

[Azimech]

27 minutes ago, Boyster said:

We have to remember that the ability to build some insane ''kraken'' devices is a wonderful stock SIDE EFFECT combined with the players that come up with all these crazy stuff.

If the game is improving and again as a SIDE EFFECT people get less room to work(although i am still pretty sure they will figure it out) its fine, at least for me.

Changing the parameters to make stuff explode easier is simple. Changing them to make them more solid as well. But just changing them without considering the wonderful marketing potential of such krakentech just because the values are not in line with the rest ...

There are players who never go to space. There are people who build krakentech and are on the forefront of promotion. There are people who get that extra attention (EJ_SA on Twitch for example) because they do more than building a standard rocket.

KSP is old. You need new people who can be amazed with outrageous stuff because frankly ... once you've seen one Saturn V or Space Shuttle replica ... you've seen all of them.

And how do you think I got almost 7500 points on this forum ... playing the game as it was meant to be? Quite the opposite. I haven't played career since 2014.

And it's not points I'm after. I hope to inspire.

13 minutes ago, DMagic said:

It might be true that balancing and part adjustments are generally considered "improvements" but I've never heard anyone complain about the crash tolerance of the RCS balls, and given those parts' importance to this kind of wacky designs I think it would be prudent to consider that when changing their properties. If making a few tiny parts a little bit less crash tolerance means they no longer work for this kind of hinge, or bearing type of design, then maybe they should just remain unchanged. A lot of the attention KSP gets outside of its own community comes from these kinds of designs, and that is worth considering.

This is a perfect example of where more community input could really help. The game's designers aren't generally going to be the people most familiar with things like part balance and their nitch uses.

Excellent.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Azimech

[TriggerAu]

10 hours ago, prototype said:

From the release notes:

* Previously Revamped Parts moved to zDeprecated.

How do I undo this? You've broken my save game and saved craft. This is why I play stock.

I need those parts back.

For each of the parts we moved out we implemented an UpgradePipeline script to swap the part to its replacement and adjust the vessel on load of the save or craft.

If you do want them specifically then copying/moving the files back into gamedata will restore them and the save/craft pre upgrade is stored with a .original extension when the upgradepipeline handles it

[VoidSquid]

27 minutes ago, TriggerAu said:

For each of the parts we moved out we implemented an UpgradePipeline script to swap the part to its replacement and adjust the vessel on load of the save or craft.

If you do want them specifically then copying/moving the files back into gamedata will restore them and the save/craft pre upgrade is stored with a .original extension when the upgradepipeline handles it

Thanks for clarification, much appreciated  

So I don't have to worry too much about my "old" vessels, nor need to upgrade them manually one by one, before moving to 1.7.

Upgrading manually would be quite a hassle with all those landed crafts on various CBs, correct?

Edited April 11, 2019 by VoidSquid