Kerbal Space Program 1.9: "There’s No Place Like Home” Grand Discussion Thread

[kerbiloid]

Just now, klgraham1013 said:

Don't let the 0 be a justification for problems.

1.x.0 is kinda an euphemism for "minor beta".

[Neilski]

 

On 2/13/2020 at 7:34 PM, Shadowmage said:

If you right-click the game in the games list, select 'properties', and then go to the 'betas' tab in the popup window, it should allow you to select previous versions under the 'Select the beta you would like to opt into:'.  Note, it isn't just betas, but actual full stable previous versions of the game.  Mine is already showing 1.8.1 as an available previous version.

Nice one, thanks! (Slow reply because I'm still getting confused with how this forum notifies me about replies.)

If I revert to 1.8.1, will my 1.9 save still work?

 

37 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

1.x.0 is kinda an euphemism for "minor beta".

Joking aside, how long does it normally take for them to issue a patch to fix the worst howlers? (So far, I'm mainly thinking about the "2nd mnv node not working properly" howler...)

Edited February 16, 2020 by Neilski
submit button didn't appear to be working but it was just adding duplicates of my text to the post on each click (!?)

[Superfluous J]

27 minutes ago, Neilski said:

If I revert to 1.8.1, will my 1.9 save still work?

I think it'll work if you edit the file to say it's for version 1.8.1

If you don't know, the file is persistent.sfs and it's just a text file. The version is right at the top in the header.

If that doesn't work your best bet is to look in the backups folder for the save you made before upgrading to 1.9

[Lisias]

6 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

If that doesn't work your best bet is to look in the backups folder for the save you made before upgrading to 1.9

Use S.A.V.E.!!! (#TweakScaleFeelings)

[adsii1970]

1 hour ago, Neilski said:

If I revert to 1.8.1, will my 1.9 save still work?

I do not believe it will. New parts were added and some under-the-hood stiff was tinkered with. With the things which were done for 1.9, I think you'll get some sort of file error.

50 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

I think it'll work if you edit the file to say it's for version 1.8.1

If you don't know, the file is persistent.sfs and it's just a text file. The version is right at the top in the header.

I'm not sure this will work this time. I might be wrong, but... I just don't know.

[Neilski]

Thanks folks.

I'll give it a try and see.
If it doesn't work, I do have plenty of (manual) backups but there's too much water under the bridge since then, so I'll probably just wait for 1.9.1 instead...

[klesh]

When we first started receiving these planet revamps I noticed something jarring with LOD changes.  An example might be descending onto the surface of the Mun where as you descend and the LOD's change, you see giant boulders disappear and craters appear where there was nothing before.  It almost feels like each LOD was created without the transitions between them being taken into consideration, or perhaps this is a consequence of stretching 2d over 3d or something technical.

Here is an example of the LOD changes that I think don't look that great:

 

Spoiler

This looks great.  This is a zoomed in look at the grass right next to the launchpad, but still on the actual lauchpad 3d model.

 

 

Now if you zoom out from there, you get this jarring looking texture, that looks simply like the nice looking texture from before, zoomed in and put across the top of the lauchpad in a way that look completely out of scale, especially when compared to the non-3d model grass terrain right next to it.  It looks like there are blades of grass that are as wide as an entire kerbal.

 

 

Does that look weird to anyone besides me?

Edited February 16, 2020 by klesh

[basic.syntax]

The harsh transition between the launchpad object and the world terrain it sits on, stands out for me as a worse "problem" than maintaining the grass detail scale when zoomed out from the Kerbal.  KSP is a constant work-in-progress, and it would not surprise me if they eventually figure out how address both of these concerns    

[Neilski]

On 2/13/2020 at 2:59 PM, Neilski said:

The logic for this appears to be a bit broken. I've had it a few times already in somewhat questionable circumstances.

The most recent of these was just now: the craft was descending at about 5 m/s, hanging from chutes, and still minutes away from splashing down on Kerbin... I wouldn't call that "about to crash into the ground". :-D

OK, the "can't quicksave when you're about to crash" logic is eluding me. I was just able to quicksave on a craft that was en route to a Mun landing; it was about 45 seconds away from impacting at well over 300 m/s and yet that was a non-problem for the "about to crash" logic, However, yesterday it refused to let me save on a craft that was heading upwards in a short hop along the surface.

Does anyone have a clue how this is meant to work? I really don't think it's working as intended.

[TriggerAu]

1 hour ago, Neilski said:

OK, the "can't quicksave when you're about to crash" logic is eluding me. I was just able to quicksave on a craft that was en route to a Mun landing; it was about 45 seconds away from impacting at well over 300 m/s and yet that was a non-problem for the "about to crash" logic, However, yesterday it refused to let me save on a craft that was heading upwards in a short hop along the surface.

Does anyone have a clue how this is meant to work? I really don't think it's working as intended.

From memory its the same logic that was used in the normal save loop previously, which is very much based on being "close" to the surface with respect to load protection - ie if you quicksave well a vessel is falling just above terrain, the quickload can put things under the surface. Perhaps the changelog shoudl have been more specific about the "about to crash" logic. Let me confirm it in the code andgive you specifics

EDIT: The above is correct - dustance above terrain is the key. The default value is 500m above terrain level and you can adjust it in the settings if you want more/less safety - its called QUICKSAVE_MINIMUM_ALTITUDE

[RealKerbal3x]

14 minutes ago, TriggerAu said:

From memory its the same logic that was used in the normal save loop previously, which is very much based on being "close" to the surface with respect to load protection - ie if you quicksave well a vessel is falling just above terrain, the quickload can put things under the surface. Perhaps the changelog shoudl have been more specific about the "about to crash" logic. Let me confirm it in the code andgive you specifics

A couple of times it happened when I was flying aircraft close to the ground - after takeoff and before landing. It does seem to be a bit overzealous, especially when it happens after takeoff when you're ascending and aren't going to impact the surface particularly soon.

[Arugela]

So, who is making the first proper hover vehicle? And this could probably help beat the land speed records.

How do you get them to work btw? I turn them on and nothing happens. Does it not work with parts from before 1.9? Do we have to remake ships to use them?

Edited February 16, 2020 by Arugela

[dok_377]

@TriggerAu Are you guys even going to try to fix bugs that were reported in the previous versions of the game? Like this one, for example? Or this? Maybe this? <- Originally reported back in 1.7, 10 months ago. Or even this? That last one I reported back in 1.8.0, someone confirmed it and then just silence. 1.8.1 - no fix. Now 1.9.0 - still no fix. Furthermore, you managed to reintroduce one of the bugs that was fixed back into the game. Broken dlcs is a trend, apparently. Aside from the dlcs, is dying for no reason kerbals not a priority to fix? Or is this becoming normal now for the game to be half broken and the communication between the player base and Squad being somewhere in oblivion? We report this stuff for a reason. Why if the bug is not fixed immediately after the release, you just forget about it? They're not going to just magically go away by themselves. How much do we need to whine everywhere to be heard? 

Edited February 17, 2020 by dok_377

[razark]

@SQUAD:

Seriously, it's time for a bugfix release.

It's time for y'all to devote a full release cycle to just fixing what already exists, rather than trying to add or extend existing features.  Not even a single new texture.  Just spend a release cycle fixing the bugs.

[Cochies]

Why do we need new surface textures if you can’t ride the rover on this surface?
Why is a game impossible to play?
I would like to believe that KSP2 will be deprived of such problems, but if the publisher does not want to see problems in KSP1 why should I think that problems will be solved in KSP2?

[Incarnation of Chaos]

1 hour ago, Cochies said:

Why do we need new surface textures if you can’t ride the rover on this surface?
Why is a game impossible to play?
I would like to believe that KSP2 will be deprived of such problems, but if the publisher does not want to see problems in KSP1 why should I think that problems will be solved in KSP2?

....

SQUAD

isn't

making

KSP2

KSP2

Isn't

KSP1

It's a new game; on new code. Built from the ground up; with assets used from KSP1 to make demos while they continued to work on it.

[kerbiloid]

Nobody said that Squad develops KSP-2. He means two competing options to choose.

***

Also if the KSP-1 further development gets frozen and ceased on KSP-2 release, so if KSP-1 becomes an LTS release in several months, it looks natural to implement new textures and features now, because later they will have a lot of time for the bugfixing.

So, I would not be surprised if KSP 1.9.9 is a release where you can walk on ground instead of sinking in it.

I'm more surprised why did they call 1.8.2 "1.9.0".

Edited February 17, 2020 by kerbiloid

[TriggerAu]

7 hours ago, dok_377 said:

@TriggerAu Are you guys even going to try to fix bugs that were reported in the previous versions of the game? Like this one, for example? Or this? Maybe this? <- Originally reported back in 1.7, 10 months ago. Or even this? That last one I reported back in 1.8.0, someone confirmed it and then just silence. 1.8.1 - no fix. Now 1.9.0 - still no fix. Furthermore, you managed to reintroduce one of the bugs that was fixed back into the game. Broken dlcs is a trend, apparently. Aside from the dlcs, is dying for no reason kerbals not a priority to fix? Or is this becoming normal now for the game to be half broken and the communication between the player base and Squad being somewhere in oblivion? We report this stuff for a reason. Why if the bug is not fixed immediately after the release, you just forget about it? They're not going to just magically go away by themselves. How much do we need to whine everywhere to be heard? 

We are definitely still fixing bugs (and improving performance) from previous versions and constantly searching for the best fixes and feedback to add in each release. Not everyone agrees on what the best selection is, but we are always keeping an eye on the ones that people bring up, upvote, discuss and are concerned by in the various touch points we have with you the community and other interest groups.

You can see called out some specific fixes in the changelog every release, and you can see items in the tracker and here/reddit/etc that people want fixed or addressed. 

I dont think I'd be speaking incorrectly to say that we all strive for the best release everytime, that may not meet everyones expectation every time, but do know we are always discussing what you all raise and feel is important to KSP and we are always around the forums, streams, reddit, etc, no less now than previously.

[linuxgurugamer]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

I'm more surprised why did they call 1.8.2 "1.9.0".

Because of the new stuff.  Because 1.8.1 is very playable

[Guest]

Much appreciation to @SQUAD for continuing to maintain and improve KSP 1. I love the new shaders, the collective/cyclic control on rotor blades is lovely, and the part revamps are looking great too. I also like what I'm hearing about the improvements to the rendering pipeline.

However I do concur with some of my esteemed colleagues here -- maybe hold off on adding new features for a while and just focus on bug-swatting. I would not object at all if you skipped 1.10.0 altogether just to iron out the kinks in 1.9. 

KSP 1.9.0 does feel noticeably flaky compared to 1.7.3. The switch to the new version of Unity must have been a pretty major undertaking and while it did finally swat a whole bunch of long-standing issues (I haven't been bothered by the garbage collection stutter for example) it was pretty rough around the edges, and 1.8.1 only improved things a little bit.

[papuchalk]

I love that squad is still making great progress of this game, thank you !

i think that even after ksp 2 will be out, and ksp 1 will make a paid expansion pack, most of the fans will buy it. Including me. for 10-15 euros i will buy it just for the respect of the squad team

 

But, with new 1.9  update, i realized i cannot play the stock game without these mods anymore:

 

TweakScale - reascale every part.. gives me tons of new design choices- i am not interested in stock clunky designs anymore : / Sometimes a little smaller solar panel would look better on that ship, right?

DecouplerShroud - enables much more realisticly looking transitions between stages - and if used wisely and disable staging- you can use them as covers of service modules/parts

ManeuverNodeEvolved - better controll over creating maneuver nodes

 

other mods are not important, but these are really essential. So good bye 1.9 - see you in three months? I hope the modders are still making updates

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by papuchalk

[dok_377]

1 hour ago, TriggerAu said:

We are definitely still fixing bugs (and improving performance) from previous versions and constantly searching for the best fixes and feedback to add in each release. Not everyone agrees on what the best selection is, but we are always keeping an eye on the ones that people bring up, upvote, discuss and are concerned by in the various touch points we have with you the community and other interest groups.

You can see called out some specific fixes in the changelog every release, and you can see items in the tracker and here/reddit/etc that people want fixed or addressed. 

I dont think I'd be speaking incorrectly to say that we all strive for the best release everytime, that may not meet everyones expectation every time, but do know we are always discussing what you all raise and feel is important to KSP and we are always around the forums, streams, reddit, etc, no less now than previously.

Glad to see that response, but the team definitely missed some of the important ones in the previous releases. The prioritization is really important. We can live with some little bugs in the interface, but when kerbals start dying due to bugs in the terrain system - that one surely need some attention ASAP. Walking on the surface of the planet is an essential part of the game. 

[kerbiloid]

28 minutes ago, dok_377 said:

when kerbals start dying due to bugs in the terrain system - that one surely need some attention ASAP. Walking on the surface of the planet is an essential part of the game. 

This returns us to the origins, to the early days of sci-fi when they thought that the Moon is covered with thick layer of dust, and the lunonauts will sink in it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fall_of_Moondust

[Lisias]

On 2/17/2020 at 11:07 AM, papuchalk said:

TweakScale - reascale every part.. gives me tons of new design choices- i am not interested in stock clunky designs anymore : / Sometimes a little smaller solar panel would look better on that ship, right?

Hi! My tests for TweakScale on KSP 1.9 worked fine, and any hypothetical issue on 1.9 will also affect any previous (supported) KSP versions too, so at least from the TweakScale point of view, there's no reason for not using KSP 1.9.

[An issue was found. It was fixed on KSP Recall - users of TweakScale on KSP 1.9 need to install it]

If you find something, please report it on TweakScale's thread - it will be handled promptly!

 

On 2/17/2020 at 11:07 AM, papuchalk said:

DecouplerShroud - enables much more realisticly looking transitions between stages - and if used wisely and disable staging- you can use them as covers of service modules/parts

I also tested Decoupler Shroud, and I think it's working fine too...

Spoiler

 

My lunch time is over, so I couldn't test Manoeuvre Node Evolved - but since it works on 1.8, I'm somewhat confident it may work on 1.9 too.

Edited March 7, 2020 by Lisias
Tyops, as usulla!

[klesh]

I wish the official merchandise being linked on the Main Menu used the KSP 1 logo and not the KSP 2 redesign of it. Sell us KSP2 stuff once you've finished the game.