Kerbal Space Program 1.10: "Shared Horizons” Grand Discussion Thread

[Bej Kerman]

19 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

even if what SQUAD puts out is higher quality than anything available in a mod.

That hasn't been true since 1.6.

19 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

I won't deny that SQUAD has put out some low quality stuff before (*cough* 1.4.x *cough*), but the game has been getting consistently better since then, and I'm tired of people constantly bashing them and saying that the modders should be in charge. Ultimately it wouldn't change anything.

Most things before 1.4 weren't done by mods before (Docking ports, fuel transfer, science experiments), were better versions of mods (Asteroids and Re-entry FX) or, like with the Mk2 parts, mods sent straight into the vanilla release. Now everything since 1.6 is something done by a mod, but better by the mod, from suit customisation, decals, science experiments, etc. to the part retexturing and Hyperedit. I guarantee you, open source KSP would be the best thing since leaves started being put into boiling water.

Edited July 11, 2020 by Bej Kerman

[RealKerbal3x]

47 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

That hasn't been true since 1.6.

I beg to differ. 'Higher quality' is subjective but in this case I think that if a feature is more nicely integrated into the game and is at least as nice to use then it's higher quality. To cite a few examples, in no particular order:

- Delta-v readouts/orbital information - rather than being scattered around the screen in floating windows like they are for KER, this information is smoothly integrated into the UI, making it look and feel nicer than the mod alternative.

- In-flight action group editor - once again, it's well integrated into the UI and is consistent with the action group editor in the VAB/SPH. This makes it better than the mods which also add this feature - to the best of my knowledge, they all have a pop-up floating window that isn't consistent with the rest of the UI at all.

- Surface experiments - they're both less buggy and better-integrated than the mod that used to add them.

- Planet retextures - they look and perform better than the ones provided by mods, because they're made by the developers who have full access to the internals of the game.

These are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head - there are certainly more. Point is, a lot of the features that have been recently added are better than their mod predecessors because the developers just have more access to the game's code and need the game to provide a smooth and consistent experience.

[Bej Kerman]

5 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

That hasn't been true since 1.6.

I beg to differ. 'Higher quality' is subjective but in this case I think that if a feature is more nicely integrated into the game and is at least as nice to use then it's higher quality. To cite a few examples, in no particular order:

- Delta-v readouts/orbital information - rather than being scattered around the screen in floating windows like they are for KER, this information is smoothly integrated into the UI, making it look and feel nicer than the mod alternative.

"They look shiny" =/= better

The update rate is very slow and information is limited, not only that but the stock readouts frequently freeze and won't show Delta-V until the editor is reloaded.

5 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

- In-flight action group editor - once again, it's well integrated into the UI and is consistent with the action group editor in the VAB/SPH. This makes it better than the mods which also add this feature - to the best of my knowledge, they all have a pop-up floating window that isn't consistent with the rest of the UI at all.

That's an exception, even if all Squad did was clone a button.

6 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

- Surface experiments - they're both less buggy and better-integrated than the mod that used to add them.

Less buggy?

Btw, 0.5t magnetoboom

6 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

- Planet retextures - they look and perform better than the ones provided by mods, because they're made by the developers who have full access to the internals of the game.

Really depends on the aesthetic you want.

7 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

These are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head - there are certainly more. Point is, a lot of the features that have been recently added are better than their mod predecessors because the developers just have more access to the game's code and need the game to provide a smooth and consistent experience.

Irrelevant, modders can often implement things better and smoother than the devs. Case in point, Mk2 parts.

[Superfluous J]

7 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Less buggy?

Btw, 0.5t magnetoboom

Literally Unlaunchable.

[Bej Kerman]

30 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

39 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Less buggy?

Btw, 0.5t magnetoboom

Literally Unlaunchable.

Added a booster, that booster was the difference between a new probe and a bankrupt space center.

[cineboxandrew]

On 7/9/2020 at 9:18 AM, dok_377 said:

I don't mind using some mods, but I definitely mind using that one. My game suffers from pixel lights enough as it is, I will not add something that relies on additional projections and draw calls to work. And on top of that, am I wrong to assume that I can use some newly added feature of the game and expect it to work without any problems straight from the box? I think I should at least have that right as a paying customer. If not, then we have a problem. 

Unless you're projecting onto a part with a lot of meshes, it shouldn't be any more draw calls than a normal part. Also your pixel light problem is caused by the terrain shader being unnecessarily heavy, I think they're not making proper use of texture arrays or something

[dok_377]

22 hours ago, cineboxandrew said:

Unless you're projecting onto a part with a lot of meshes, it shouldn't be any more draw calls than a normal part. Also your pixel light problem is caused by the terrain shader being unnecessarily heavy, I think they're not making proper use of texture arrays or something

Just checked your mod out and I must say, the good reviews are well deserved. It's the best one I've seen yet. The only thing it can't do is project decals onto the fairings. But you can't have everything at once, I guess. 

[Lord Aurelius]

Just got a bug where my space plane says it's landed on the runway when it's most definitely not (2400m/s, 40km up). Game doesn't show trajectory in map view or orbit info.

[The Flying Kerbal]

I'm curious, does anyone know if a comet can actually hit a planet?

[KevinTMC]

In 1.10, I've been seeing a fair bit of flickering from the lighting, as shown below. Also, large slices of some craft have blinked to black and then back again. Performance generally in flight scenes has occasionally gone very poor.

Not sure whether the problem is my computer (which is not especially new or powerful), some new inefficiency in the program that is affecting me (1.7.3 runs better on the same machine), or what. Any advice or suggestions for further experimentation would be welcome.

[RandomKerbal]

3 hours ago, KevinTMC said:

In 1.10, I've been seeing a fair bit of flickering from the lighting, as shown below. Also, large slices of some craft have blinked to black and then back again. Performance generally in flight scenes has occasionally gone very poor.

Not sure whether the problem is my computer (which is not especially new or powerful), some new inefficiency in the program that is affecting me (1.7.3 runs better on the same machine), or what. Any advice or suggestions for further experimentation would be welcome.

Left or right is KSP 1.7?

By the way, I guess that the flickering is caused by the moving of Kerbol (the light source).

[KevinTMC]

5 hours ago, RandomKerbal said:

Left or right is KSP 1.7?

By the way, I guess that the flickering is caused by the moving of Kerbol (the light source).

Both pictures are 1.10. I haven't observed anything similar--or at least as dramatic--in 1.7.3. Also, I have CELESTIAL_BODIES_CAST_SHADOWS set to False...had thought that might stop it, but had no effect.

[Serenity]

Anyone else noticed parts not breaking due to pressure limits? Or its my save only.

[MechBFP]

4 hours ago, Boyster said:

Anyone else noticed parts not breaking due to pressure limits? Or its my save only.

If you mean solar panels, known bug.

[Serenity]

4 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

If you mean solar panels, known bug.

Its not just solar panels, its antennas, its everything.

And i am starting to think its even the g force break as well.

what how is this not discussed in these forums, these are major bugs...

[Serenity]

I am sorry but there are so many bugs i am discovering everyday, i am surprised i dont see any posts here.

Parts are not breaking due to aero forces, i think not even with g forces(Yes enabled in difficulty settings and it works fine in 1.9).

Are these bugs confirmed? 

I am just curious if they noticed and preparing a fix...

Is the drag fine in 1.10???

Edited July 14, 2020 by Boyster

[OHara]

There are posts in the Tech Support and Gameplay Questions sub-forums.    But, mostly I think not so many people are playing version 1.10 yet, so it will take longer for bugs to be confirmed.

The drag of core-game engines, and other parts that have holes through them, was finally fixed in version 1.10 (link link link) --- after being present for a couple years.  Unfortunately, they also added a new feature to the drag system for parts with variants, which made the drag of the engine plates wrong (link).  The engine plates problem has a posted workaround (for players on PC) and at least it is limited to parts from the Making HIstory mod.

[R-T-B]

I had some parts fly apart due to a Principia bug (comining it with FAR right now in atmopshere is a risky endeavor when decoupling) and they were reported in log as destroyed due to gee-forces, so at least that works.

[Misguided Kerbal]

Rule of thumb: you never play a version with 0 in the name. Wait until 1.10.1 comes out.

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, Misguided_Kerbal said:

Rule of thumb: you never play a version with 0 in the name. Wait until 1.10.1 comes out.

You mean 1.11.1? Because 1.10.1 still has a “0” in the name. So will 1.10.94

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, Misguided_Kerbal said:

Rule of thumb: you never play a version with 0 in the name. Wait until 1.10.1 comes out.

You forgot to prepend that with "If you can't handle bugs"

[MrSystems]

10 hours ago, Boyster said:

Anyone else noticed parts not breaking due to pressure limits? Or its my save only.

It might be your save--pressure limits are an option that defaults to off. Open your save with a text editor, and look about 200 lines in, under AdvancedParams. Here's how one of mine looks:

		AdvancedParams
		{
			EnableKerbalExperience = True
			ImmediateLevelUp = True
			AllowNegativeCurrency = False
			PressurePartLimits = False      <!-- from this line -->
			GPartLimits = False
			GKerbalLimits = False           <!--  to this line  -->
			KerbalGToleranceMult = 1
			ResourceTransferObeyCrossfeed = False
			ActionGroupsAlways = True
			BuildingImpactDamageMult = 0.05
			PartUpgradesInSandbox = False
			PartUpgradesInCareer = True
			PartUpgradesInMission = False
			EnableFullSASInSandbox = False
		}

You can change it to say PressurePartLimits = True in Notepad , and when you re-load the save the game will respect it.

 

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, Superfluous J said:

You forgot to prepend that with "If you can't handle bugs"

Not handling bugs is for wimps. I bet they use time acceleration as well! And electronic calculators, instead of slide rulers!

[Dafni]

4 hours ago, Misguided_Kerbal said:

Rule of thumb: you never play a version with 0 in the name. Wait until 1.10.1 comes out.

QFT! This rule applies since we're out of beta. 10 full iterations ago. That's now more than five years. Let's see how many patches it takes this time around. The optimism I had after 1.3.1 kinda evaporated. (we had a promising trend going: 1.0 took 5 patches. 1.1 took 3, 1.2 took two...)

[Serenity]

5 hours ago, MrSystems said:

It might be your save--pressure limits are an option that defaults to off. Open your save with a text editor, and look about 200 lines in, under AdvancedParams. Here's how one of mine looks:

You can change it to say PressurePartLimits = True in Notepad , and when you re-load the save the game will respect it.

 

I checked and they were true.Someone said is a confirmed bug, at this point i start to doubt any PartLimits work or if even the drag is fine.

I reverted back to 1.9 and it works as it used to be.

I guess time to wait for the next patch, if these problems exist i can imagine more are around that i havent noticed.