KSP2 EA Grand Discussion Thread.

[Alexoff]

I wonder when the next patch will come out? Will there be many more before science?

[Vl3d]

@The Aziz, @Stoup, @Royalswissarmyknife - I have not played the game since launch. I've been waiting for a good patch to fix most of the big bugs so I can have fun. Think I should try it now or wait another round?

Edited August 30, 2023 by Vl3d

[RocketRockington]

28 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

I wonder when the next patch will come out? Will there be many more before science?

Who knows.  The trend has been for every patch to take longer than the previous one. 

0.1.1 3 weeks. 

0.1.2 4 weeks.

0.1.3 2 months

0.1.4 2 months + 1 week.

On the other hand, I expect them to try to get science out by the winter steam sale.  Who knows.

[Stoup]

31 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

@The Aziz, @Stoup, @Royalswissarmyknife - I have not played the game since launch. I've been waiting for a good patch to fix most of the big bugs so I can have fun. Think I should try it now or wait another round?

If your sticking points aren't specifically and explicitly addressed as fixed based on what they've posted, I'd hold off till next time. Maybe stick around a little to see when the next best time to check in is, but as it stands right now there's not really anything we have to go off of in terms of what's coming out in the short or even medium term

With that out of the way, I'd say the energy you've brought back even in the past week or so has been a breath of fresh air next to how things have become, so I for one am glad you're still kicking around 

Edited August 30, 2023 by Stoup

[Vl3d]

28 minutes ago, Stoup said:

If your sticking points aren't specifically and explicitly addressed as fixed based on what they've posted, I'd hold off till next time. Maybe stick around a little to see when the next best time to check in is, but as it stands right now there's not really anything we have to go off of in terms of what's coming out in the short or even medium term

With that out of the way, I'd say the energy you've brought back even in the past week or so has been a breath of fresh air next to how things have become, so I for one am glad you're still kicking around 

Thank you for the kind words. I'm always around. I'm sure the whole gang is.

[RaBDawG]

6 weeks for just this?  sigh.

 

Bug Fixes

 

Flight & Map

• Added input binding for toggling freecam in flight
• Added NavBall texture color changes based on velocity state
• Improved orbits decaying when vessels are not applying any thrust 
   
• Fixed: Airbrakes respond to roll inputs 
   
• Fixed: Camera orientation flips 180 degrees after switching to flight from map 
   
• Fixed: Normal SAS orientation maneuver burn at periapsis is inaccurate 
   
• Fixed: Kerbals eject with extra velocity when EVA'd from Grumble Seats while in space flight 
   
• Fixed: Dates don't start on Year 1 Day 1
• Fixed: Activate/deactivate action button for engines gets out of sync
• Fixed: Alternators produce power when engines are off
• Fixed: Animated engine gimbal forces are incorrect after reverting
• Fixed: Animated gimbals don't function when offscreen (when in map or offscreen during flight)
• Fixed: AP and PE markers of inactive vehicle in orbit stay on screen after switching focus to a landed vehicle within the Tracking Station
• Fixed: Action vessel can be controlled while in the Tracking Station
• Fixed: Camera zooms in and out when scrolling in some flight apps
• Fixed: Cargo bay aero shielding sometimes leaves contained parts out of collider checks
• Fixed: Errors generated when launching a vessel with a fairing
• Fixed: Hibernate in timewarp doesn't work properly for probes
• Fixed: Mouse look does not stay active when pressing Tab in flight
• Fixed: Probe cores stop consuming electricity after being decoupled
• Fixed: RCS blocks don't work in fine control mode
• Fixed: RCS thrusters remain on when switching away from a vessel
• Fixed: SAS and throttle sometimes reset when decoupling stages
• Fixed: SAS mode buttons do not always register clicks
• Fixed: Timewarp overshoots when crossing SOI boundary, causing orbit to change

 

Optimizations

• Added LODs to some KSC buildings
• Added LODs to spotlight shadows at KSC
• Cleaned up code and UI to improve performance of some windows
• Improved performance when hovering over items in the parts picker UI
• Improved UI performance when adding or removing stages in the VAB
• Improved VAB framerate by optimizing part bounds calculations
• Massively improved speed of PAM deployment/closure
• Optimized code in the sonic boom system preventing unnecessary calls
• Optimized terrain shader by removing expensive and infrequently-used features
• Optimized undo and redo actions in the VAB to reduce update delays

 

Saving & Loading

• Fixed: Error generated and failure to load when attempting to load a game with a crash-landed vessel
• Fixed: Error spam while loading a game with a vessel orbiting Kerbol

 

Parts & Stock Vessels

• Adjusted colliders for all landing gear parts so they are more accurately selectable/highlightable
• Fixed: LY-60 landing gear sometimes flips when extended
• Fixed: Rovemax M1 twitches back and forth at the suspension when off the ground in flight
• Increased fairing maximum length for AE-FF000, AE-FF125, AE-FF250, AE-FF375, and AE-FF500 parts
• Updated drag cube for the HS-I Deluxe Inflatable Heat Shield so that it properly changes when deployed and retracted
• Updated the side count of the RF-AD-L 800 fuel tank to better match like-sized parts
• Updated the side count of the RS-AD 800 fuel tank to better match like-sized parts

 

UI / UX

• Fixed: Flight UI flickers when using an AMD GPU 
   
• Adjusted interactable area on scrollbars
• Improved how loading tips are displayed to show more of them
• Updated fairing editor icons to improve legibility
• Fixed: HUD issue that occurred when scaled to 50%
• Fixed: Holding click and dragging some buttons can cause the wrong visual state to display
• Fixed: Only one celestial body name can be pinned at a time in the Tracking Station
• Fixed: Part description does not expand when pressing Shift in the part picker
• Fixed: Save window in the VAB can be dragged horizontally
• Fixed: Tracking Station load screen remains visible when transitioning from Training Center

 

Construction

• Fixed: Center of Thrust, Center of Mass, and Center of Pressure markers appear when there's no vessel in the VAB 
   
• Fixed: The player is unable to change symmetry modes while holding the first part of a strut or fuel line. It is now only locked when holding the second part. 
   
• Fixed: When Alt-copying a subassembly with wings, the copy has one of the wings flipped upside down 
   
• Fixed: Camera panning orientation does not update when toggling vehicle orientation modes in the VAB
• Fixed: Engine shrouds are generated incorrectly when stack attaching a non-root engine above other parts
• Fixed: Current anchor point and potential anchor points are not differentiated in the VAB
• Fixed: Fuel bar is sometimes empty when loading a vessel in the VAB
• Fixed: Undo removes the held part
• Fixed: VAB and anchor points appear when they should not
• Fixed: Parts Manager shows the pod icon for all categories
• Reduced delay for disappearance of fairing and wing edit buttons when cursor has moved away from procedural part
• Fixed: New workspace not resetting history snapshots for the Undo tool
• Removed duplicate history snapshots for the Undo tool for compound parts
• Fixed: Part of the LY-35 Landing Gear shakes uncontrollably when placed in the VAB
• Fixed: Base size of TOOB-375 adjustable tube causes stacked tubes below to generate the wrong size fairing in the VAB
• Fixed: RF-AD-B 400 does not create a copy of the part when node attaching a part

 

EVA

• Fixed: Jetpack cannot be used on previously EVA'd Kerbals when EVAing a new Kerbal

[Vanamonde]

Overlapping threads have been merged. 

[RocketRockington]

4 hours ago, RaBDawG said:

6 weeks for just this?  sigh.

No, man!  C'mon how could you think such a thing.

It's been 10 weeks since 1.3 was released.  (69 days specifically)

Edited August 31, 2023 by RocketRockington

[Infinite Aerospace]

So, what's the word? Does this patch make a meaningful improvement to the game? I've found it's been running quite nicely since 0.1.3 dropped to be honest but there's a few really irritating bugs, such as docking ports off-set when loading a game.

[cocoscacao]

A question for devs and other forum members. I've noticed that the altimeter value oscillates while orbiting a body. I'm downloading patch atm, and I'm not sure if this oscillation happens above water surfaces. Does anyone else has the same experience? Can it somehow be related to orbital decay? Also, how is this altitude computed? Based on which part of the rocket. Landing legs and command module have different distance from the ground, unless you "land" horizontally...

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, cocoscacao said:

I've noticed that the altimeter value oscillates while orbiting a body

Is your orbit circular? Is the altimeter in land or sea level mode?

[The Aziz]

I'm assuming it calculates distance from in-control command pod/probe core. Build a 10 meter rocket, launch it, land somewhere (don't do it at KSC because the mesh doesn't count as terrain lol), set the altimeter to AGL, you should see 10m.

[cocoscacao]

3 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Is your orbit circular? Is the altimeter in land or sea level mode?

Dunno. I'll post a little while later, when the patch is downloaded, so I can retest again, with further details. But I know this was an issue from before.

[Vl3d]

Some altitude oscillation is expected, but the orbital parameters should remain the same.

Edited August 31, 2023 by Vl3d

[cocoscacao]

Okay, so... Orbiting around Kerbin in roughly circular orbit (73000pe-73300ap). When purely above water, the altimeter is set to ground mode, it oscillates wildly. 1000 meter range as far as I can see. Sea mode looks ok, but both AP-PE keep changing values (as expected, due to the bug)

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, cocoscacao said:

When purely above water, the altimeter is set to ground mode, it oscillates wildly

Likely due to the ground underneath that water

[The Aziz]

True. But isn't that slightly misleading? AGL is measured by radar, shouldn't it also detect the water surface?

[Vl3d]

51 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

True. But isn't that slightly misleading? AGL is measured by radar, shouldn't it also detect the water surface?

It uses the vessel coordinates and known water depth to calculate the AGL.

[Bej Kerman]

4 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

57 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

True. But isn't that slightly misleading? AGL is measured by radar, shouldn't it also detect the water surface?

It uses the vessel coordinates and known water depth to calculate the AGL.

Given that objects below the vessel don't block the supposed radar beam that emanates from the bottom-most part of the vessel, this is the logical conclusion.

[The Aziz]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

It uses the vessel coordinates and known water depth to calculate the AGL.

That's way too much work for a simple altimeter.

Say the weather is implemented and you're flying in thick fog. You have the altimeter set up to AGL to see how high from the ground you are. All of a sudden you meet face to face with the sea because the radar kept showing great distance to the ground. Which is below water and useless for any measurements. This makes no sense at all and is completely pointless when you can't fly on instruments only.

[MechBFP]

2 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

That's way too much work for a simple altimeter.

Say the weather is implemented and you're flying in thick fog. You have the altimeter set up to AGL to see how high from the ground you are. All of a sudden you meet face to face with the sea because the radar kept showing great distance to the ground. Which is below water and useless for any measurements. This makes no sense at all and is completely pointless when you can't fly on instruments only.

Ya the altimeter should stop at water, as it is almost always going to be the use case.  I know some people will want to know the "real" ground for deep underwater missions, but those are an extreme outlier.

[Chilkoot]

12 hours ago, Infinite Aerospace said:

So, what's the word? Does this patch make a meaningful improvement to the game?

One of my own biggest beefs has been performance with celestial body terrain in-frame, and that is now (for the first time) noticeably better in 1.4.  On Minmus with a rover,  I'm seeing about an 80% performance increase over initial release.

The (monumentally) inconsistent UI and lack of scaling, however, is still a major sticking point and nonsense like this:

and this:

... and this:

Are just not acceptable >6 months into public release (screens at 1440p native).

After the 1.4 patch, the game still feels fundamentally unpolished and clunky to me, so I would say that there is meaningful improvement, but not enough to justify re-installing and certainly not enough to warrant purchasing the game if you have not yet.

[chd]

Since there seems to be so much negativity, complaining, and dissatisfaction pervading the discussion of KSP2, I'm just going to throw out a Thank You to all the dev folks actually writing code and working on it. It's a lot easier to complain than to produce, so thank you to the people who are doing the work. It'll get there.

[Stoup]

5 hours ago, chd said:

Since there seems to be so much negativity, complaining, and dissatisfaction pervading the discussion of KSP2, I'm just going to throw out a Thank You to all the dev folks actually writing code and working on it. It's a lot easier to complain than to produce, so thank you to the people who are doing the work. It'll get there.

Even though at this point I'm definitely in the boat of people skeptical that it will, indeed, get there, I'd like to mirror this sentiment, without any further caveats. 

Thanks for all the hard work that's gone in so far, and for all the work to come!

[PDCWolf]

Speaking of skepticism, I've been doing a bit of a deeper examination than I usually do. The following is entirely speculative, wildly so even.

You know how people talk about whether they ever mentioned 1000+ parts ships and such... Of course the reality is they've never mentioned any number, only hints here and there. We don't know the part budget they have in mind and they refuse to put a number on it, so speculation is sure to come up. Now, if you go around the bug report subforum, you'll see this new one (which I recommend you upvote as it's pretty critical IMO):

I... couldn't really think of that as a bug, maybe inefficient or hard to scale, but not a bug: we want colonies, orbital shipyards, miners, processors, thrusting vessels and such to work whilst we're away, we also want the heat system and to work whilst vessels are unloaded... At the same time we don't have any effective way to differentiate which vessels shouldn't be part of this system: Heat buildup and such could take a really long time, so just assuming equilibrium doesn't work, thus all vessels should remain simulated. Almost any vessel could be used to thrust whilst in warp, so all of those should be part of the simulation as well. Lastly we definitely want colonies and shipyards with their logistic lines working (we know there'll be a proof of concept system so logistic journeys don't load yet another vessel in the simulation).

Of course there's a lot of simplification to be made: Colonies can extract to an abstract pool of resources to not account for individual tanks (unlike ships), craft in equilibrium and unloaded can probably ignore the whole heating system, and probably a lot more that I'm missing, so the system can be reduced a bit. But still, the system is not really scalable as more craft are added... and I can't imagine how multiplayer handles it (if it even attempts to at all).

Then I remembered the stuff that has been shown the whole way about colonies and interstellar, and the stuff said on the interviews about those topics. Everything hints to monolithic "One big part for a lot of stuff" pieces being the norm. Plus now procedural parts help cut down some of the main part-count wasters like wings and radiators, like this single ring part transforms like 40 into one:

So, they have this seemingly inefficient system that doesn't scale well with partcounts, they're really trying to stop us from lego-ing solutions to certain stuff like we would in KSP1, and they also have a clear aversion to tell us the partcounts they're aiming for...

Once again my nose picks up a sour smell.