Bug Status [1/12]

[Stephensan]

2 hours ago, Dakota said:

I'll just echo what @Nertea has said in the Discord about this:

and @Nate Simpson:

i don't need to re-read what i saw happen, i was there when the "show went down" (insert circus music).

just hearing suggestions and talk about it on discord is nothing really official on post on it..

Discord talk at the end of the day from even the gods of intercept games for ksp 2 is as much value as me saying I'm a developer due to giving feedback that "might help" due to playing like 1,000 hours.

 

my input doesn't really matter its more so the entire community, I'm like a broken record with mods that i would like to see as vanilla but i can see why it isn't in base game, things like K2D2, Flightplan, Alarmclock, Trim Control, Kerbal Headlights..

l know that alarm clock has been screamed top of the lungs, and now its even a mod. The community shows what the game is missing, and it doesn't hurt to talk to modders and ask to put mods into base game.. like alarm clock. and kerbal headlights.. etc.

Edited January 13 by Stephensan

[ChadDude]

Great to see the update on the forums! @Dakota, is it possible that we will see updates to see how the bug reports work? Maybe getting more information on the bugs?

[jclovis3]

3 hours ago, Little 908 said:

... I'm not sure what the "Reproducible" status means on #12, but I hope it means its in progress. Thanks for the kerb.

I expect it means that they feel our pain. I believe the reason time warp restrictions were so restrictive in both KSP and KSP2 around these low gravity planets was due to how location changes are calculated during warp vs non-warp. I believe that during non-warp, and when you have control of a craft, location data is more accurate and centered around the controlling craft so it doesn't need to be able to represent much farther distances than perhaps the CBs SOI you are in. Time warp needs to allow for your craft to jump through other SOIs and cross greater distances, so the accuracy of your location may be dropped by a bit or two in favor of adding more significant bits on the higher end. This degree of imprecision could have consequences if too close to other celestial bodies. A more aggressive tuning may be in order to determine the actual safety limits and possibly set them with respect to CPU speeds as well.

[jclovis3]

3 hours ago, Stephensan said:

Signals go through planets and moons (CommNet/Antennas not affected by occlusion)

the community just wants ComNet just like ksp 1... non kerbal controlled builds are far far to easy...

Also, just like Surface Scanning to find the POI's without needing to use other people question to find it..

I believe the Dev intent here is to reduce the number of vessels needed just to establish and maintain a clear net to any location in favor of all the outposts we will be building and keeping within our save files. More vessels and outposts means more to process each frame.

I can see perhaps a technology leap where a single part can deploy to release a constellation of communication probes that slowly take orbit around a CB and become non-interactable and non-physical. These probes would constitute a net around the CB and to any long range antennae in low orbit of it. You could interact with the craft that deployed them but the part that deploys them will be considered used and cannot be packed up. These micro-probe constellations may even have a life span like the nuclear generators due to possibly being powered by the very same technology (making it a dependent tech).

Not having the ability to scan a footprint to see where various biomes are in relation to the craft as it passes over is frustrating, especially with science equipment that runs in low orbit and is biome specific. Currently, contracts are the only way I know to locate these POI's and I do hope at some point in the future, they give us the area scanning ability. I find it odd that probes like the Stay-Put-Nik can use SAS to it's fullest degree, let alone other probes having full use of SAS as well. In KSP1, you had a reason to unlock better probes to have a fuller range of functionality. Now it is all about size matching and power consumption or mass.

[jclovis3]

3 hours ago, The Aziz said:

... At this point I don't know where the Kapy rock or Mun arch are even though I visited them, as they can't be tracked after mission completion or marked in any other way)

You can leave a controllable (if not flyable) vessel on the ground near these items to "Control" or "Set Target" on any time you want to see or visit these features again next time. When you visit under the contract, take along a probe you can decouple from your craft and leave behind as a geotag marker. In KSP, we could at least target flags we place but not in KSP2.

3 hours ago, ChrisShourai said:

... I’m gonna uninstall KSP2 and go play KSP1 with mods for the rest of my life (dramatic, I know, but I think it emphasized the point). 

Do you think this is going to punish Intercept Games in any way? You already paid them for the game. Uninstalling isn't going to get you your money back. Best to keep it as a reminder of why you enjoy KSP1 so much. Even KSP1 was a work in progress for years and is still quite buggy. Give IG a chance to build this one up the right way. You wouldn't call a cake crap just because it hasn't been iced yet. They need to make sure it's not raw in the middle before they add all the icing.

[ChrisShourai]

1 hour ago, jclovis3 said:

You can leave a controllable (if not flyable) vessel on the ground near these items to "Control" or "Set Target" on any time you want to see or visit these features again next time. When you visit under the contract, take along a probe you can decouple from your craft and leave behind as a geotag marker. In KSP, we could at least target flags we place but not in KSP2.

Do you think this is going to punish Intercept Games in any way? You already paid them for the game. Uninstalling isn't going to get you your money back. Best to keep it as a reminder of why you enjoy KSP1 so much. Even KSP1 was a work in progress for years and is still quite buggy. Give IG a chance to build this one up the right way. You wouldn't call a cake crap just because it hasn't been iced yet. They need to make sure it's not raw in the middle before they add all the icing.

My point is more towards the comments of the Devs on their lack of enthusiasm for features I strongly believe (I’ll back by evidence if you need) are a passionate part of the KSP player base, myself included. 

As nothing I said was meant as a threat I’ll clarify and say I would be unhappy, disappointed, and dissatisfied were my worries to come to pass. In hopes my voice was heard as equally as all other KSP players voices, and if a multitude of others share my opinion then I guess I helped support better development paths. If I’m alone or the minority, well I can always build or install a mod if I’m happy enough to keep playing KSP2. 
 

I’ve ready many a comment from more people than just myself that they’re not happy with the direction of development, or maybe more specifically with the priority and reasoning the devs provide for either tossing a KSP1 feature, altering it to be more approachable to a wider gaming community, or flat out saying it isn’t in their vision of the game. End of the day the devs can do whatever they want with whatever vision they have and if they’re successful by their own measurements, awesome. Not every game is for everyone, but I personally believe they’re shooting way off the mark for the KSP community itself, so I feel sad for my future with KSP and sad for those who feel the same in the end. Yet, I hope I’m wrong. I’ll hope until the full release, I’ll start my engines, then I’ll decide to delete the game or not and leave my review on steam either way. For now, this forum exists for me to express myself and I’m happy to add my voice, minority or otherwise. <3

Edited January 13 by ChrisShourai

[kennyc222]

good work! I can't wait for 0.2.1.0 to be released! 

[Stephensan]

10 hours ago, jclovis3 said:

I believe the Dev intent here is to reduce the number of vessels needed just to establish and maintain a clear net to any location in favor of all the outposts we will be building and keeping within our save files. More vessels and outposts means more to process each frame.

I can see perhaps a technology leap where a single part can deploy to release a constellation of communication probes that slowly take orbit around a CB and become non-interactable and non-physical. These probes would constitute a net around the CB and to any long range antennae in low orbit of it. You could interact with the craft that deployed them but the part that deploys them will be considered used and cannot be packed up. These micro-probe constellations may even have a life span like the nuclear generators due to possibly being powered by the very same technology (making it a dependent tech).

Not having the ability to scan a footprint to see where various biomes are in relation to the craft as it passes over is frustrating, especially with science equipment that runs in low orbit and is biome specific. Currently, contracts are the only way I know to locate these POI's and I do hope at some point in the future, they give us the area scanning ability. I find it odd that probes like the Stay-Put-Nik can use SAS to it's fullest degree, let alone other probes having full use of SAS as well. In KSP1, you had a reason to unlock better probes to have a fuller range of functionality. Now it is all about size matching and power consumption or mass.

i think it should just be an option to have simplified or something closer to Comnet, let the users decide if they want more of a realistic challenge, requiring more parts more launches etc to make there game more interesting.

 

 

 

[kdaviper]

9 hours ago, ChrisShourai said:

My point is more towards the comments of the Devs on their lack of enthusiasm for features I strongly believe (I’ll back by evidence if you need) are a passionate part of the KSP player base, myself included. 

As nothing I said was meant as a threat I’ll clarify and say I would be unhappy, disappointed, and dissatisfied were my worries to come to pass. In hopes my voice was heard as equally as all other KSP players voices, and if a multitude of others share my opinion then I guess I helped support better development paths. If I’m alone or the minority, well I can always build or install a mod if I’m happy enough to keep playing KSP2. 
 

I’ve ready many a comment from more people than just myself that they’re not happy with the direction of development, or maybe more specifically with the priority and reasoning the devs provide for either tossing a KSP1 feature, altering it to be more approachable to a wider gaming community, or flat out saying it isn’t in their vision of the game. End of the day the devs can do whatever they want with whatever vision they have and if they’re successful by their own measurements, awesome. Not every game is for everyone, but I personally believe they’re shooting way off the mark for the KSP community itself, so I feel sad for my future with KSP and sad for those who feel the same in the end. Yet, I hope I’m wrong. I’ll hope until the full release, I’ll start my engines, then I’ll decide to delete the game or not and leave my review on steam either way. For now, this forum exists for me to express myself and I’m happy to add my voice, minority or otherwise. <3

To be clear you may speak for a lot of people here, but please don't try to speak on behalf of the whole community. Comm net occlusion can wait indefinitely for all i care; I would rather their limited time and energy be spent find almost literally anything else.

[Periple]

I think Nate was pretty clear — priorities and resources. I do hope they’ll do more iterations on all the systems in due course, after the core roadmap features are in.

Until then, I’m fine with minimum viable solutions to everything. You can always add complexity if you need it, it’s much worse if you get bogged down polishing a secondary system.

(And yes I also would like comms occlusion!)

[Deadly_Laser]

15 hours ago, ChrisShourai said:

How do you possibly expect us to plan out an interstellar mission if you don’t want to bother spending time on UI development? 

That's not at all what is being said. Making a whole additional UI for the commnet isn't a priority *right now* as there are more pressing matters, doesn't mean it won't be implemented at all. You're talking about interstellar stuff, but that won't be relevant for a year at best, and it makes sense to tackle issues in order of their relevance to the current/soon-to-be state of the game, otherwise the dev team will simply drown in stuff to do.

Edited January 13 by Deadly_Laser

[BlackholeKS]

I'm not going to yell at anyone, but I do think that KSP 1 CommNet is a pretty essential part of the gameplay design of KSP that KSP 2 has ported over, especially in how certain transmitter types are designed. At the moment we have all the parts from KSP 1 that were meant to facilitate this part of the gameplay - relays being big dishes that need fairings, receivers being foldable, the different range levels increasing with size for different usages and craft types - except in KSP 2 it's all aesthetic and has no reason for existing, in fact if anything it all just gets in the way now. Such a big missed opportunity if not fixed, that shows that the core design of KSP 1 with respect to probes and comms just was not understood properly when developing the sequel. Maintaining signal on the ground and around other planets has always been a key consideration when I play. It's the whole reason to send probes, to set up satellites before landing like IRL, a reason to not just stick a Kerbal on every craft to begin with, therefore increasing mission variety. It's not something that should really need to be "explored again" because it's integrated with the entire scenario design, not something extra that is bolted on.

And if the reason is to try to discourage players from having to launch as many missions and have less space infrastructure, then respectfully, huh? Is the entire point of KSP 2 not to have more off-planet infrastructure, larger and more numerous craft, etc... and yet you're saying that they are trying to encourage a playstyle where players have fewer craft in orbit than the original due to performance? To the extent that they may cut an important and well loved feature that was the impetus for a huge swathe of the original game's content and gameplay loop? That seems like a fundamental failure of this project, and I highly, highly hope that it will not end up being the final state of things. I wanted to take the next step from KSP 1, building on what was there, not be offered cheat codes that sap the fun out of exploration.

Edited January 13 by BlackholeKS

[feradose.]

Really nice to see that the bugs are getting K.E.R.B.ed

[Vortygont]

It seems to me that heat shields are quite overpowered. I never lost more than 0.1 tons of ablator for small heatshield. Even when I did hyperbolic trajectory re entry after Moho-Kerbin transfer my craft lost only 0.07 tons. For bigger heatshields this value will be larger, but their square is larger and they have more ablator. Maybe ablation depends very much on duration of reentry and very low on speed

[Stephensan]

54 minutes ago, Vortygont said:

It seems to me that heat shields are quite overpowered. I never lost more than 0.1 tons of ablator for small heatshield. Even when I did hyperbolic trajectory re entry after Moho-Kerbin transfer my craft lost only 0.07 tons. For bigger heatshields this value will be larger, but their square is larger and they have more ablator. Maybe ablation depends very much on duration of reentry and very low on speed

i have absolutely sent in on a large build going around 8kms into kerbals astmophere and lost 0.2 tons. it really needs to be tweaked.

[Mitokandria]

20 hours ago, Little 908 said:

I hope so, that has been bothering me a lot.

Also, I'm not sure what the "Reproducible" status means on #12, but I hope it means its in progress. Thanks for the kerb.

I know it's already been pointed out, but wanted to add a bit more.

Bug Hunting and professional troubleshooting generally goes:

1. Reliably reproduce the error/glitch/issue
2. Systematically remove/modify variables to isolate exact conditions required to produce the error/glitch/issue
3. Investigate correlation of identified conditions and the error/glitch/issue.
4. Isolate and systematically modify code to resolve individual conditions.
5. Test code and attempt to reproduce the error/glitch/issue.
6. Repeat until error/glitch/issue is no longer reproducible

There may be more steps depending on the exact setup of the development team and design documentation. It's like a massive sudoku puzzle, but the more people you have providing data the more numbers get prefilled.

 

I'm super excited for the orbital decay fixes! I still sometimes get them, but not nearly as often. Sometimes I'm even able to stop the decay via short rapid bursts of thrust, spinning, and/or timewarping. Also really really really really want to see UI improvements. I do not have large monitors and I have an astigmatism in one eye making it very hard to read any of the UI and it's tiny font depending on which side of the screen it's on.

Edited January 13 by Mitokandria

[Jarin]

3 hours ago, Stephensan said:

i have absolutely sent in on a large build going around 8kms into kerbals astmophere and lost 0.2 tons. it really needs to be tweaked.

I remember it used to be much the same thing in KSP1. I figure balance tweaks are down the priority list a ways. Good to keep noting it, though.

[hatterson]

1 hour ago, Mitokandria said:

I know it's already been pointed out, but wanted to add a bit more.

Bug Hunting and professional troubleshooting generally goes:

1. Reliably reproduce the error/glitch/issue
2. Systematically remove/modify variables to isolate exact conditions required to produce the error/glitch/issue
3. Investigate correlation of identified conditions and the error/glitch/issue.
4. Isolate and systematically modify code to resolve individual conditions.
5. Test code and attempt to reproduce the error/glitch/issue.
6. Repeat until error/glitch/issue is no longer reproducible

There may be more steps depending on the exact setup of the development team and design documentation. It's like a massive sudoku puzzle, but the more people you have providing data the more numbers get prefilled.

 

I'm super excited for the orbital decay fixes! I still sometimes get them, but not nearly as often. Sometimes I'm even able to stop the decay via short rapid bursts of thrust, spinning, and/or timewarping. Also really really really really want to see UI improvements. I do not have large monitors and I have an astigmatism in one eye making it very hard to read any of the UI and it's tiny font depending on which side of the screen it's on.

And the key to this is really that they want to actually fix the issue and not just cover over it.

A mod like community fixes can often include a lot less code and discovery because it can take the "treat the symptom" approach instead of curing the disease. No orbital lines show up because your vehicle still says landing? No worries, just update the vehicle state to be correct. Rover spins out every 1000m? Maybe just reset some anchor every 500m behind the scenes.

Those types of fixes are fine when you're not really worried about long term maintainability, but instead are focused on just making the game play better. But when you're actually trying to properly fix them, as game developers absolutely should at this point of a project, the "what is wrong?" is just the very first step and there's a ton of work to go from knowing what is wrong to knowing why it's wrong and then even more work to go from there to knowing how to fix it without breaking a ton of other things.

[ChrisShourai]

8 hours ago, kdaviper said:

To be clear you may speak for a lot of people here, but please don't try to speak on behalf of the whole community. Comm net occlusion can wait indefinitely for all i care; I would rather their limited time and energy be spent find almost literally anything else.

Sorry, but I am telepathic, so it's impossible not to speak for everyone. 

6 hours ago, Deadly_Laser said:

That's not at all what is being said. Making a whole additional UI for the commnet isn't a priority *right now* as there are more pressing matters, doesn't mean it won't be implemented at all. You're talking about interstellar stuff, but that won't be relevant for a year at best, and it makes sense to tackle issues in order of their relevance to the current/soon-to-be state of the game, otherwise the dev team will simply drown in stuff to do.

To be clear, they're also not saying they will do that. There is no comment one way or the other, they left their comments ambiguous for a reason so they don't promise something they wont/can't deliver. Let's not deal in absolutes when assuming what goes on behind closed doors at Intercept. That said, I am still allowed to share my wants, opinions, etc, just like you and everyone else can. I didn't say they devs would or would not do anything, but my personal interpretation is that their ambiguity in answering means there is an equal possibility one feature I know a lot of people want sounds like it isn't a priority (which I hoped it would be) or even a possibility (which is disappointing, to me). Clear?

[Jaypeg]

3 hours ago, ChrisShourai said:

Sorry, but I am telepathic, so it's impossible not to speak for everyone. 

To be clear, they're also not saying they will do that. There is no comment one way or the other, they left their comments ambiguous for a reason so they don't promise something they wont/can't deliver. Let's not deal in absolutes when assuming what goes on behind closed doors at Intercept. That said, I am still allowed to share my wants, opinions, etc, just like you and everyone else can. I didn't say they devs would or would not do anything, but my personal interpretation is that their ambiguity in answering means there is an equal possibility one feature I know a lot of people want sounds like it isn't a priority (which I hoped it would be) or even a possibility (which is disappointing, to me). Clear?

all good, just trying to say the devs don't want to work on it now because of prioroties - dakota forgot to link them saying that they have much bigger fish to fry rn. would love to see commnet back though! 

[Devblaze]

Has anyone encountered a bug where you can't grab or enter your command pod?

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

On 1/13/2024 at 9:19 AM, Stephensan said:

i think it should just be an option to have simplified or something closer to Comnet, let the users decide if they want more of a realistic challenge, requiring more parts more launches etc to make there game more interesting.

 

 

 

I'm with you - wish the game simulated  space exploration, not just flight.  They're dumbing down a lot of stuff.  

I can only guess that's because they're pushing towards a Satisfactory-esque Resource Management mini-game with Colonies and RM.   Anything else is just background noise (Science) or icing (Interstellar).   The 'cake' of the game is stuff we haven't seen yet. 

[kdaviper]

7 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I'm with you - wish the game simulated  space exploration, not just flight.  They're dumbing down a lot of stuff.  

I can only guess that's because they're pushing towards a Satisfactory-esque Resource Management mini-game with Colonies and RM.   Anything else is just background noise (Science) or icing (Interstellar).   The 'cake' of the game is stuff we haven't seen yet. 

Yes they have streamlined a handful of things but I wouldn't say they have dumbed a whole lot down. 

Ksp2 is like a lasagna and we've only tasted the noodles so far.

[Fizzlebop Smith]

This seems to be my biggest hang up as well... not the lack of UI (as needed as It is)... but a deep seeded fear that the parts of KSP1 that truly dazzled me will be canned in order to appeal to a much wider market demographic. 

I know multi-player & colonies have been the major Wishlist since KSP1 started inspiring a whole generation kids to go into STEM fields.

I will keep my frustrations checked, in the hopes that the new paradigm works...

3+ year Early Release Period w/ community feed back has produced a couple epic games.

I can always load up KSP1 to wax nostalgic 

[Astroneer08]

What about the dialog issues with missions?