Release KSP2 Release Notes - Update v0.2.1.0

[The Aziz]

....in most cases, by reloading or trying other things that usually make the chutes open in the end.

[Vanamonde]

Please avoid criticizing each other's opinions. We don't need to be opponents about this sort of thing. 

[Bej Kerman]

[snip]

As far as I can tell, it's normal behaviour for the parachutes to not open if you're travelling too fast.

Edited February 1 by Vanamonde

[Starwaster]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

As far as I can tell, it's normal behaviour for the parachutes to not open if you're travelling too fast.

You're not understanding what the problem is. There's an issue where the chutes on a craft will not open that has nothing to do with whether it is safe or not.  Save/Reload doesn't work either.  The only fix is to replace the chute part in the VAB because it's the craft that is affected and the problem is saved to the craft file so once it occurs, that particular craft is bugged. The problem is real whether you've experienced it or not.

[NexusHelium]

If I am not mistaken, this thread may need to calm down a tiny bit. If anyone would like, someone can revive this age old thread from beyond the archives of the KSP 1 forums.  I'm no moderator or anything like that but I might be able to tell when things are starting to get a teensy bit tense. 

 

Edited February 2 by NexusHelium

[ArmchairGravy]

Did this update break Hammer solid fuel engines for anyone else? I have a pod on a Hammer, I've adjusted the thrust limiter to where the engineer report says TWR of 1.6, and it's just sitting on the launch pad when ignited.

[Scarecrow71]

30 minutes ago, ArmchairGravy said:

Did this update break Hammer solid fuel engines for anyone else? I have a pod on a Hammer, I've adjusted the thrust limiter to where the engineer report says TWR of 1.6, and it's just sitting on the launch pad when ignited.

Is the engine bell occluded by anything?  Does this happen with any other engines?  Pic of the craft?

[hatterson]

Yay I just noticed they fixed one of the bugs I reported. I'm helping!

Shush to you people saying how it's one of the most minor bugs possible. I'm gonna take credit where I can 

[Meecrob]

Its not his construction or descent profile. I and a lot of other players get the same thing. For me, it seemed to disappear when I staged the parachutes within 2000m of their opening altitude, but the bug still pops up from time to time. I would have to agree that it makes the game unplayable when it does pop up because it causes a mission failure even though you did everything correctly. Yes, the game did not CTD or anything, but the frustration level is in excess of what is reasonably considered fun. Terminology may differ, but we are all mature people here, we can understand that one person might not be going by the dictionary definition, and is merely expressing their personal experience...and they, in-fact, stopped playing the game due to the bugs. No matter what you call it, when bugs make people rage-quit, its not a good thing.

[MechBFP]

I haven’t had much time to try the new patch but so far it appears the orbital camera is indeed fixed, despite it missing from the patch notes, so your mileage may vary on that I suppose. 

[Starwaster]

[snip]

I don't know if you saw what I posted earlier, but when the parachute bug happens (and yes, it IS as bug and it DOES happen so just ignore anyone who says it's you) then that specific part on that craft is bugged and it needs to be fixed in the VAB. Happens a lot to me, usually when the part was radially placed and possibly in symmetry.  Unfortunately, that won't help if it's already in flight and en route to landing.

Edited February 1 by Vanamonde

[Vanamonde]

Some people are having trouble with parachutes. Some people aren't. The ones who are not, please stop telling the ones who are that they aren't. 

Since we've asked this once already, that argument has now been removed from this thread. If it persists we will have to start issuing warnings. 

[ArmchairGravy]

14 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

Is the engine bell occluded by anything?  Does this happen with any other engines?  Pic of the craft?

I've not noticed it on other engines, but I'm not deep into the tree on this save yet. 

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[MechBFP]

8 hours ago, ArmchairGravy said:

I've not noticed it on other engines, but I'm not deep into the tree on this save yet. 

  Hide contents

  Hide contents

 

On the right side of the staging display there is a little arrow you can press to show the current TWR in flight. Can you expand that and confirm what the TWR is?

[cocoscacao]

On 2/1/2024 at 2:53 AM, Starwaster said:

You're not understanding what the problem is. There's an issue where the chutes on a craft will not open that has nothing to do with whether it is safe or not.

One of the things I never understood (nor tested) is how they are supposed to behave. Minimum altitude vs pressure. Which one wins? Or both must be satisfied?

[Scarecrow71]

@ArmchairGravy

I'm going to probably agree with @MechBFP on this one and state that your TWR is probably less than 1 here.  Which makes this a bug in that either the TWR isn't calculating properly (you are showing 1.65 in the VAB) OR that the engine isn't outputting thrust accurately.

[Periple]

1 hour ago, cocoscacao said:

One of the things I never understood (nor tested) is how they are supposed to behave. Minimum altitude vs pressure. Which one wins? Or both must be satisfied?

Both. 

[hatterson]

13 hours ago, ArmchairGravy said:

I've not noticed it on other engines, but I'm not deep into the tree on this save yet. 

  Hide contents

  Hide contents

 

Figured it out! Yay bug fixing progress!

It appears that when you throttle limit SRBs the in flight thrust gets double throttled.

Per specs the Hammer should create 197.9 kN of thrust at 1atm. If you launch from the launchpad at 100% thrust, this is reported at 198.44 (close enough since you're a few meters above sea level on the pad). If you launch at 49% thrust limiter (as you have) you'd expect 99.22 kN of thrust in flight. However it looks like that 49% is being applied twice so instead of 198.44 * .49 = 99.22 it is 198.44 * .49 * .49 = 47.645 kN. Reported in flight thrust for me shows as 47.65kN. That means that instead of the expected (and reported in VAB) TWR of 1.65 you end up with a real TWR of only ~.81 which is why you have to burn a bunch of the fuel before it finally takes off.

Clydesdale is 2948.9 kN of thrust at 100%. If I launch it at 75% thrust I should get ~2211 if it's accurate, but with the double throttle I'm expecting ~1658. If I go at 25% throttle I should get ~737 but actually expect to get 184 with the doubling. I typed that up for the Clydesdale without testing to show that it works. Testing now....and verified I get the double throttled numbers.

This does *not* appear to affect throttleable engines (at least the few I tried, didn't do an exhaustive test). If you set those at 50% in the VAB and then launch it has the slider at 50% in flight and the correct 50% thrust is shown.  It also doesn't appear to affect sepratrons or the launch escape motor.

I'll write up a bug report now.

Edit: I see you alreadh had the bug report, will add this info to it.

Edited February 2 by hatterson

[Starwaster]

On 2/2/2024 at 9:55 AM, cocoscacao said:

One of the things I never understood (nor tested) is how they are supposed to behave. Minimum altitude vs pressure. Which one wins? Or both must be satisfied?

The settings are

Min Pressure = pre-deployment. The chutes are reefed. (that is, they are not fully inflated)

Deploy Altitude = This is the altitude at which the chutes go from reefed to full deployment.

The pressure setting is at 0.01 kPa by default. This is not a very safe setting. Set it at 0.5 or higher. That will redeploy at around 4400 meters.

[cocoscacao]

10 hours ago, Starwaster said:

Deploy Altitude

Sea or ground? I assume sea, but I always set altitude to 1.5km (cause I am lazy to wait), and so far I haven't got any trouble....

[Bej Kerman]

16 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

Sea or ground? I assume sea, but I always set altitude to 1.5km (cause I am lazy to wait), and so far I haven't got any trouble....

Ground

[ChicagoTaco]

On 1/30/2024 at 10:13 PM, ShadowZone said:

Nice, about 6 weeks after "For Science" came out, we have the first patch quite a few issues I encountered myself are (nominally) fixed. Haven't been able to launch the game yet, but that will change soon

As per usual, here's the bugfix stats:

Version	Total items	Community	% of total
0.1.1	281	42	15%
0.1.2	173	36	21%
0.1.3	165	17	10%
0.1.4	81	9	11%
0.1.5	86	11	13%
0.2.0	156	0	0%
0.2.1	68	14	21%

While the patch with the least number of changes, we have to consider that the Christmas holidays and New Year's was in between. Also a lot of issues that were found and fixed thanks to the community.

Some more numbers:
Including the initial 0.1.0 release, we had 8 releases since February 24th 2023. On average, that's almost 7 weeks between releases.
Soooooo, mid March for 0.2.2?

It would be nice to see a 'percentage of total votes' column (i.e if there are 3 bugs, bug A with 10 votes, and bugs B and C with 5, fixing bug A would be 50% of the votes). I think that better shows how the dev team is tackling the most pertinent issues players are highlighting.

[Alpha_star]

I might be a little late, but happy to see the game continuing to get better! Reentry plasma is sure much better, but I still hope for more motion-ish ones and some particle effects intergrated.

[stephensmat]

@Nate Simpson, I know you've said in the past that Colonies will hopefully take less time than For Science!. Obviously, I'm not going to ask for a release date, but after a month, are you still hopeful for the shorter turnaround time, or has the feedback pushed the plan back again?

Edited February 10 by stephensmat

[The Aziz]

On 1/30/2024 at 7:00 PM, Intercept Games said:

Improved: RSCM-01 "Sample Grabber" arm incorrectly deploys in many situations

Should've said "worsened" cuz now it doesn't deploy.