The Grand 0.25 Discussion Thread

[AlexinTokyo]

Yes, I get that as well. It seems to be a bit random as well, sometimes it's okay, other times it's like he's been thrown out at high speed.

Agreed. Trying to get EVA reports on a simple orbital flight, and have to jetpack back to the capsule every single time. Not to mention flying away again half the time when trying to grab the capsule ladder.

I wonder if this is related to the radial decoupler bug, which IIRC is due to bad assignment of velocity to child parts separating from a parent.

If I have enough time I'll do some proper testing and file a formal support/bug report.

[Horman]

It seems that the texture maps got some problems. Even in high detail they look... just bah...

[Megalodon 720]

Does anyone else have two of each part?

[Sky_walker]

Does anyone else have two of each part?

Not me (BTW: Looks like you're really, really unlucky with that patch :/ )

It seems that the texture maps got some problems. Even in high detail they look... just bah...

You mean textures on a ground or parts?

If it's ground textures - they are and were poor. I doubt they'll ever include any high definition textures there.

If it's for the parts - go to settings, try to untick/tick everything again, save, exit the game, run it again - it helped for me.

[soulsource]

Does anyone else have two of each part?

I don't experience that issue, but in the release notes it was mentioned that the paths of many part files were changed. So, if you just installed 0.25 on top of 0.24, you might have ended up with 2 copies of many parts... You might want to back up your save and reinstall the game.

[Megalodon 720]

Okay, I've Re-installed the game and I'm trying again now...

[r4pt0r]

snip- And as for new parts, I got contracted to do some more parts for Squad (!) that's gonna keep me busy for a while

Care to elaborate Mr.Jet?

[magnemoe]

At first thought I'm not that surprised that 80 tonnes hitting at 30mph causes some damage, but you wouldn't expect it to blow up the whole runway. The shuttle touched down at about 3m/s, Soyuz capsules kit the ground at 3-4m/s and the Orion capsule has been tested at 7m/s. However a quick calc suggests that's only about the equivalent of 1.6kg of TNT

Luckily I don't have this problem as I rarely manage to get my space planes to land on the runway rather the nice flat grass surrounding it

Yes, however an landing who don't disintegrate the ship should not have the runway / launch pad blow up at least without exploit style landing gear.

I actively avoid the runway then landing because of experience. Too high chance missing and hit the sides.

The area around is far harder to miss and you can drive to it.

if its not a plane I land on runway, mechjeb autopilot and change it to 3 degree south and it works 95% of the times.

[Bishop149]

So I hear tell that Spaceplane Plus has been integrated into 0.25 in such a way that means those of us who were already using it are penalized by getting errors when loading up craft containing SP+ parts.

This is because Squad saw fit to make oh so minor changes to the names by which the game refers to the parts, for example:

mk2FuselageLong.LFO renamed to mk2FuselageLongLFO, structuralWing1 renamed to structuralWing while structuralWing2 is not renamed

I'd like to ask Squad why exactly they did this? In terms of game functionality it does absolutely naff all except to break the save and craft files of those of us already using the parts and is an issue it would have been simplicity itself to avoid.

And please don't say it was to fit them in with some kind of Squad internal naming convention, I've poked around with enough of various file names / references in KSP to realise that there is no naming convention. . . at least not one with any kind of logical internal consistency!

[I_Killed_Jeb]

With all due respect it's not SQUAD's job to make sure your modded builds are functional after an update. I've had many criticisms of their decisions but the above strikes me as somewhat spoiled.

[Virtualgenius]

To be honest I don't really like this release cant exactly pinpoint why, it just doesnt seem as polished as the others and the new feature's well not really fussed about them, purely personal opinion but i still love the game and will continue to play it.

@Bishop149 Might have something to do with intellectual property rights dont know just guessing

Edited October 9, 2014 by Virtualgenius

[esinohio]

I was curious if anyone else has noticed the load time for KSP seems drastically shorter than before. Or are my old eyes/brain deceiving me? I've not dove into the patch notes as of yet so I'm not sure what sort of optimization was done but I'm loving this! The more I think on it just about every transition seems to be quicker.

[boxman]

anyone else who lost all the settings with this update?

all graphic settings are gone. i did the settings againg and now have the feeling that the GUI is not "sharp" and a little bit blurry... probably my eyes...

Has happened with all the updates for me when doing a clean install at least. I always have to reset the graphics/resolution as well as audio settings.

Since you say it is more blurry it is most likely the resolution that is wrong and not native to your monitor, so I suggest you check if it is running the right resolution for your monitor.

[Bishop149]

With all due respect it's not SQUAD's job to make sure your modded builds are functional after an update. I've had many criticisms of their decisions but the above strikes me as somewhat spoiled.

Usually I'd 100% agree the onus is on a modder to maintain compatibility but I'd argue this case is a little different from usual, seeing as the flow in in the opposite direction.

Squad are modifying someone else's work into the game rather that the other way round.

As far as I can see there is absolutely no reason to make the changes they did have unless they have merely taking umbride at how someone else has chosen to name things. There is no gameplay / functionality reason to have done it as shown by the fact the mod worked perfectly well as an addon to 24.2.

It just seems like a very very odd decision.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Bishop149

[Xavven]

Usually I'd 100% agree the onus is on a modder to maintain compatibility but I'd argue this case is a little different from usual, seeing as the flow in in the opposite direction.

Squad are modifying someone else's work into the game rather that the other way round.

As far as I can see there is absolutely no reason to make the changes they did have unless they have merely taking umbride at how someone else has chosen to name things. There is no gameplay / functionality reason to have done it as shown by the fact the mod worked perfectly well as an addon to 24.2.

It just seems like a very very odd decision.

I'd rather Squad work on completing the game as they envisioned than ensure that saves and craft files don't break from update to update. Once we hit 1.0, then sure, it's an absolute requirement, but we are all playing an early release game. Compared to other early release games, I'd say Squad has been better than most at releasing bug-fixed alpha versions. The alternative is that we don't get to play the game until it's on full release. As usual, the user assumes the risk!

[Mattasmack]

I really hoped that annoying issue would be fixed with 0.25... Does the old workaround still work?

I didn't know about that workaround! I'll give it a try next time I play. Thanks for pointing it out!

[Franklin]

So only the grand three net reputation on return? Or maybe my custom named kerbonauts just don't count. Eitherway seems out of sorts.

Apologies if it's been said already but I didn't see it anywhere.

I think they actually disabled it for now to avoid an exploit, check the change log:

* Kerbal recovery reward set to zero for the time being, to stop reputation exploit from recovery at the launchpad.

[Seio]

Well, the administrator building allows you to be very lazy... Just take 2 small ships, and send them to kerbin, mun (and minmus if you want), make sure you have solar panels and an antenna. Then you get one of these rep -> science in the administrators building, and so you get lots of science, money and some rep for every time you transmit a crew-report on stationary vessels around whatever planets/moons you want.

But, you can scale that I suppose, with the difficulty changers... And I think it's better that devs spend their time on features, and maybe reworking how science works, and leave the balancing and proper contracts to modders.

[problemecium]

For the record I'm really liking 0.25 so far. To me it seems very shiny and added surprisingly few bugs (I haven't found any yet, and it resolved some existing ones). I'm also glad that they didn't take away the existing "engine body" intakes, even if the new fuselage intake makes at least one of them redundant.

It also seems, although I haven't double-checked, that the prices of Science equipment have been hiked, which sure does add some challenge for me.

[MescudiBarton]

I can't even start KSP with this .25 update. Any ideas or help?

[Red Iron Crown]

I was curious if anyone else has noticed the load time for KSP seems drastically shorter than before. Or are my old eyes/brain deceiving me? I've not dove into the patch notes as of yet so I'm not sure what sort of optimization was done but I'm loving this! The more I think on it just about every transition seems to be quicker.

It was mentioned that some loading optimizations were done for this version. From the changelog:

* Set up a transition matrix system to bypass unnecessary loading screens on some scene transitions.

[Madrias]

I've also noticed the start load time being quicker, even comparing .24.5 stock against .25 stock. I'm glad to see this. Crashing is no longer a significant annoyance. (and yes, I do insist on playing in x64 mode. It's actually more stable for me than x86.)

[ahappydude]

Some strange errors for me, so i stick to 24.5 a bit longer

[problemecium]

Since this seems to be the most relevant thread, is anyone else having trouble flying the new stock Learstar shuttle thing? I find it likes to tip backward and neither the SAS nor manual controls are able to fight it past 11km or so, which makes for rather short missions xP

[Franklin]

Since this seems to be the most relevant thread, is anyone else having trouble flying the new stock Learstar shuttle thing? I find it likes to tip backward and neither the SAS nor manual controls are able to fight it past 11km or so, which makes for rather short missions xP

The Learstar seems to've inadvertently become the stock vehicle example of why 100% throttle 100% of the time doesn't always work. Try stepping down throttle as your lift out of the soup, you'll find the handles a lot smoother.