KSP 0.90 'Beta Than Ever' Grand Discussion Thread!

[basic.syntax]

We're probably straying off topic for this thread. Maybe open a new support thread for this? I do have one last suggestion. Just paste that code into the save you do have and see what happens. If it doesn't work, then just restore the backup and try to get support. I'm sure there are others experiencing the same issue. There may or may not be a fix.

This is a thread in Support opened mainly for the 64-bit career problems, it may have some things you can try now, like force-destroying your buildings, and new stuff may pop in, as more folks post in it. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/103115-The-buildings-start-out-fully-upgraded-in-career-mode%21-Please-please-help%21

[Camacha]

Who said SSTO's are hard?

[djnattyd]

I only have 2gb and I run fine with KSP, lincourtl! What else do you have running? (Check the Task Manager, and also check to make sure you're displaying all, not just for your process).

Admittedly, I close Steam, my browser, my stupid programs that my Printer wants running, my MOM.exe and whatever else the dumb catalyst control panel wants runnin--- I kill everyhing not absolutely needed... But damnit, KSP RUNS!! -- And I've yet to have a single crash with 0.90.

Also, kill Explorer.exe as that uses a ton of RAM.

[cantab]

As a workaround, you can get to the Mun using the old-school, pre-maneuver node method: Get into an eastward low kerbin orbit, burn prograde when the Mun rises.

Or even easier: burn until your orbit touches the Mun's, and wait.

The biggest improvement I can find is the builder area/machine can now sustain 50-60 FPS trying to build and work on 800-880 part ships now (used to be 5-10 FPS) and cpu usage flies up a lot during this.

Well, this makes a lot of sense, since the VAB/SPH had a lot of work done on them. And good to hear there being a performance improvement here, because VAB lag was incredibly annoying.

However, sadly.. we get out to go flying and it still runs single-digit FPS with complex ships. So multi-threaded or not, sadly.. we still can not fly big complex ships without a huge performance penalty.

This also makes sense. The CPU-heavy physics calculations don't need doing in the VAB. They haven't been changed much if at all in this update.

I do some day wish SQUAD would fix these glaring performance problems that have been plauging the game for years one of these updates though.

I think everyone does. But it's generally regarded as beyond Squad's control, since they don't develop the game engine.

I think they are going to need to implement more for engineers to do. As it is now, I have zero use for them.

Repacking chutes is probably the biggest one.If you're doing a Duna mission where the lander comes back to Kerbin and you didn't take an engineer, you're gonna be in for a nasty surprise.

o really, the runway's roughness is a non-issue in many ways so.. why is so bumpy?

A few people have mentioned this. As I see it, the runway is about right, but the rest of Kerbin is too smooth. Even on high terrain detail, it's made of polygons that are individually pretty large and flat, mainly because it needs to be a model of a whole planet.

But I do think they missed a trick on changing the runway length. The lower tier ones could have had the far end be a bunch of piles of dirt or rubble or something, so you need to get off the runway before hitting them.

Is it just me or does the tech tree seem to be ordered completely wrong. I'm often getting parts that I can't use at all (granted some of these parts are from mods). I'm getting space plane parts before I've even gotten the landing gear for a plane.

Whole aircraft parachutes are a thing. More generally all the parts you get can be used, just some might require a bit of jury rigging.

Also, kill Explorer.exe as that uses a ton of RAM.

IIRC the bleeding thing just respawns when you do. You have to delete system32 to stop it respawning, but KSP needs system32 to run.

[Bloody_looser]

Old-school flying without maneuver nodes feels good

[WanderingKid]

LOL Bloody! So much electric! What did you do, SAS roll it there?!

[Dman979]

Anyone else noticed that this update has just set the record for most users on at one time?

[barfing_skull]

Alright, after making a simple ship to test asparagus staging with the new fuel lines, it worked. I think the problem is that fuel lines don't carry over from previous vessels. I'll have to try replacing all the lines in one of my older designs.

Part of my confusion, too, is that I don't think MechJeb is correctly accounting for delta-v in the new fuel line scheme, something that was acknowledged over in that thread. I may have to get one of their dev builds for that.

Thanks for the suggestions!

-BS

[Loligoat]

I defiantly gained a new appreciation for patched conics and SAS. With the 1st tier VAB I couldn't make a piloted Mun lander, so I made an automated one with the Stayputnik. I had to judge the intercept from experience, and landing without SAS was quite the challenge with only engine gimbling for control. I managed to pull it off, but just barely. I had 7 units of liquid fuel left and nearly fell over on landing.

Also...

That's part of the Fine Print mod, and was there when it was only a mod. My assumption is there's a way to adjust it in the config files... *looks* Whoops, it's not. Anywhere in the SOI is considered a viable choice, though, if I remember correctly. My default satellite was built with a little under 1,500 dV so it could get itself where it was going without a tug unless it was ridiculous... and in that case I just avoided the contract unless it was juicy. Just need an LV-909 and a toroidal tank.

It seems to have been a one time thing. I quit the game and when I came back it had been reduced to something more reasonable. I found it unusual because when I played with the mod none of them ever went too far past the Mun.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Loligoat

[WuphonsReach]

Test RT-10 Solid Fuel Booster landed at Kerbin:

Payout for completion is just 46 funds and 4 reputation.

Parts testing prices really need to be re-examined now that they are competing for limited "active contract" slots. They should probably have a base reward of 2000 funds for static (no need to launch) testing, and flight testing in Kerbin's atmosphere needs about a 4000 base reward. The cost of the part should also be factored into the advance/completion payouts.

In comparison, being asked to test a Sepratron I on a sub-orbit trajectory on Kerbin has a payout of around 11.6k funds.

[Bloody_looser]

LOL Bloody! So much electric! What did you do, SAS roll it there?!

Nah, I rolled it back:D

New pilot skill, especially holding prograde\retrograde, tends to drain electricity way too quickly.

[GTC]

Is it just me or does the tech tree seem to be ordered completely wrong.

Not just you. The tech tree has never made sense and I have no idea why Squad hasn't addressed it. I was surprised they still have the manned pod before a probe as the simplest example. Vostok before Sputnik? Huh? I can build a machine to land on the moon but not invent the ladder or steel cube?

[KyleKidd]

Check out my first impressions of update .90. I play for about 20 minutes, which admittedly is a short time to see all the new features.

Certainly not my most entertaining video, but I thought I should do it anyways. No editing, just raw game footage for 20 minutes with live commentary.

Please SUBSCRIBE so you don't miss out on more spotlights, reviews, and Let's Plays: http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=spectorkidd

http://youtu.be/T7ar6KlW0Ao

[Superfluous J]

Test RT-10 Solid Fuel Booster landed at Kerbin:

Payout for completion is just 46 funds and 4 reputation.

Parts testing prices really need to be re-examined now that they are competing for limited "active contract" slots. They should probably have a base reward of 2000 funds for static (no need to launch) testing, and flight testing in Kerbin's atmosphere needs about a 4000 base reward. The cost of the part should also be factored into the advance/completion payouts.

In comparison, being asked to test a Sepratron I on a sub-orbit trajectory on Kerbin has a payout of around 11.6k funds.

You know you can test an SRB on the launch pad for *free* right? Pod, SRB under it, empty the fuel, launch, spacebar, recover. Bam. You just earned 46 bucks and people like you a little more. This is infinitely cheaper than testing ANYTHING in space, even a tiny little sepratron.

[R0CKSTAR3N3RGY]

Having an issue where I can no longer see my trajectory/apo/periapsis in the map, anyone else?

[troyfawkes]

OK So... I know that probably no one cares about this except me... but...

I was messing with the window size in settings (I always keep it one size smaller than my monitor because otherwise the toolbar covers it) when I accidentally switched the size up to the same size as my monitor and hit apply. For a second I thought I'd actually chosen full screen. Nope, just a change in the functionality I guess.

Why is this important?

Two reasons.

1) Because KSP in full screen mode doesn't load modules in the background. If your game crashes in full screen mode, you have to start it up again and can't pop out to do something else while your (admit it) 40 bajillion mods load up.

2) I get tons of errors in my logs every time I alt-tab out of full screen KSP; that had to contribute to shenanigans AKA EVAing into a solar orbit from LKO somehow.

...So yup, I'm already sold on .90

[boxman]

So are rover wheels glitches for anyone else?? If i turn the wheel one of the wheels glitches when it comes to animation which makes it look like they are moving back and forward very quickly. If i turn to other direction then other wheel does it instead.

[David H]

Having an issue where I can no longer see my trajectory/apo/periapsis in the map, anyone else?

Upgrade the tracking center.

[SickSix]

I do want to put my vote in for moving plane way down the tech tree. Seems very backwards to how aviation and space exploration progressed. Landing gear are way to high in the tech tree for one thing. It is really hard trying to do precision flyby surveys with primitive rockets with no guidance. basic jets should be the first thing we try to fly with in my mind.

Edited December 17, 2014 by SickSix
spelling and grammar

[Yellowburn10]

I also agree that the tech tree should be revised, but not just one way. I think squad should add multiple ways to order the tech tree. What I mean by that is, say, what if you got to choose if you wanted to start your game with manned parts, or unmanned parts? Or choose between rocket parts and spaceplane parts? That sort of thing. When Squad revises the tech tree, they should have this in mind.

Now, concerning THIS update, I absolutely love it! I'm finding fun new career challenges with the buildings and contracts, and building challenges with the mk3 parts. One tip for the parts though: WINGS. These things require a huge wing surface in order to get off the ground or to even glide well. But make sure to find a balance between that and drag, because as most of us know too many wings equals too much drag.

[kithylin]

OK So... I know that probably no one cares about this except me... but...

I was messing with the window size in settings (I always keep it one size smaller than my monitor because otherwise the toolbar covers it) when I accidentally switched the size up to the same size as my monitor and hit apply. For a second I thought I'd actually chosen full screen. Nope, just a change in the functionality I guess.

Why is this important?

Two reasons.

1) Because KSP in full screen mode doesn't load modules in the background. If your game crashes in full screen mode, you have to start it up again and can't pop out to do something else while your (admit it) 40 bajillion mods load up.

2) I get tons of errors in my logs every time I alt-tab out of full screen KSP; that had to contribute to shenanigans AKA EVAing into a solar orbit from LKO somehow.

...So yup, I'm already sold on .90

If you're having problems waiting on KSP to load modules.. you need to seriously look in to computer upgrades. Mainly storage I/O upgrades. You can pick up a 32GB 6 Gbps SSD on ebay for $24 used, just get one and install KSP there if you have to. I have my whole system on the gaming computer on a newish 1TB samsung pro SSD, starting KSP with a few modules and the load time is about 15 seconds from clicking start KSP to being at the main menu.

[Avalon304]

If you're having problems waiting on KSP to load modules.. you need to seriously look in to computer upgrades. Mainly storage I/O upgrades. You can pick up a 32GB 6 Gbps SSD on ebay for $24 used, just get one and install KSP there if you have to. I have my whole system on the gaming computer on a newish 1TB samsung pro SSD, starting KSP with a few modules and the load time is about 15 seconds from clicking start KSP to being at the main menu.

If you are running KSP in full screen mode, and tab away for any reason to attempt to do something while it loads, it doesnt actually load until its the active program again. Running it in fullscreen-windowed or just windowed mode bypasses this.

[LordFerret]

Not just you. The tech tree has never made sense and I have no idea why Squad hasn't addressed it. I was surprised they still have the manned pod before a probe as the simplest example. Vostok before Sputnik? Huh? I can build a machine to land on the moon but not invent the ladder or steel cube?

Likewise... but I'm just rolling with it.

[Fr8monkey]

I haven't found this anywhere and I am too lazy to flip through pages...

I built a satellite for a mission and put in a small SAS module. I hit "T" and says it has no SAS; and the ship spins uncontrollably... Did I miss something?

[ElloMello]

Okay so I have this wierd glitch where all of my facilities appear to be fully upgraded but they really aren't. This is in career mode and stuff. Anyone have this too?