KSP 0.90 'Beta Than Ever' Grand Discussion Thread!

[Udsahn]

Is it just me, or did the new patch change some of the physics dramatically?

I've been noticing that whenever I EVA that my Kerbals seem to always let go of the craft rather than hold on. I've also noticed that one of the crafts I sent to and landed on Minmus would 'catapult' my Kerbals if I tried to go into EVA.

Just recently I even tried to just extend the landing gear I put on a space ship that had them retracted at the launch pad on Kerbin. Once the feet touched the ground the ship tilted to the right (It was balanced, fyi) and fell over/destroyed itself.

I do have it pretty heftily modded, though. Gonna try a fresh install to see if it still happens.

[lordqarlyn]

Is it just me, or did the new patch change some of the physics dramatically?

I've been noticing that whenever I EVA that my Kerbals seem to always let go of the craft rather than hold on. I've also noticed that one of the crafts I sent to and landed on Minmus would 'catapult' my Kerbals if I tried to go into EVA.

Just recently I even tried to just extend the landing gear I put on a space ship that had them retracted at the launch pad on Kerbin. Once the feet touched the ground the ship tilted to the right (It was balanced, fyi) and fell over/destroyed itself.

I do have it pretty heftily modded, though. Gonna try a fresh install to see if it still happens.

I have had this problem since .24, particularly with the Mk1 capsules. it's really annoying, since EVAs are essential to the game.

[wolfedg]

What the heck happened to that absolutely beeyootiful set of Tier 1 buildings, with the barn and caravans, that we were shown some time back? I was looking forward to seeing those in-game, the things it starts with at the moment look like place-holders, and, well, rather dull. The barn and caravans seemed very KSP 'Hey, we've got nowt but a barn and some stuff taped to caravans, and some tools and 'spolsives, but we're going to space (or give it our best shot, anyway), yay!' kind of thing, whereas the current Tier 1 look rather clinical and, well, dull. I do hope we get to see the barn+caravans in the finished game!

There is a thread for that- http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/103299-Where-is-my-barn

[cantab]

Is it just me, or did the new patch change some of the physics dramatically?

I've been noticing that whenever I EVA that my Kerbals seem to always let go of the craft rather than hold on. I've also noticed that one of the crafts I sent to and landed on Minmus would 'catapult' my Kerbals if I tried to go into EVA.

This is a stock bug, it was around in .25 but seems to be worse in .90. There's some thought that stuff near the hatch, where the Kerbal would appear, worsens it, so try and keep the space clear.

Just recently I even tried to just extend the landing gear I put on a space ship that had them retracted at the launch pad on Kerbin. Once the feet touched the ground the ship tilted to the right (It was balanced, fyi) and fell over/destroyed itself.

Landing gear has suspension, and if heavily loaded that can compress a lot. A small initial tilt will grow as the CoM shifts towards the most-compressed leg, and if the ship is top-heavy enough it can tip. Again, not a new problem in .90 I don't think. I'll also point out that landing gear aren't meant to be used like that

[Esme]

Ithankyou! (sigh - really REALLY must get new glasses soon! 8-} )

[Udsahn]

I have had this problem since .24, particularly with the Mk1 capsules. it's really annoying, since EVAs are essential to the game.

Strange. I've just now started to notice the problem. Maybe when I upgrade to the MKII the same issue won't be as bad.

This is a stock bug, it was around in .25 but seems to be worse in .90. There's some thought that stuff near the hatch, where the Kerbal would appear, worsens it, so try and keep the space clear.

Will do, although I've noticed the 'letting go of the ship in EVA' happen in space without anything on the pod itself. Maybe it's simply because I was using the MKI at the time.

Landing gear has suspension, and if heavily loaded that can compress a lot. A small initial tilt will grow as the CoM shifts towards the most-compressed leg, and if the ship is top-heavy enough it can tip. Again, not a new problem in .90 I don't think. I'll also point out that landing gear aren't meant to be used like that

Funny enough I've used it that way plenty of times in the past . It does look like it's an issue with craft weight though. Although I find it strange still because it's as if the legs 'enter' the planet before it starts to calculate the physics/weight on the landing structs rather than simply having the feet stick to the ground because it's too heavy to lift it. Or appears to at least (goes under the grating on the landing pad on my end).

Then it tosses the ship violently about. And by toss I 'do' mean toss hehe. It flies off to one side briefly before coming crashing to the ground.

The test weight was a 5,990kg lander with 6 LT-1s. I recall having built much heavier landers in the past without the same problem (I think they were around 20k or 30k heavy landers, but had maybe three times the landing struts).

[kithylin]

That wasn't the question. Yes, there have been changes (and fuel lines are no longer working to transfer fuel because of this, even though they still appear in place). The question was regarding struts (which also have changed code but still appear in place).

The question: Do the old struts still perform their function as struts when the old file is opened in 0.90?

(NOTE: Some of us consider it a challenge to keep our old save games working as new versions are released. I've been keeping mine going successfully since version 0.18, and hope to work through the problems of getting everything to work in 0.90. I don't have problems with crashing, except when KSP reaches the memory limit, and that happens to me even with a clean install if I run long enough.)

Yes, I know I did not address your fuel line issues. But you did mention you are opening old saves period. Which is generally a VeryBadIdea. I don't want to sound mean, but I doubt you'll get much help if you keep doing that. Generally we re-start all game progress every update, it's the price we pay with an in-development game. Besides fuel lines not working right any more, unknown countless other things were probably changed, re-written or just don't work the way they used to anymore.

[Guest Space Cowboy]

Symmetry mode overriding me. I am trying to use R but cannot use Mirror mode.

I AM ENJOYING THE STRUT IMPLEMENTATION - NO MORE GUESSWORK!

Edited December 20, 2014 by Space Cowboy

[I_Killed_Jeb]

definitely running into bugs here and there, anyone else find more bugs than usual?

[boxman]

Symmetry mode overriding me. I am trying to use R but cannot use Mirror mode.

I AM ENJOYING THE STRUT IMPLEMENTATION - NO MORE GUESSWORK!

It is broken for me as well.. Still have to use SPH to make rovers unless i place each wheel manually.

And about struts.. It never was guess work if you aligned them and the camera properly.

From the videos and streams i have seen it seems like most people never really learned how to place them correctly.

[ArmchairGravy]

I think the upgrade costs on the R&D building need lowered a bit. I will have everything available unlocked once my Mun science mission comes home, but only have 1.2mil of the 3.1mil in funds. I've been placing satellites and stations, and am getting ready to probe Duna, Ike, and Eve. This will still leave me a million short for just the R&D upgrade, not to mention the rest of the space center (launch pad is the only one maxed ATM). I guess the payouts on the upcoming gather science missions will help, but it's a bit discouraging like the early game is. Mid-game was perfect. The start and the transition to end-game are too grindy IMHO, and the R&D building is a main culprit.

[TheFactory]

I think the upgrade costs on the R&D building need lowered a bit. I will have everything available unlocked once my Mun science mission comes home, but only have 1.2mil of the 3.1mil in funds. I've been placing satellites and stations, and am getting ready to probe Duna, Ike, and Eve. This will still leave me a million short for just the R&D upgrade, not to mention the rest of the space center (launch pad is the only one maxed ATM). I guess the payouts on the upcoming gather science missions will help, but it's a bit discouraging like the early game is. Mid-game was perfect. The start and the transition to end-game are too grindy IMHO, and the R&D building is a main culprit.

See now I thought the same but actually now I'm playing through it I think the costs for the buildings are perfectly balanced. In the start the game forces you to use planes to do the survey missions which has really revived an interest in atmospheric stuff for me. The middle game is also challenging as it forces you to do things you might not normally do.

As an example yesterday I got a contract to Launch a satellite in a stationary Equatorial orbit around minmus - The payout was 1.2million! I strapped a lander to it as well and put a kerbal down whilst I was there, I think I got 695 science as well. That's a big enough payout to make that RnD tier not too much of a grind. Put a few stations and sats up and you can easily get the required funds.

The only thing that's wrong currently in my opinion is the tech tree - seriously they invented the jet engine before the landing gear? There needs to be a probe in the first tier and there should be the ability to build a rover earlier that present. Other than that I don't mind everything else - great update!

[Esme]

Things I've learnt in the last 24 hours:

1. I am somewhat a victim of too much previous experience and as a result had managed to overlook a few things here and there. Thanks to Scott Manley's video on getting started in 0.90 for making me re-assess and look at the game ab initio properly.

2. Having started going through the tutorials (which I had not realised had been updated - haven;t seen any mention of that anywhere previously), I went through them up to the Munar landing one. The service module apepars to have barely enough fuel - IMO it ought to be a larger tank back there, bearing in mind the idea is to teach beginners. At the end of this tutorial, it reccomends the player have a go at trying to land. This startled me, because trying to actually land on the Mun is far and away the hardest most challenging thing I've encountered in the game thus far.

The problem here is (a) no height above ground readout ( the speed indicator seems to be able to go from teens of metres per second downwards to teens of metres per second upwards without bothering to go through zero in-between. It was impossible to make a gentle landing in the LEM provided, given teh uneven surface of the Mun. In my opinion, some kind of height over ground indication AND indicator whether vertical veklocity is positive or negative is essential. An rough angle of slope indicator of some sort would be helpful too. Also, © harking back to the probes before Kerbals or vice-versa thing, because Munar landings are so difficult there is no way that I would ever want to attempt to land on the Mun with Kerbals before I've done the job with a probe first (and hopefully managed to find a relatively flat spot for a manned craft to aim for).

This is due to my psychology - I have noticed that I really get immersed in games I'm playing, to a greater extent than some of my friends. In Minecraft, I can get claustrophobic in mines, vertigo up heights and dislike being anywhere too dark. Similarly in KSP, I really do NOT view my Kerbals as expendable, and regard every time one of them dies as a tragedy. Whilst losing one in , say, a freak landing accident on Minmus is sad (I'm very au fait with landing stuff on Minmus), Munar landings as things currently are is so difficult - to me - that I am loathe to attempt to put Kerbals on the surface of the Mun, except on places that I know are flat (and I don't know why many say that the interior of craters tend to be flat - they don't seem any better than anywhere else to me). And to explore the rest of the Mun, I want to be able to use rovers, rather than have to repeat the process of using probes to find relatively flat spots, then follow up with a manned landing - which might well be economically uintenable in career mode.

3. The EVA bug also makes it rather fraught to collect science on EVA. I'm a lot better at EVA manouvering in orbit than I used to be, but when I press F for my Kerbal to grab a ladder, I expect them to do just that, not suddenly twist and zoom off into the black at a great rate of knots! During the Career game I started (but am going to have to abandon - simply ran out of funds), one one mission, I landed Jeb in the desert, which was a biome that hadn't been visited before. He couldn't get at teh hatch just by walking close to it, so I tried jumping and aiding the jump with the rocket pack on his suit. This did the trick, but the instant the F(grab) indicator lit, he suddenly zoomed a good 10 metres straight up into the air - far higher than a jetpack can take a Kerbal on Kerbin's surface!

4. I don't like that Mission Control is where we get contracts from. That should be from an admin building. Mission control should be a place that sends and receives data during flight. I noticed that in some of the tutorials, Gene Kerman is giving information that otherwise would not be available to you. I liked that a lot. Might I suggest that perhaps there is always the option to consult with Mission Control the plus side of which is that you get extra info, the negative side of which could be a loss in reputation (and possibly science and cash as well, as is necessary for game-balance)? That way, the expert pilots amongst us that get into a rare scrape can call on Gene in an emergency, whilst those lesser pilots (like me) can use Gene's advice more often - and get a sense of achievement as we find we need to call on him less and less often? Right now, I really, really want Gene talking me down on Munar landings, and giving me those altitude over surface readings!

I'm still not convinced that Career mode is for me in its current incarnation (which is, of course, Beta!). I AM, however, very glad that it's there, as I can see how much it adds to potential gameplay, and I cannot express how delighted I am that KSP allows such freedom in the number of ways that one can play it, both within the game itself, and via the use of mods. I can imagine that one day, I will succeed in setting up a self-sustaining base on Duna in Science mode, and think to myself 'hmmnn.. wonder if I can do that again whilst beating the beancounters?'

Anyway, I hope that's helpful as feedback!

Edited December 20, 2014 by Esme

[Nick Seafort]

Sorry for posting here, but I can't see where the bug reporting forum has gone? Anyway, I wanted to check if the issue I've been noticing is unique to me, or a .90 "feature"

Since building my first few spaceplanes in a stock (excluding KER) game of .90, I've noticed that my root part sometimes seems to be shrunk on launch: http://imgur.com/GaeWpcP. At first, I thought this was some sort of physics issue as I had a bunch of small parts crammed onto it and potentially colliding... but I've since noticed it a few different times. For comparison, here's how it looks in the SPH: http://imgur.com/ZZsThew

I hadn't noticed this in previous versions (I didn't play much .25 though), I'm using the 32bit version and my only mod is KER. I may have used the root tool to select them, I can't honestly remember - but it's happened on multiple builds, and seems to be consistent for a build once it's happened the first time.

[Superfluous J]

I know this is not a "how to" thread but I can't resist.

The problem here is (a) no height above ground readout

You can mitigate this a bit by watching for your shadow. Make sure you're not coming down on the dark side or right at local noon. I use Kerbal Engineer and I ignore the height readings because shadows are more intuitive.

( the speed indicator seems to be able to go from teens of metres per second downwards to teens of metres per second upwards without bothering to go through zero in-between.

This sounds like you're in "orbit" mode instead of "surface" mode. It's a very common problem. The game *usually* switches automatically but sometimes it doesn't.

3. The EVA bug also makes it rather fraught to collect science on EVA. I'm a lot better at EVA manouvering in orbit than I used to be, but when I press F for my Kerbal to grab a ladder, I expect them to do just that, not suddenly twist and zoom off into the black at a great rate of knots!

Weird. I thought they fixed this because I can't seem to find an angle at which to approach the ladder and cause them to fly away.

[Magion]

A bit late, but I still want to thank SQUAD for their hard work. I didn't expect 0.90 that early, so my mod WernherChecker is still not compatibile with it, but I'm close to release.

Anyway, if I think about that, I should celebrate, because this my 10th version I'm playing. I can't belive, that it's already 2.5 years since I played KSP for a first time. In 0.16 there weren't really much celestial bodies to land on - just Kerbin, Mün and Minmus, that's all. Now, KSP is totally different game and nowise worse. It's just amazing.

Once more, thanks SQUAD!

[Vallius]

I've playing 0.90 a few times now, and I just thought I should share my overall thoughts on career mode (default normal).

Favorite Features:

So far, I'm loving Beta than Ever more than any previous version! For the first time, KSP feels like a real game (the oxymoron isn't lost on me).

I finally feel like I'm running a program, not just a science-grind sandbox.

Now there's a reason for me to choose one kerbal over another for a mission! It's about time that it makes a difference to take either Jeb or Bob.

The new editor tools make it so much easier for me to make good looking vehicles (I still get my ailerons upside-down though--Is there an easy way to know which side is 'up'?) My favorite new editor widgit is the i-box. Can't tell you how nice it is to see some basic info in stock, especially now that it's really easy to go broke.

I noticed that the contract flavor text has been updated. Whether this is from Fine Print itself, or more a part of the overall upgrade, I appreciate the variety.

I feel weird saying this, but I love the fact that probes have been nerfed. Seriously, if they cost different amounts of money, they should have different capabilities.

It feels like science has been scaled down at least a little--it absolutely needs to be with so many more options, but maybe that's just because it's harder to go places.

Things that could use work:

Aerial surveys are really hard to do without aircraft parts--am I the only one who thinks they shouldn't be available before we've at least unlocked jet engines?

There's a shortage of good contracts to get a space program off the ground early on (I'm playing normal), this becomes especially problematic since we need like 1 M funds to get the basics for a Mun mission. (At minimum, almost certainly need to update VBA, Astronaut Complex, and Science lab to level 2). Granted, the Mun mission shouldn't be easy, but there really should be a few more better paying contracts so we can get the cash for them.

I agree with others that have suggested that we ultimately should have a few more tiers of buildings. It's literally hard to get far off the ground when the minimum upgrades cost so much. (Again, this in itself isn't bad, but we need more contracts to get money).

Pilots seem OP relative to the other 2 classes. There's very little motivation for me to send up Bill or Bob alone on missions when they can barely do basic piloting. Maybe this is intentional by squad to reflect space programs in our world, but I really think there needs to be at least a little cross-over between the three classes.

The current system, to be more balanced would require that only scientists can run experiments, and only engineers can EVA. Since everyone can do science, and everyone can EVA, I think all kerbals should at least be able to learn the ability to hold attitude. Either that, or make the other two classes more powerful.

Now that we have multiple Biomes, I'd really, really appreciate a non-cheaty way to map them. Maybe this could be a scientist specialty with a camera part?

The editor tutorial absolutely needs to be redone, or at least a more advanced one should be added to talk about how to use the widgets (and maybe action groups too). This community is amazing but not all new players go to the forums.

[Starhawk]

So... I'm having an issue that I don't see posted anywhere. Probably because nobody ever uses these engines.

I read that the ISP for the Rockomax Mark 55 Radial engine was buffed up with the release of Beta Than Ever, and I built a few of them onto a ship I was working on. I loaded Jeb into the cockpit, launched for my test flight, and... soon veered completely off course and began doing those ever-so-amusing crazy rocket flips before crashing.

Further experimentation revealed that the controls appear to be reversed when these engines are in use, and Jebs SAS skill always cause the vehicle to crash. I was able to fly it manually without SAS (I love that part in the early career mode now), but I had to reverse all my control movements. I don't know the config files well enough to tell at a glance if this is just a typo.

Has anyone else experienced this?

[Red Iron Crown]

So... I'm having an issue that I don't see posted anywhere. Probably because nobody ever uses these engines.

I read that the ISP for the Rockomax Mark 55 Radial engine was buffed up with the release of Beta Than Ever, and I built a few of them onto a ship I was working on. I loaded Jeb into the cockpit, launched for my test flight, and... soon veered completely off course and began doing those ever-so-amusing crazy rocket flips before crashing.

Further experimentation revealed that the controls appear to be reversed when these engines are in use, and Jebs SAS skill always cause the vehicle to crash. I was able to fly it manually without SAS (I love that part in the early career mode now), but I had to reverse all my control movements. I don't know the config files well enough to tell at a glance if this is just a typo.

Has anyone else experienced this?

Were the engines mounted above the center of mass? Gimballed engines misbehave when mounted that way, if you disable the gimbals it will be more controllable.

[Starhawk]

Were the engines mounted above the center of mass? Gimballed engines misbehave when mounted that way, if you disable the gimbals it will be more controllable.

Why, yes they were. It's an unusual craft configuration for me, so I've never run across the behavior before.

Thanks for the info.

Is this an issue with the gimballing algorithm then? Do you know what happens if the CoM shifts above the engine(s) while running?

Edited December 20, 2014 by Starhawk

[WanderingKid]

Starhawk, if they act like Ailerons do when that can happen, they default to the wrong direction. Every time...

... at least in my experience.

[Red Iron Crown]

Is this an issue with the gimballing algorithm then? Do you know what happens if the CoM shifts below the engine(s) while running?

It is, the gimbal control algorithm just assumes the engines are below the CoM, always. Bad things happen if the CoM shifts below the engines during flight, if there is risk of that it is better to disable them and control the ship with torque wheels.

[Marktopia]

Dumb question. The update I just had come through on Steam... Was the beta? If not how can I get it? I think I might need a code?

[Starhawk]

It is, the gimbal control algorithm just assumes the engines are below the CoM, always. Bad things happen if the CoM shifts below the engines during flight, if there is risk of that it is better to disable them and control the ship with torque wheels.

Okay, thanks. I was trying to design a spacecrane which will drop a small habitat on the Mun to satisfy a 'Place an outpost on the Mun' contract. With the design I'm using, this is essential information!

Thanks again Red Iron Crown.

[Agricola]

PLayed on HARD on Career mode and it is hard. This is more like an MMORPG Level Grind, 20+ survey missions later and had enough money to upgrade launch pad, slowly getting a few more levels unlocked, but the Administration section, the amounts needed to activate a strategy that is worth while seems years away. I also can not see how on earth I will ever get to upgrade any building, its just seems unobtainable.

Also noticed a bug, when I make orbit my prograde and retrograde markers jump and I appear to be moving in opposite direction... :S