Gaming The Kerbal Space Program - Version 1.2.x

[SolarLiner]

The 0.18 version is the biggest update I've ever seen. The TransX-like flight manoeuver is goos, Kerbin is good, the new parts are good, the Mainsail+big orange tank causing engines to overheat is good (really :lol

I can't get to the KSP Forum. Is that normal or maybe this is a problem ?

 

[HarvesteR]

We're having issues with the DNS servers... It's a problem on the web host's side, they're working to fix it. I'm locked out too.

Cheers

 

[SolarLiner]

Okay, thanks for that so quick answer !

Just a little question: Are the musics directly in the game, so it is not possible to add some ?

 

[HarvesteR]

Okay, thanks for that so quick answer !

Just a little question: Are the musics directly in the game, so it is not possible to add some ?

Yeah, right now they are. This was just a first implementation of a music system. It's by no means complete. We've got plans to add runtime loading of music files and also to create contextual playlists for specific places/situations around the solar system.

Eventually, that is.

Cheers

 

[mojoey]

So, just to be 'that guy'

When's .19 due?

(But seriously, take a break, reap the rewards of a job well done)

 

[MaverickSawyer]

I can't get to the KSP Forum. Is that normal or maybe this is a problem ?

I can confirm this issue, and it seems to encompass the KSP homepage as well.

 

[mojoey]

I think they let Nova near the servers again....

 

[HarvesteR]

We had some DNS issues earlier today, everything should be back up now.

If it's not, then it's probably your DNS that hasn't updated. It should be back soon.

Cheers

 

[mojoey]

To you harv, and the whole KSP team, yo guys do a damn good job, keep it up.

 

[Hielor]

I wouldn't have thought it possible, but the aircraft parts are overall even worse, balance wise, than they were before.

Here are my comparisons from .17, with colored comments from .18:
- The Mk1 cockpit has a mass of 1.25...and the Mk3 has a mass of 1. The Mk3 should be at least 3x the mass of the Mk1, given that it carries three people...(FIXED) Also, the Mk2 cockpit, which is visually beefier than the Mk1, has a mass of only 1. (UNCHANGED)
- The Mk1 fuselage has a dry mass of .3 and a capacity of 150. (UNCHANGED) The Mk2 fuselage, which is visually 3-4x the size of the Mk1, also has a dry mass of .3 (...what) (Now .2, which is even more "wtf"-worthy) and a capacity of 150 (...what) (UNCHANGED). The Mk3 fuselage, which is visually 2-3x the size of the Mk2, has a dry mass of .3 (...what) (UNCHANGED) and a capacity of 225 (less than 2x the Mk1 even though it looks like you could fit 8 Mk1s in a Mk3...) (Now 240, which is better but still kinda wtf).
- The Mk3 to Mk2 adapter, despite being ~3x the size of the Mk1 fuselage, has a LOWER dry mass (of .2) (UNCHANGED) and the same capacity (Now 160, not much better).
- The Mk2 to size 1 adapter, despite being ~2x the size of the Mk1 fuselage, has a LOWER dry mass (UNCHANGED) and the SAME capacity. (Now 80, which is even worse...)
- The FL-T400 fuel tank is about the same size as the Mk1 fuselage (a bit shorter)...but has a lower dry mass (of .25) (unchanged) and more than double the capacity (400). (Now 180fuel/220ox, so basically unchanged, although the extra weight in oxidizer is now wasted on planes so this is less of a problem)
- The FL-T200 fuel tank is significantly smaller than the Mk1 fuselage, but has a higher capacity (200) (now 90 fuel/110ox, so not worth it on planes, see above) and (as expected) a lower dry mass (unchanged).

I think the ability to design, construct, and test-fly your own planes from basic parts is one of the best parts of KSP, and is something that not too many other programs offer...but the aircraft parts really need some balancing love

 

[MaverickSawyer]

You can always edit the .cfgs for the parts...

 

[mojoey]

I wouldn't have thought it possible, but the aircraft parts are overall even worse, balance wise, than they were before.

Here are my comparisons from .17, with colored comments from .18:
- The Mk1 cockpit has a mass of 1.25...and the Mk3 has a mass of 1. The Mk3 should be at least 3x the mass of the Mk1, given that it carries three people...(FIXED) Also, the Mk2 cockpit, which is visually beefier than the Mk1, has a mass of only 1. (UNCHANGED)
- The Mk1 fuselage has a dry mass of .3 and a capacity of 150. (UNCHANGED) The Mk2 fuselage, which is visually 3-4x the size of the Mk1, also has a dry mass of .3 (...what) (Now .2, which is even more "wtf"-worthy) and a capacity of 150 (...what) (UNCHANGED). The Mk3 fuselage, which is visually 2-3x the size of the Mk2, has a dry mass of .3 (...what) (UNCHANGED) and a capacity of 225 (less than 2x the Mk1 even though it looks like you could fit 8 Mk1s in a Mk3...) (Now 240, which is better but still kinda wtf).
- The Mk3 to Mk2 adapter, despite being ~3x the size of the Mk1 fuselage, has a LOWER dry mass (of .2) (UNCHANGED) and the same capacity (Now 160, not much better).
- The Mk2 to size 1 adapter, despite being ~2x the size of the Mk1 fuselage, has a LOWER dry mass (UNCHANGED) and the SAME capacity. (Now 80, which is even worse...)
- The FL-T400 fuel tank is about the same size as the Mk1 fuselage (a bit shorter)...but has a lower dry mass (of .25) (unchanged) and more than double the capacity (400). (Now 180fuel/220ox, so basically unchanged, although the extra weight in oxidizer is now wasted on planes so this is less of a problem)
- The FL-T200 fuel tank is significantly smaller than the Mk1 fuselage, but has a higher capacity (200) (now 90 fuel/110ox, so not worth it on planes, see above) and (as expected) a lower dry mass (unchanged).

I think the ability to design, construct, and test-fly your own planes from basic parts is one of the best parts of KSP, and is something that not too many other programs offer...but the aircraft parts really need some balancing love

IIRC, C7 handles airplane balancing. PM your concerns to him on KSPF.

 

[N_Molson]

Well, I find that the aircrafts fly much better in 0.18, and the rebalance of the jet engines is really a good thing. Now I have to learn how to land in one piece on the new island runway but... :lol:

The manoeuver tool, even if it has small bugs right now (like the estimated burn times which are often very wrong) is really a huge improvement. It allowed me to plot a free-return trajectory (and understand how it works) in a few clicks, something I've been fighting with for years in Orbiter.

Oh and by the way the implementation of space Probes hailprobe is completely awesome !

There is a bug in 0.18 that is a little annoying though : sometimes, when I move the camera northwards, the framerate drops awfully. That was not happening in 0.17 :hmm:

 

[MaverickSawyer]

I've always tried to avoid looking down unless I'm landing. It makes a huge difference in FPS (or is it SPF: Seconds Per Frame)

 

[Hielor]

Haven't tested it much in .18, but from .17 I discovered that my framerate was fine as long as I was looking straight up or straight down...as long as the horizon was in view, the framerate would be terrible.

 

[astrosammy]

Yep, oceans are still a framerate killer, I have no problems with the horizon in view on planets without ocean. While in interplanetary space, I also have framerate problems.
And while the framerate is low, the sound is crackling, which is a bit annoying.

But it's still an awesome update. Just launched a Cassini-Huygens like mission, sending a little lander to Laythe while the main probe explores Jool.

 

[HarvesteR]

The oceans (and its shaders) are a known performance bottleneck for the game. We do have plans to optimize them here though...

Currently, the oceans use the same quadtree mesh system as the terrain, only without any of the terrain deformation bits, so the result is a big sphere.

However, there is a lot of needless overhead when you use that system like that... Things that aren't necessary if all you need is a sphere.

That's one of the things we have in our dev wishlist, and we'll get to it as soon as we can.

Cheers

 

[SolarLiner]

In order to play without any FPS problems, I have to set the qualiy of the terrain to Low. But then the runway of the (secret) airbase is floating a few meters over the terrain.
By the way, the Patcher seems to get some random pack sizes and speeds... One time : 820Mb at 15 Ko/s, second time: 320Mb at 70Ko/s(my normal dl speed).

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

The oceans (and its shaders) are a known performance bottleneck for the game. We do have plans to optimize them here though...

Currently, the oceans use the same quadtree mesh system as the terrain, only without any of the terrain deformation bits, so the result is a big sphere.

However, there is a lot of needless overhead when you use that system like that... Things that aren't necessary if all you need is a sphere.

That's one of the things we have in our dev wishlist, and we'll get to it as soon as we can.

Cheers

Do you think it would be possible to revert the water back to the style it had in 0.13? I always thought that was a fair bit nicer looking than anything that came after, but maybe it'll be too slow.

On a feedback perspective, good job on 0.18. I liked the music system, as it gives a good feel even on a fairly repetitive playlist. I also thought some of the little touches like main menu visuals, new in-game interface, and new trajectory drawing were great. On the flip side though... it is really slow to run and setting up controls became reallly difficult. I thought the new parts were nice but they just dont look right, too dark & drab. Congrats all the same :thumbup:.

 

[Codz]

I also have to say that I also really enjoy the music playlist.