|
ToxicFrog posted:I've found the source of my performance issues: looking at Kerbin. Even with terrain detail at minimum and SM3 terrain shaders disabled, performance tanks whenever a significant amount of Kerbin is in frame. Look mostly at space and everything is fine. It makes sense that viewing a big texture mapped object would have worse performance than viewing a bunch of emptiness with a few textures for flair. In general, I find KSP's performance pretty poor. They're doing a lot of physics stuff under the hood, so my expectations may be out of whack, but I wonder if they're going to spend time optimizing it. Looking around online, I found that its built on Unity and uses a single core model. Not sure how much optimization opportunity there is. In physics note, I'm finding that when I float into the influence of the Mun, my trajectory will change pretty much 90 degrees instantaneously, and will wrap around the back to the front. Am, I misunderstanding the physics here or is that some sort of game shortcut? I would have expected that my ship flying in front of the Mun would have a smooth trajectory curve that would wrap around the front to the back as I pass in front of it.
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 11:25 |
|
|
ryde posted:In physics note, I'm finding that when I float into the influence of the Mun, my trajectory will change pretty much 90 degrees instantaneously, and will wrap around the back to the front. Am, I misunderstanding the physics here or is that some sort of game shortcut? I would have expected that my ship flying in front of the Mun would have a smooth trajectory curve that would wrap around the front to the back as I pass in front of it. It's more that you're misunderstanding what the game is presenting. When you switch from Kerbin's SOI to the Mun's, the trajectory display switches from Kerbin's frame of reference to that of the Mun, which is itself moving relative to Kerbin. This can make your apparent direction change a lot since the mun is probably moving as fast or faster than your rocket at the moment of interception- if you extend your orbit to just barely touch the Mun's, it'll catch up with and pass you, so you're moving through its SOI from front to back even if relative to Kerbin you're still moving forward.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
ryde posted:It makes sense that viewing a big texture mapped object would have worse performance than viewing a bunch of emptiness with a few textures for flair. That's the thing, I generally expect the main performance bottleneck to be the physics, not the graphics, especially on a machine that runs much better looking games at max settings at 60fps. If it's slowing down, I assume I've tacked on too many parts. I don't expect looking at Kerbin, even at the lowest graphics settings, to completely tank both graphics and physics performance, and indeed, in previous versions it hasn't. This is something new in 0.90. Hence my surprise. quote:In physics note, I'm finding that when I float into the influence of the Mun, my trajectory will change pretty much 90 degrees instantaneously, and will wrap around the back to the front. Am, I misunderstanding the physics here or is that some sort of game shortcut? I would have expected that my ship flying in front of the Mun would have a smooth trajectory curve that would wrap around the front to the back as I pass in front of it. Screenshots would help here, I don't really know what you mean by "wrap around the back to the front".
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
ryde posted:In physics note, I'm finding that when I float into the influence of the Mun, my trajectory will change pretty much 90 degrees instantaneously, and will wrap around the back to the front. Am, I misunderstanding the physics here or is that some sort of game shortcut? I would have expected that my ship flying in front of the Mun would have a smooth trajectory curve that would wrap around the front to the back as I pass in front of it. This is an artifact of the Patched Conics approximation KSP uses. Basically, at any given time, your orbit is only affected by a single body, as opposed to reality, where everything in the universe effects everything else gravitationally. So what's happening is you are transitioning from an Earth-centered orbit to a Mun-centered orbit. The 90-degree shift is really a display artifact. Your actual trajectory through space is barely changing at all when that transition happens, it's just being shown relative to a body that is moving relative to Earth. Even if KSP perfectly simulated gravity, your actual trajectory would be very close to the approximation it uses. As for whether you pass front to back, or back to front, that depends on the direction you approach from, and your speed relative to the Mun. If you focus on the Mun in the map view, it'll show you your predicted orbit relative to it, so you can see which way you'll be approaching it. Assuming you've unlocked the Patched Conics prediction in the Tracking Station.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
ryde posted:In physics note, I'm finding that when I float into the influence of the Mun, my trajectory will change pretty much 90 degrees instantaneously, and will wrap around the back to the front. Am, I misunderstanding the physics here or is that some sort of game shortcut? I would have expected that my ship flying in front of the Mun would have a smooth trajectory curve that would wrap around the front to the back as I pass in front of it. First off, KSP doesn't even attempt to do n-body simulation, it uses 2-body patched conics with spheres of influence, so transitions between those spheres is not going to be perfect. When you cross that boundary, your velocity relative to Mun is used to generate the patched conic shape. If you are doing a transfer from LKO to Mun, you aren't going as fast as Mun, and unless you encounter its sphere of influence from the side not closest to Kerbin, you'll go behind it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:That's the thing, I generally expect the main performance bottleneck to be the physics, not the graphics, especially on a machine that runs much better looking games at max settings at 60fps. If it's slowing down, I assume I've tacked on too many parts. Actually this is an issue thats occasionally popped up for a long time. It seems somewhat random where and whom it strikes sometimes, but I've found its back for me in 0.90.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Is anyone else having issues with USI Sounding Rockets in 0.90? I put the rocket together, put it on the launchpad, fire the first stage, and...nothing happens. The engine activates, but produces no thrust and consumes no fuel. E: ok, the issue is not with Sounding Rockets but with my install. Time to start uninstalling mods and see what broke it. ToxicFrog fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
I didn't realize how dependant I was on SAS until I didn't have it in any probe cores any more.. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:I didn't realize how dependant I was on SAS until I didn't have it in any probe cores any more.. Yeah putting satellites into orbit for contracts with the Stayputnik is a hell of a challenge. Time warp is your friend.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:Is anyone else having issues with USI Sounding Rockets in 0.90? I put the rocket together, put it on the launchpad, fire the first stage, and...nothing happens. The engine activates, but produces no thrust and consumes no fuel. They worked fine for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:They worked fine for me. Yeah, after further testing it looks like something I installed alongside Sounding Rockets broke all SRBs. Time to start uninstalling mods and see what the culprit is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Roflex posted:Is anyone else seeing issues with multiple command pods and SAS? I had jeb in a Mk1 capsule, and Bob in the inline cockpit on a mun flyby. Jeb was piloting, and every time I tried turning SAS on (after initially making orbit just fine) the entire craft would just refuse to turn towards pro/retrograde with those commands. There was plenty of electric power and I was definitely controlling from Jeb's pod. Manually turning wasn't an issue, and doing regular "stability" SAS makes the craft vibrate violently, especially in the roll direction. I turned the torque off in Bob's cockpit and it was fine. It seems to not like having multiple crew-controllable torque sources. My orbital rescue contract rocket had two Mk1 pods. I had no issue with Jeb piloting while orbiting Kerbin. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
I just got Jeb leveled up to where SAS actually worked well, and got him killed by being stupid and cocky. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Thanks for the physics explanations. They all make perfect sense. In retrospect, it was pretty obvious where my mistake was (not accounting for the Mun moving, and my relative velocity WRT the Mun), and paying close attention indicates that the behavior is, indeed, approximately correct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
I am actually sort of short on cash. Or maybe spending wrong. I've researched all the way through basic rovers, Mainsail, Mk2 plane parts etc, and my VAB is still at level 1 and limited to 30 parts. I don't think I'll get any real stations or bases built before doing that VAB upgrade...
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Culprit identified! While there are a bunch of mods that have not been updated to 0.90 and still work, Extraplanetary Launchpads is not one of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Note: TweakScale is broken. Loading it and only it causes all buildings to be invisible when inside them, and the game 50/50 crashes when transitioning to outside.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:These are all courtesy of illectro, an honest-to-god rocket scientist and he's has many, many other KSP-related videos on his YouTube channel. Check it out if you want more Scot-narrated goodness. I've gotta be clear, I was an astrophysicist, I knew all about orbital mechanics and how to design missions, but I've never been involved in rocket design, also, the emphasis on 'was' - I'm now a software dev. Of course since this youtube thing took off I'm now hanging out with rocket scientists and astrophysicists again, so I'm knee deep in it again. Anyway currently my best tutorial series is about a year old and predates the contracts, I guess that means I'm due to put together another..... https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYu7z3I8tdEmqpOkQZCl5SZB5t0vXuxE0
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 23:28
|
|
ROCKET SCIENCE
|
Whenever there's a new Scott Manley or Robbaz KSP video, that day was a good day. Even the cheesy "Seanlocke and Billy-Bobkous Kerman on a secret spy adventure" narration works out in the end. Unfortunately I just can't get into Xenonauts, even though XCOM is my personal GOTY for last year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
ryde posted:Thanks for the physics explanations. They all make perfect sense. In retrospect, it was pretty obvious where my mistake was (not accounting for the Mun moving, and my relative velocity WRT the Mun), and paying close attention indicates that the behavior is, indeed, approximately correct. One aspect that hasn't been mentioned explicitly is why the phrase "patched conics" means what others have described in the thread: for the 2-body problem (two objects interacting purely through the gravitational force), solutions for orbits are four possible shapes: circles, ellipses, parabolas, and hyperbolae (in order of increasing energy). These shapes also happen to be called the conic sections, for the unrelated reason that if you slice a cone (a mathematical cone has a bottom and a top, like an hourglass) with a plane these are the shapes it is possible to get. In patched conics, every massive object (planet or moon in KSP) is given a sphere of influence. Your test object (ie a ship) has one of the four possible orbital shapes in the SOI. When it passes to the boundary, the absolute position and velocity of the test object are maintained constant (the patching), and the orbit is now drawn as a separate shape in the new SOI. So you patch two orbits together at each SOI boundary, keeping the position and velocity constant across the transition. For all practical purposes, you only ever see ellipses and hyperbolae, since circles and parabolas require an exact velocity for a given position, whereas everything else is either an ellipse (for a closed orbit) or a hyperbola (for an open orbit). Closed orbits are those that stay in the same SOI; open orbits enter and leave it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
illectro posted:I've gotta be clear, I was an astrophysicist, I knew all about orbital mechanics and how to design missions, but I've never been involved in rocket design, also, the emphasis on 'was' - I'm now a software dev. Of course since this youtube thing took off I'm now hanging out with rocket scientists and astrophysicists again, so I'm knee deep in it again. Out of curiosity, what was your time as an astrophysicist spent doing- i.e. what did you research? Planetary, stellar, galactic etc.? I'm an undergrad doing stuff on active galactic nuclei right now but I'm curious as to what your field was. Then again, if you've got any papers on the arXiv I could probably just look there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
illectro posted:I've gotta be clear, I was an astrophysicist, I knew all about orbital mechanics and how to design missions, but I've never been involved in rocket design, also, the emphasis on 'was' - I'm now a software dev. Of course since this youtube thing took off I'm now hanging out with rocket scientists and astrophysicists again, so I'm knee deep in it again. Your YouTube videos are fantastic, thank you for making them. Not just the KSP ones, you've introduced me to a few games that made me pretty happy! Do you perhaps have one of those Steam curator things where you can recommend games? Or do you not do that since you don't want to have games devs throwing free swag at you to get favourable reviews?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:Out of curiosity, what was your time as an astrophysicist spent doing- i.e. what did you research? Planetary, stellar, galactic etc.? I'm an undergrad doing stuff on active galactic nuclei right now but I'm curious as to what your field was. I was really interested in asteroids, and in particular impact scenarios, I did some work on things like periods of heavy bombardment generated by a combination of collisions in the main belt followed by resonant transport of the the fragments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
illectro posted:I was really interested in asteroids, and in particular impact scenarios, I did some work on things like periods of heavy bombardment generated by a combination of collisions in the main belt followed by resonant transport of the the fragments. Oh, awesome. That would relate to stuff like the Late Heavy Bombardment and such, I assume? It's fascinating stuff- I'm considering looking into planetary geology for grad school so impact events would play a pretty big part in that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
EightBit posted:I just got Jeb leveled up to where SAS actually worked well, and got him killed by being stupid and cocky. If you've got respawning Kerbals turned on in the difficulty settings, do they keep their experience when they come back? (ie. can I send Jeb on a one way trip to Eve for some new skills)
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
VodeAndreas posted:If you've got respawning Kerbals turned on in the difficulty settings, do they keep their experience when they come back? (ie. can I send Jeb on a one way trip to Eve for some new skills) You only actually get the XP on recovery at Kerbin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
I played about 30 minutes of the new career mode last night. I'm at a total loss as to what to do, though. Are there any goals in career mode? It looked like it just threw me face first into the game with no guidance on what I should be trying to accomplish. I didn't see any contracts or anything. Also, I must not understand the science portion, because I don't find it very fun. It feels like just extra steps I *have* to do in order to progress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Under NEAR/FAR, are wings just a Bad Idea for rockets intended to get the hell out of the atmosphere? I see them on other people's creations but whenever I add them (no matter where--booster stage, main stage, whatever) it just makes a giant flippy mess. On a semirelated note, all I've got left for contracts are a million tests (UGH) and one 'land and survey these three spots' contract. Before I've got anything to land and take off again on Kerbin with. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Geirskogul posted:Note: TweakScale is broken. Loading it and only it causes all buildings to be invisible when inside them, and the game 50/50 crashes when transitioning to outside. I noticed a bug with CKAN. It considers NEAR 1.3a to be newer than 1.3.1. 1.3a has a bug that breaks airplanes though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:TweakScale works fine for me. :vov: Tweakscale also has an official 0.90 version out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:I played about 30 minutes of the new career mode last night. I'm at a total loss as to what to do, though. Are there any goals in career mode? It looked like it just threw me face first into the game with no guidance on what I should be trying to accomplish. I didn't see any contracts or anything. Also, I must not understand the science portion, because I don't find it very fun. It feels like just extra steps I *have* to do in order to progress. Contracts are in a building behind the VAB near the hangar, there's a bunch of random ones and a few fixed ones (starting out with reach X height, reach orbit, reach Mun, Minmus, Duna, everywhere else). They should give you some guidance on what you can do with the parts you've got unlocked and give you some revenue coming through. As you unlock more parts you'll get other new contracts as well for launching satellites and eventually space stations and bases on other planets once you've visited them. eth0.n posted:You only actually get the XP on recovery at Kerbin. Oh well, figured I'd ask... I just want the orient to maneuver node ability unlocked already! Will make it much quicker to do a bunch of things without Mechjeb. (read: I'm lazy)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:Under NEAR/FAR, are wings just a Bad Idea for rockets intended to get the hell out of the atmosphere? I see them on other people's creations but whenever I add them (no matter where--booster stage, main stage, whatever) it just makes a giant flippy mess. I tend to use four av-r8 winglets near the bottom of taller rockets to keep it controllable in atmosphere, but you need to turn the roll % down and the control deflection down too, or else SAS will induce vibrations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:Under NEAR/FAR, are wings just a Bad Idea for rockets intended to get the hell out of the atmosphere? I see them on other people's creations but whenever I add them (no matter where--booster stage, main stage, whatever) it just makes a giant flippy mess. I don't use wings at all for anything space-bound with FAR, just a ring of basic engines (mainly the LV-T45 on 4x or 6x symmetry) with a healthy gimbal range around my first stage. My first stages tend to be enormous and able to give me a ton of downrange velocity with an apoapsis of 125km though, which means they are probably close to being SSTO if I were trying to launch into a 75x75km orbit 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
illectro posted:I've gotta be clear, I was an astrophysicist, I knew all about orbital mechanics and how to design missions, but I've never been involved in rocket design, also, the emphasis on 'was' - I'm now a software dev. Of course since this youtube thing took off I'm now hanging out with rocket scientists and astrophysicists again, so I'm knee deep in it again. The video you made where you flew a plane designed by your dad had me in stitches. I had you pegged for an astro type from your Elite videos and your little tidbits about stars (photon escape time etc), and it's refreshing to find someone who can make entertaining videos while delivering interesting stuff like that and making it feel natural. I didn't even know Mercury wasn't tidally locked!
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:I can't seem to complete the "achive 5000 meters" contract with RoverDude's sounding rockets.. Does it have to be a manned flight? Yes, this must be done manned. It was something that came up with alternate tech trees which put pods later, people couldn't do the first contracts and sometimes that makes it crash too. Cubey posted:Yeah putting satellites into orbit for contracts with the Stayputnik is a hell of a challenge. Time warp is your friend. I got one of these when I bought the stayputnik node and I then spent about 20 minutes wrestling the drat thing into orbit. I was dead chuffed as it was one of the hardest things I'd done in KSP (stock and no upgrades at that point). Then it crushed me because it refused to complete - I had no solar panels but it'd popped the contract up due to owning launch clamps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
I just downloaded CKAN. It makes installing/keeping mods up to date stupidly easy  I'm seriously wondering why I ever got along without it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Has holding down shift for ~5s in the debug menu always resulted in this bottom part appearing, or is this new in 0.90?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Hey RoverDude, anychance you got a Skype or something we can talk over?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 11:25 |
|
|
Krittick posted:Has holding down shift for ~5s in the debug menu always resulted in this bottom part appearing, or is this new in 0.90? I've never seen that before. I didn't know there was a real cheat menu like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 02:17
|
|