Showing 1-20 of 30 entries
Jan 18 @ 4:25am
In topic binding keys for time doesnt work
Reviving this old discussion because even after 2 years the developers still haven't done anything about it, not even added it to the FAQ.
Hard-coding key bindings shouldn't be a thing anymore these days(*).
Having a dysfunctional key binding dialogue, that's even worse.

Edit: (*)Now if there was a file to edit the key bindings, that I could accept. But hard-coded... that's just plain outdated.
Dec 15, 2021 @ 4:40am
In topic Missing Power Connection Types
I'm a bit late to the party, but what I've noticed is that when you route power from some other source across a generator, it will only kick in when that other source cannot sustain the momentary power demand.

With the following set-up, the generator stays idle all the time (almost, that is; it will still kick in sporadically, but then only at 1/s or 2/s) even during moderate periods of excessive demand, but kicks in well before I'm entirely out:

Panels A
Battery A
Panel B1
Node >>> Battery B >>> Generator >>> Battery C >>> Consumers
Panels B2

(NOTE: I'm pretty sure Battery B must be connected DIRECTLY to the generator for this to work, with no in-between node. Also, some of the connections MUST be one-way. For other potential variations on the theme, see further below)

In this set-up...

- As long as the panels can supply the momentary demand, Batteries A and B will stay topped off, and will force power into the generator's own storage, keeping it also topped off and thus idle all the time (almost, that is; it will still kick in sporadically, but then only at 1/s or 2/s).

- Should the momentary demand peak above the solar panel supply, Battery A will run low, but Battery B will remain topped off and keep forcing power into the generator's own storage, still keeping it topped off and mostly idle.

- Should demand exceed panel supply for longer time, Battery A will run out, and Battery B will start losing charge, at which point it will still push some charge into the generator's storage, but cease to fully top it off, causing the generator to kick in, but still at a moderate rate.

- Once Battery B has dropped to ~75% capacity, it will push so little power into the generator's storage that the generator will be running at maximum power, and continue to do so until Battery B has been recharged well above 75% again.

Battery C is presumably optional, and serves to extend the time the grid can cope with demand exceeding even the generator-assisted supply. To instead extend the time the grid can cope before the generator kicks in, Battery A can presumably be replaced with a series of batteries.

Panel B1 is presumably not necessary, and is only in that place due to the layout of my ship. The fork in the panel side of things is also a direct function of the ship layout, and may or may not be necessary; some layouts worth experimenting with:

Panels A >> Battery A >> Panels B >> Battery B >> Generator >> Consumers

Panels >> Battery A >> Node >> Battery B >> Generator >> Consumers

Panels >> Battery A >> Battery B >> Generator >> Consumers

The following layout certainly does NOT work though, unless you're fine with the generator kicking in EVERY time the momentary demand exceeds panel supply, even for spikes lasting only a few seconds:

Panels >> Battery >> Generator >> Consumers
Nov 15, 2021 @ 12:59am
In topic How Many Extra Colonists
How many extra colonists can I expect to eventually dig up? Is that fixed, or does it depend on the seed?
Playing on a 150x150 map and medium difficulty here, in case that matters.
Nov 14, 2021 @ 3:57am
In topic Update 31 - Experimental
Energized (Experimental) issues
Some issues with the Experimental branch:

- Oceans and blue plains are virtually indistinguishable; ocean reflection helps a lot with this, but kicks in only at the bottom of the map view, and even then only when viewed from a near-vertical angle.

- The various different views (temperature, elevation etc.) currently don't work.

- I can't seem to figure out in which locations I can or can not build a power plant (wind turbines only so far, haven't tried solar yet); somehow, distance to base seems to have something to do with it, as do other facilities already built, but it doesn't seem consistent or even entirely reproducible. Mountaintops are a no-go obviously, and that's made obvious by turning the icon red; but other factors are evidently at play, and they're not visualized at all - it only shows once you click, and the game refuses to plonk a building there. Impossible to tell whether this is a bug or working as intentional without any information about the behaviour as designed.

Also, I had seen two bugs yesterday in conjunction with surface power plants that may or may not be related to each other:

- First, I had built a wind turbine adjacent to the vehicle building, exactly opposite the base (towards the northeast, in case that should make any difference; another wind turbine was already present directly southwest of the base, and I had built some more wind turbines and even a power link at other locations but had torn them all down again at that point). This caused the vehicle building to start toggling repeatedly between operational and out-of-energy state; when I looked closer, I found that the vehicle building seemed to have somehow disconnected from the base (but the visual cue on the map was still there) and formed a separate grid with the new wind turbine (which was at 60% efficiency, i.e. 80W, hence the out-of-energy state; not sure whether the intermittency of that state was normal or also related to the unconventional situation). The situation seemed to resolve to normal after I had torn down the new wind turbine.

- Later, after having torn down the problematic wind turbine, building 3 more someplace else, and tearing down 2 of my manual generators, I noticed that the power grid maximum displayed in the underground view (bottom toolbar) was WAY off: With 4 manual generators (no extras, i.e. 100W each), 4 wind turbines (3x 60%, i.e. 80W each, 1x 80%, i.e. 102W), and no other energy sources, the total was displayed as (IIRC) a whopping 1,662W. (Anywhere else in the UI, the details were given as 742W, matching the expected value). The difference of 920W could conceivably have come about as the maximum power available in the main grid when the vehicle building had experienced that power glitch mentioned above (6 manual generators @ 100W + 1 wind turbine @ 80W = 680W) plus another 240W from one or more unrelated glitches while I was repeatedly building and quickly tearing down again wind turbines to figure out where I could place them anyway (some of the turbines managed to get built to completion, and all of those would indeed have had 80W output); the tearing down of a single power relay in the same context might also factor into such an earlier glitch. Having left the game yesterday, today I find the power maximum displayed in the toolbar at the proper value of 742W, leading me to presume that a save & re-load would have been sufficient to cure the symptoms.
Nov 14, 2021 @ 1:56am
In topic Expedition doesn't dock at facility to finish
Originally posted by wizzard4all:
I don't get it. I have been playing this build for a while with no issues. Now, all of the sudden, when I get to the surface, abd send an expedition, everything is fine for going to the POI's, but when the Rover comes back to the facility, it doesn't "dock" properly or something. The people don't return from the rover, and the tech and seeds that I acquire sit in the Rover's inventory, and I can't access any of it. What's going on??

Yeah, I had one of those, too. Extremely nasty, only way to solve it was to go back a couple of days and reload.

I have a hunch that it had something to do with me trying to fiddle around with the planned route after the expedition had already started. I don't remember exactly wat I had done - I think I had noticed that they were running lower on food than I was happy with, or running out of space for additional finds, or some such, and I tried to order them home before they had visited all their waypoints (*). Also, I'm not sure whether I hit "abort expedition" or tried it via "move to" and then "disembark", or even just stop them and give them brand new waypoints. Whatever it was - when they reached the base, they would refuse to disembark; Trying to abort the mission didn't help either, nor did attempts at having them start another mission. I don't know how many times I re-loaded and re-tried with different combos of "move to", "disembark", "abort mission" and whatever else I could think of.

The only thing that helped was re-loading a save from before I had fiddled retroactively with the mission parameters (which unfortunately was from WAY before).

(* Also, I might be misremembering things; it could also have been that, on the contrary, they were already headed home and I thought they were in good enough shape to tackle another waypoint or two; so I might have stopped them on their return trip, fiddled with the set of waypoints, and then had them continue the trip, only to have them refusing to disembark when they returned.)
Nov 14, 2021 @ 1:28am
In topic Spelunking
If you go for option B, please make it so that it overrides whatever the colonist was currently doing. This would allow it to be co-opted as an "abort and reconsider" command, which I occasionally find myself wishing for as well. Two birds, one stone.

Yet another alternative, that would also have benefits in other situations: How about a "work here" command, to assign a particular map location to a colonist, so that the colonist will prefer to choose jobs (or walk about idly) in the vicinity of that location, rather than wherever they currently happen to be when they ponder their next move.
Nov 12, 2021 @ 3:14am
In topic Enough Resources? - Clunky UI
Originally posted by Cmdr Eric Anker:
About getting to the surface to get more resources: The problem was that i didn't have enough resources to build what I needed to reach the surface! So I started breaking down items to get back resources, but that lead to other after a while I gave up. My only option was to mine everything, and I started doing that, but my colonists were not very interested to say the least. It felt like it would take forever and I did not have resources to build pieces of "ceiling" either. I used a big map, and maybe that was not the best choice (expected more resources on a big map, but maybe it doesn't work like that). At the start of the game when choosing map, one can see where the resources are, maybe the mini map could be available in game to? (ca always take a snap shot when in that menu, but if one forgets it...)

Had a map like that recently, too. Very low on anthrazite.

Rather than mining everything, dig exploratory tunnles. (Make sure you have more "parallel" mining jobs in the same region than you have miners; those idiots plan too far ahead, and don't realize they'll be able to reach the block behind the one they're currently mining, so once they've finished that block they'll keep trundling off to do some other job they've already set their mind on; you want that other job to be nearby so they don't waste too much time alternating between job sites, and you probably also want it to be a mining job.) Start with a coarse grid in hopes to hit big deposits, and make the grid smaller and smaller as you continue your search.

Also, make sure to not build in places from where you mined scarce resources, until you have completely exhausted them using a deep mining robot (make sure you have at least one of those) and turned the ground to dirt.

If you're running really low, excavate a large hall to provoke collapses (preferably someplace off your colonists' commute paths), which will tend to bring some resources with them (no deep deposits though).

Collapses seem to be a hit-and-miss thing: Sometimes a game won't give you any collapses at all. In my experience, saving and re-loading will change that quite drastically.

If you forgot to screenshot the map when you created it, don't worry, you can still access that overview as follows: Press ESC to bring up the "save"/"load"/etc menu; below the menu line proper there'll be a note on the right saying, "Game Seed: SOME_WORD"; take a note of that word, then pretend you want to create a new game (make sure to save your proper game first). In the map generation UI, enter the magic word into the "Map Seed" field, choose whatever map size you think you opted for in your proper game, and click "Generate": The map you'll see will be the very same as the one you started your proper game with (presuming you remembered the map size correctly).
Nov 12, 2021 @ 2:28am
In topic Spelunking
Currently, there is no straightforward way to make colonists visit yet-unexplored portions of the caverns. Workarounds such as assigning mining jobs or build jobs in the unexplored sections are somewhat cumbersome and feel like ugly hacks. (To be frank, I think we shouldn't even be able to see where we can mine or deconstruct in unexplored regions, let alone place jobs there.)

Some suggestions:

(A) Implement an additional job, "Spelunking". A colonist/bot assigned to this job would simply move to the nearest reachable explored location that borders on an unexplored location. Once there, it's rinse and repeat.

(B) Move-To command. Some way to explicitly tell a colonist/bot to move to a specific location (if reachable). This way, we would still have to order colonists around to spelunk, but it would feel far less hackish.

(C) Introduce a bias to colonists' idle movement to have them gravitate towards the nearest reachable explored location bordering on an unexplored location (where "bias" could be as extreme as "always move directly in that direction", or as subtle as making that direction, say, 10% more likely), so that idle colonists will effectively head out to do some spelunking.
Nov 12, 2021 @ 2:13am
In topic Pathfinding While Mining is Bonkers
The pathfinding of colonists/robots tasked with mining really needs an overhaul. (Same might be applicable to other tasks, but it primarily shows with mining.)

Right now, colonists/bots seem to be planning what to do next BEFORE finishing the block they're currently mining, and never bother to reconsider their plan until they've actually started work (*) on whatever they decided to do then.

(*I may be lying here; I never bothered to pay much attention whether they actually start to work on that next job; but they sure as heck don't bother questioning their decisions before reaching that job's site, no matter how long it takes them to get there.)

This makes digging 1-block-wide exploratory tunnels a major PITA, because every time the colonist/bot finishes mining a block, it just happily jogs away to some other task, usually in a galaxy far, far away, based on the fact that just a second ago it couldn't reach the next block to mine, and totally ignoring the fact that it personally just cleared a path there. Then, once they're finished with the first unit of work of whatever they decided to busy themselves with in the meantime, they realize that there's something new to mine, and jog back, only to give up again after mining just one single block. Rinse, repeat.

That way, they spend only a guesstimated 5% of their time digging that tunnel, while spending another 5% doing lower-priority jobs, and wasting 90% of their time traveling between the respective work sites.

It looks like colonists/bots do not currently do another run of their work priorization checks the instance they're finished with one job, but they clearly should - at least when the job they just finished could potentially have altered the pathfinding, and thus created job opportunities that hadn't been there before.

If that is not an option (because the work priorization checks would be too complex and lead to lags if triggered in such situations, or the structure of the code does not allow them to be easily triggered in this manner), colonists/bots should be given at least one opportunity to reconsider their priorities while en route to their next job site.
Nov 12, 2021 @ 1:32am
In topic Colonists/Bots Idling
It still bothers me to no end that we only have three slots to assign work priorities to colonists/bots, and when there's nothing to do that matches these categories, they will idle - rather than help their colleagues with other tasks.

This is especially annoying when at the same time you have some kind of emergency, or a new extensive building project, where you want all free hands on deck.

Not sure what the best solution to this would be - just having them do any odd job might be ill-advised, lest they break machinery or waste precious resources because they happen to be as dumb as a slice of toast.

Maybe some separate slots - up to three should be enough - of stuff to do when idle? Though I guess I'd prefer a system where we can just assign an "idle priority" to _all_ task categories (with the option "nope; leave this to the skilled folks")

While we're at it, a global "emergency slot" would also come in handy, that - if used - has priority BEFORE the colonists'/bots' individual jobs.

Yes, of course you can always re-assign individual work priorities as needed to achieve the effect, but I prefer to leave my colonists' priorities alone, lest I forget what I really want them to do on a day-to-day basis.

It would also be neat if a "what to do when idle" system would also cover things like exercising, or just relaxing.
Jan 9, 2021 @ 1:29pm
In topic Remove Cables?
Fun fact: You can also just select the cable by clicking on it, and then press the DELETE key - you just don't get any visual feedback whatsoever when you select the cable,

For funsies, try pressing ESC after clicking on a cable; note how in that situation you need to press ESC twice to bring up the options menu: First press actually de-selects the cable, second press opens the menu.

In my book it's a bug; it should open a popup as with any other entity you select in the game; specifically, something akin to the popup you get when you click on the pylon of a pipe.

BTW, the clicking on a pipe anywhere except at a pylon is also bugged in the same manner: You get a bit of audio feedback, but no visual cues; and yet the pipe is selected, and pressing DELETE would demolish it, while pressing ESC de-selects it instead of opening the menu.
Jul 17, 2019 @ 3:29am
In topic Line Suggestions
"Red" and "Yellow" might come in handy, to combine with "Alert". (Maybe also "Green", while you're at it.) "All-Clear" would also do nicely.

"Cockpit" and "Infirmary" (or "Med[ical] Bay" or "Sick Bay", or "Medical Room" as per the block name) as additional location designators.

"One", "Two", "Three", for various purposes (e.g. "Airlock - One - Pressurizing"). Maybe up to "Ten", so we can do a countdown, and maybe also add "twenty", "thirty" etc. and "seconds remaining".
(Edit: And "Zero", of course.)

Speaking of countdowns, maybe "Ignition".

If you want to go completely wild, also add "Eleven", "Twelve", "Hundred" and "Thousand" so we can spell out arbitrary numbers (up to 999,999, unless you also throw in "million", "billion", ...). Maybe also add "meters" and/or "kilometers", "liters", "[kilo/mega]Watts" and "percent".

Or maybe not - I think I'm going off on some tangents here...
Jul 16, 2019 @ 3:53pm
In topic Line Suggestions
A message just saying "completed" would seem quite useful (and also pretty generic).

Also, some single-word messages indicating typical locations would come in handy, so that we can sequence them with existing messages to compose more detailed status reports; some suggestions:

Engine Room
Cargo Bay
Cryo Bay
Crew Quarters

Maybe also throw in:

Jul 16, 2019 @ 3:29pm
In topic Line Suggestions
Lines 007 and 008 ("Target locked / lost") sound very similar; maybe replace "Target locked" with "Target acquired".
Jun 12, 2019 @ 5:47am
In topic Breaking Ground couple problems.
Originally posted by JeQ:
3) when using struts to make rocket stronger, pistons doesn't work which are installed between those parts. Engineers should be capable to cut struts out where no needed at vacuum.
Instead of manual struts, use Autostruts; you can disable those in flight.
Jun 12, 2019 @ 5:44am
In topic The Grand KSP Development Discussion Megathread!
Originally posted by jacob:
what about different sized and shaped rapier engines too? like 0.625 size (one nozzle), mk2, mk3, and the 2.5 sixe.
Since the introduction of the engine plates it has become quite easy to cluster engines, so larger diameters aren't really a problem; and pretty much everything you might want to manage about them can be accomplished via action groups. Clustering tanks is a bigger issue. But yeah, having a 0.625m diameter rapier would seem logical, given that the 1.25m rapiers seem to be clusters of four smaller engines.
Jun 11, 2019 @ 8:17pm
In topic Flipping at last moment when landing on Mun?
Originally posted by trentdep:
When I get very close to Mun's surface is start flipping uncontrollably - no idea why, anyone?
Besides what has been mentioned before, make sure your craft's center of mass is well-balanced. As you burn fuel and thus reduce your craft's total mass, any imbalance will get more and more pronounced.

Originally posted by FourGreenFields:
Still leaves the possibility that the SAS keeps holding retrograde as you bounce off the surface. Usually it turns SAS to stability assist during touchdown, but you're ♥♥♥♥♥♥ if it doesn't.
You want to cut the throttle just a moment before touchdown anyway, to avoid providing "engine assist" to the landing legs' inevitable bouncing.
In my experience, landing with just stability assist is far more difficult, as even the slightest tilt will lead to the accumulation of sideways motion, which in turn will tip over the craft at touchdown.
I guess a viable alternative is to use radial out hold in surface mode - which will try to keep your craft perfectly upright - and use thrusters or brief manual tilts to kill sideways motion before touchdown, but it requires higher-level pilots or high-tech probe cores, and I suspect it may not work for craft with poorly balanced center of mass.
Jun 11, 2019 @ 6:50pm
In topic The Grand KSP Development Discussion Megathread!
As has been mentioned earlier, we need more options to fuel our atomic rockets. Right now we only have the choice between 0.625m, 1.25m, non-cylindrical parts, or hauling around half-empty tanks.

We also need longer 0.625m diameter Lf+Ox tanks, at least one 0.625m diameter solid booster, 0.625m diameter structural tubes, a smaller radial decoupler, and a smaller stabilizer fin.
Jun 11, 2019 @ 5:52pm
In topic Breaking Ground Expansion Crashing My Game?
Make sure you have your relay satellites set to "Hibernate in Warp: Off".
Das Problem mit Spam von Bodeninstrumenten hatte ich auch, bis ich auf den Trichter gekommen bin, alle Relais-Satelliten auf "Hibernate in Warp: Off" zu stellen (sorry, kenne den Namen der Einstellung in der deutschen Übersetzung nicht). Seitdem habe ich Ruhe, selbst während einer mehrjährigen Mission kam nur noch ein halbes Dutzend Nachrichten.
Showing 1-20 of 30 entries