Jump to content

rmaine

Members
  • Posts

    221
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by rmaine

  1. That seems a bit, um, demanding. Consider that this mod is done completely for free by a volunteer. And he explicitly noted that he was burned out on KSP stuff for quite a while. I'd guess that demands like this are more likely to fuel that burnout and make him stop bothering to maintain the mod at all. Oh, and textures are a *LOT* of work, as is integration with other mods. I suspect it is pointless to note that it would be more helpful to submit revised textures than to complain about them. :-(
  2. I'd suggest the opposite approach. Rather than changing MJ to detect when a Kerbal is outside the ship, I suggest changing the practice of leaving the ship while automatic controls like MJ are active. All sorts of things can go poorly when you are on EVA. Heck, having the engines turn on is a much more obvious problem if you have automatic controls active. Changing that practice also has the advantage of requiring no coding. Yes, time warp has all sorts of issues. More than once I've had a Kerbal thrown away from the craft because I was a little too fast in going EVA after I stopped a time warp. (Entered space above a biome that I hadn't yet gotten EVA data for; wanted to quickly get the data before leaving that biome; oops.) In general, I find it better to learn how to best use things as they are and to avoid doing things that regularly cause problems instead of hoping for code tweaks to custom adapt to everything I try to do. There are quite a lot of things I've learned to just do a different way.
  3. That's what I previously mentioned as the difference of substance between limiting TWR and thrust. I just don't think it worth cluttering things up with a separate option. I won't argue further, though. My opinion might (or might not) be useful; argument certainly isn't.
  4. Just my personal opinion, but I think MJ's ascent guidance is, if anything, already a bit too overburdened by options to add one like this. There are other ascent/descent options I'd put a lot higher on my personal list, though I recognize that my personal preferences don't translate to the author's. (For example, the lack of autostaging on descent causes a fair number of crashes for me; other people have pointed out tricks that help, but not enough to keep me from quicksaving before every landing). The only difference of substance between limiting TWR and thrust is that the TWR increases as fuel burns off. I don't consider a simple factor of diving by mass and local gravity to be "of substance". Note that there are already displays of TWR in various places if one finds it too much trouble to divide.
  5. Well, if you don't have the dependencies installed, things aren't going to go well. It's pretty much not worth investigating anything else until you fix that. Some people dislike CKAN for various reasons. Fine, but handling dependencies is a big plus of CKAN. Not that it catches 100% of all situations, but it sure catches most of them - a lot more than the few problems it has. Some mods have added dependencies in their later versions; in particular, quite a lot of them have added dependence on Toolbar Controller. The fact that you might have installed some mod in the past without Toolbar Controller doesn't mean that you can necessarily get by with it for a later version of the same mod. If you don't use CKAN, you need to at least read the mod threads to see if things like that have changed before installing new versions. Yes, that can be a bother.
  6. Well, I wouldn't be able to solve whatever your problem is anyway, but I suggest that the first line of the first post in this thread is at least a start. (That's the line about needing logs for support). I also note that you say absolutely zero about what your problem is. I use both ClickThroughBlocker and McJeb all the time with no hint of a problem; I suspect many other people do as well. I guess I just assume you are talking about McJeb, as you didn't even actually mention it. In short, darned little for anyone to go by in helping you.
  7. That's a hard call. I hadn't really put much thought into the details. Time would make sense, but that would be a pretty trivial penalty. Trying to think of something that wouldn't be trivial. By the time it comes up, money is getting to be not much of an issue. The same with science; it's pretty easy to max out science before leaving Kerbin and its moons. And as you note, prestige doesn't seem to have much use at all (unless you are using a mod like strategia, which I recently tried out). Hmm. What would actually have some non-trivial cost? Needing to cart more complex parts up from Kerbin can be enough of a bother to be a noticeable penalty without being impossible. I struggle to come up with a rationalization for that, though. Maybe require a higher level Kerbal of some sort to reset things?
  8. Just for kicks, I temporarily added restock, restock+, and near future IVA props to my game (and I see the habutils dll must have been in there somewhere because now I see that I have it). Launched a craft with just a command pod, that lab, and something to boost it up a bit. Right clicked on the lab with no problem. Guess it will take someone who knows more about this stuff than I do. (And I'd guess they would want the whole log file. Posting those directly to the forum never works well. Even if you manage to post it, the moderators would likely delete it because posts that long tend to break viewing the forum for everyone. The usual thing to do is to put the log on some site like dropbox or similar and put a link to that file in the forum post.)
  9. Restock (and restock plus) is one I had in mind with that comment. I also see near future props in your log. And I'm not sure where the habutils dll is from, though that sounds familiar. On the other hand, if you say everything except for right clicking that particular part is ok, I might just not have run into it because I haven't launched anything with that part; suppose I could go try doing so...
  10. Afraid I have no clue as to how to debug your problem, but I can report that I'm using both SSPER 2.04 and TAC-LS 0.18.0.0 in my current KSP 1.12.2 game with no hint of problems, so it must be something deeper than that. I do notice that you are using several other mods that I don't use, so there might be some interaction there.
  11. See the OP, where it says (though I grant it is quite a ways down on the page and thus perhaps easy to miss) "Due to the directories where files need to be installed, CKAN is unable to install this". Yes, I agree it is a nice mod.
  12. Because it is optimizing for the sum of two nodes - one at the start and one at arrival. It doesn't automatically make the second node. That would probably be pointless because you often have to make a midcourse correction for various reasons, so the arrival node is likely to be different enough from the initial guess that auto-creating it won't be wise. Even without a midcourse correction, the difference between the instantaneous impulse that MJ computes versus the finite time of the actual maneuver is likely to make a significant difference in the needed final node. But the delta-V of the predicted final node is still part of the optimization... unless you select the option for flyby/impact only. I forget exactly what it is called and I'm not looking at it right now, but that's basically what it does - optimize ignoring the final node. Often the difference is trivial, but there can be cases where it isn't. Caveat - this is just my 3rd-party understanding. It's possible I have it wrong, but I think this is what it's all about. Ah. Ninja'd while I was typing I see. But I'll leave this here as I elaborated a little more.
  13. Here you go. BTW, Google gave this as the 2nd hit from just googling MechJeb; I didn't even have to mention KSP, though that helps with many searches. I find Google a lot easier than the forum's search tool, which I also find painful.
  14. CKAN will put mods anywhere. I do it all the time. Yes, I use steam and never put mods directly in the steam directory. In CKAN, see "File/Manage Game Instances/New Game Instance" and browse to wherever your game that you want to mod is. Perhaps the one confusing thing is that when you are browsing to select the game instance, you have to select the buildID64.txt file instead of the directory or executable or anything like that. P.S. This thread isn't really the basic MechJeb thread, not that it much matters.
  15. Yeah. I've noticed this problem for a long time now. But it's trivial enough that I've just ignored it. @Linuxgurugamer has plenty on his plate and I just didn't feel it worth bugging him about this one. Even in this particular mod, there are things that bug me more - such as the mod telling me there are eva experiments to do when there are no eva experiment packs onboard to do em with. But that's pretty trivial as well; I just get used to ignoring it.
  16. Also world peace. As long as we are asking for things that have no chance of happening, I'll throw that request in. :-) And a pony. I want a pony. Um... actually, no I don't. Too much trouble to take care of. :-(
  17. I'm not currently using [x] science (though I have done so in the past), but I suspect I can help with the CKAN question here. When something says it is compatible at first glance, but CKAN doesn't give you a checkbox for it, I've often found that's because one of its dependencies is not listed as compatible. In this case, I see that both Click Through Blocker and SpaceTux Library only show compatibility up to 1.12.1. I'd lay good odds that they really are fine in 1.12.2, but CKAN just hasn't been told that. You can tell CKAN to consider anything for 1.12.* to be ok (settings/compatible game versions). Or you can use a trick that was recently pointed out to me (thanks HebruSan via Darthgently); if you go into the versions tab in CKAN, you can select a specific version of a mod regardless of what compatibility it lists. That way you don't open yourself up to accepting a bunch of other mods that you might want to (though I doubt that 1.12.* is really much of a problem).
  18. I was about to say that its working fine for me; got bonuses playing just last night. But then I noticed you said 1.11.2; I'm on 1.12.2. I slightly doubt that is the difference, but it could be.
  19. Ah, nice. I hadn't known about that feature. Sounds like one I'll make use of. Thanks for the info.
  20. Somewhat puzzled about automatic disengagement. I see a changelog entry about auto disengagement when a vehicle starts to fly. I suspect that is related, but I'm running into disengagement at inconvenient times where I certainly don't *INTEND* for the vehicle to be flying; indeed preventing that is part of why I'm using parking brake. I occasionally see the auto-disengagement on scene load. One time I jumped focus to my Gilly base only to see it leap into the air (a common problem on Gilly) while saying that the parking brake was disengaged. Fortunately, the base didn't leap too high or completely flip over; it managed to land intact and erect, at which time I reenabled the parking brake. Also on several occasions I've had rover parking brakes disable when the pilot left the external command seat. The auto-disengagement mostly isn't catastrophic, though it has the potential to be so; I've lost one re-supply ship to it, but the ship had delivered its supplies (and crew) and was just hanging around in case it might be useful for something else, so it wasn't a big loss. BTW, I definitely am using parking brake in 1.12.2. For one case, I occasionally find myself with a rover that is trying to mine an ore on a slopes a bit steeper than the regular brakes will hold on. If I can briefly get the craft velocity low enough to set the parking brake, I can then mine successfully. I don't need parking brake as often in 1.12.2, but it's still useful. In 1.11 it was downright critical to the extent that I found base building without it to be game-breakingly painful.
  21. For what my input is worth (which is not much) I started a 1.12.2 career using TAC-LS. Nothing looks obviously broken so far. Granted the "so far" is not yet far enough to be doing anything that involves sending Kerbals outside of the Kerbin system, as this is a "Probes Before Kerbals" career. Your mileage may vary.
  22. You might want to glance at the Probes Before Crew mod. It is a *MUCH* more extensive mod aimed at encouraging uncrewed missions first. No reason one can't have this as a far less intrusive option. Just thought I'd mention the other in case you weren't aware of it. (I just started a new career yesterday using Probes Before Crew, so it was on the top of my mind.)
  23. @NermNermNerm I very recently started a new 1.12.2 career using PKS. Had been waiting for a version of EL that worked with 1.12.2; have one now. Anyway, 3 things I'll comment on - one new and 2 old. The new thing is a bug in the base game that hits PKS. Fortunately, @nertea helpfully pointed me to a fix, which other users of PKS might also want to be aware of. They will want to install the community fix for the recovery cost bug in KSP 1.12.2. Without that fix, you can't get any credits for selling shinies. Not that selling shinies is horribly necessary, as contracts can provide plenty of funds. But without the ability to sell them, they seem to lack much point (though I do tend to produce them just to help hasten my production tier leveling anyway). The old things. I've grumbled before about how annoying the rover stuff is. With Bon Voyage, it is at least tolerable, though I am careful to save before every Bon Voyage expedition because of the high frequency of explosions on arrival. (The stabilization feature of McJeb's rover autopilot seems to somewhat help that.) But there is one aspect that is extra annoying. Sometimes, I'll get a deposit that is essentially impossible to get at - for example halfway up a nearly vertical crater side where you can't get a rover to stay still even if you do get it there. (Parking brake can't be set if you can't manage to at least momentarily stop sliding first). There's then no way in PKS to abandon that deposit and go after a different one. If you exhaust a deposit, you can find a new one, but if you can't exhaust the first one because you can't get to it... well I hope you have a save from right before you located the deposit (I now always do) or you will forevermore be blocked from further development on that body. I really think there ought to be a way to abandon a deposit and search for a new one; even if there's a cost of some sort that would be ok. Forever blocking development isn't so ok. One other old thing is to correct a misstatement I made earlier. At least now that I relook at it, I come to a different conclusion. I had commented about the orbital hydro labs as being pointless for missions shorter than about 1000 days. But I now can't reconstruct how I came up with that except by guessing at a significant omission in my calculation. I can get a figure something like that if I compare the weight of a hydro lab with the weight of the snacks I'd have to haul without the lab. But that omits the weight of the containers I'd need for those snacks. And those containers (from the Stockalike Station Parts Redux) are *HEAVY*. (Also the snacks get pretty expensive, but money doesn't tend to be much of an issue by the time I'm doing interplanetary missions anyway). So I guess the hydro labs look more useful after all (even before you tweaked their weight and production a while back).
  24. Bingo. Thanks a lot for the pointer for something that wasn't even directly related to your mod. It showing up as a negative cost recovery on the logistics module is what made me think that it might possibly be in this mod. Evidently not, but asking the mod author seems to have helped anyway. :-)
  25. Hmm. I'm not at all sure the issue I just noted is related to this mod, but thought I'd see if anyone has an insight. With EL now working on KSP 1.12.2, I started a new career using Progressive Kolonization System (which in turn uses stockalike station parts). As a way to partially finance my extravagances, I made some bling (specifically "shinies" from Progressive Kolonization) and shipped them back to sell on Kerbin. A PPD-CRG-3 Logistics module full of 3000 tier 2 shinies from Mun sells for around a million credits. Landed my haul on Kerbin and when I recovered the craft, sure enough it gave me about the expected million credits for the cargo. But then it gave me a negative million credit for the logistics module that carried the cargo. So my mission didn't even recover its own launch cost, much less make a profit. This scheme used to work last time I did a PKS career, which I guess was in KSP 1.11.1; heck, selling for a profit is the only thing the shinies are good for. Not sure whether this is a change in PKS, Stockalike Station parts, or something in the base KSP. I don't have a handy log file, though I have a save with a loaded cargo ship, so I could probably create a log file of recovering it if that was of any help. It isn't clear to me that a log file would show much relevant to this issue, but I could be wrong on that. And maybe I'll try asking over on the PKS thread if nobody here has any thoughts.
×
×
  • Create New...