rmaine

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.

Is an update to this mod needed for that or does it "just work"? Honest question; I don't know for sure. I just started a new career with both this mod and the new EL. No obvious problems yet in that the game loads and runs ok. BUt then I haven't yet gotten to where I'm actually doing anything that uses either mod yet. Soon. :-)

I noticed that, but figured that Taniwha's specific statement on this thread was a more reliable indication. So I just told CKAN to consider mods for KSP 1.9 to be compatible. Yes, that means it will allow me to install mods that aren't actually good for 1.12.2, but I do tend to take special note when I have CKAN install a mod not claiming current compatibility.

Oh wow. Thank you, thank you! Have been anxiously awaiting a release that works on 1.12.2. I knew better than to annoyingly ask, but I sure was quietly anxious. :-)

I certainly haven't tested extensively. in my 1.12.2 game I've just barely gotten to where I'm sending my first few unkerballed interplanetary missions. But in my very cursory use, astrogator seems to be working ok.

I was in the middle of typing a reply when I noticed that you ninja'd me. I'm using astrogator, which works find for me in 1.12.2. The new stock maneuver planner, however... well, maybe it will get better, but for now it almost never does what I want. More often than not, it just refuses to do anything, complaining that I'm not in a good enough starting orbit or some such. Heck, one thing I use astrogator for is timimg when to plan a mission that isn't yet launched at all. And when the stock feature does give me something, it often is for literally years in the future instead of the launch window I know is opening soon. I've gotten so that I don't even bother to try it; maybe after another patch or two.

As noted above, GravityTurn creates a node for circularization but GravityTurn alone doesn't do the circularization. What it does do is tell MechJeb to auto-execute that node. At that point, GravityTurn is done. Whether the circularization node gets auto-executed depends on 2 things. First, you have to have MechJeb installed. Second, you have to have unlocked the tech for MechJeb's maneuver planning. That's... just a sec while I check...Advanced Flight Control. You say you have MechJeb installed, but I'll offer the guess that perhaps you haven't unlocked the right tech yet.

I hadn't yet noticed that, but it makes a lot of sense to me. Nothing more for the mod to do. Saves me having to close the window manually. Are you saying this is a problem? Hmm. I suppose perhaps if you are planning to tell it to abort and try for a better set of values. Guess I seldom do that, and almost never after leaving the atmosphere.

Seems to work. Thanks.

Oh good. The lack of something like that has minorly bugged me for a long time. I've just stumbled along without it by manually putting in my own guess, which is usually good enough for my purposes. I didn't feel it was worth bugging you for, as you have so much else on your plate. But I will like it. :-)

I'm a little confused as to how to use this in conjunction with CKAN. I don't see it listed in CKAN itself. Well, ok, I can deal with that by manually installing it, But this suggests that it can be used instead of the community resource pack. Kerbalism has a dependency on the community resource pack, so if I try to uninstall the community resource pack, CKAN insists on also uninstalling kerbalism (and thus also simplex Kerbalism). Obviously, I could completely ignore CKAN, but that's inconvenient. The best plan I've come up with is to go ahead and let CKAN install the community resource pack, but then manually delete that behind CKAN's back as it were. Am I missing something here and is that a stupid idea?

Yeah. I figured that was probably what was meant. But McJeb does have some sort of launch to intercept option (not looking at it right now to be sure of the name), which has had various problems at times. It occurred to me that there was at least some possibility that was the subject, though the quoted mention of Hohmann seemed to make that less likely.

And me, well with KSP 1.12.1 and the dev version of the mod. BTW, I always use bi-impulsive xfer for low Kerbin orbit to the Mun. (From Kerbin itself, I start with something else to get into orbit, but I presume you mean from Kerbin orbit instead of from Kerbin itself. As a retired engineer, I'm trained to state things more precisely because sometimes a sloppy statement actually gets misinterpreted. There's a lesson about that in a "musical road" near me. There are grooves in a segment of the road that result in your tires playing a tune when you drive over them. But the tune is a little "off". Turns out that sloppy wording of the construction specs was the reason. The specs described the distance "between the grooves". What was intended was the distance center to center. As the grooves have finite width, that's not the same thing. It's close enough that the tune is recognizable - just a bit sour, particularly on the higher notes. :-))

I haven't spent a lot of time with KSP 1.12.1, and certainly can't claim to have done exhaustive testing, but this mod seems to work fine there for me so far. I do prefer this one to the alternatives. One feature I find very convenient is the "turn orbit up/down". Sure, I can do that manually, but it is so much handier this way. I particularly use that for getting to specific contract orbits, where there isn't a target that would allow me to use, for example, the "match planes with target" of MecJeb2. I also like the display of next encounter information, because aiming for a suitable next perigee is often one reason I'm fine tuning a maneuver.

Well, since I haven't done it that way myself, guarantees are worth what you are paying for it :-) but at a quick glance it looks like the MechJeb2-2.12.0.0-1092.zip file has contents identical to what I installed with CKAN, so that's probably it.

Other people could tell you better than I can. I always use CKAN to install it. I'm sure that's not necessary - just the way I've always done it. For some mods, CKAN helps with making sure that needed dependencies are installed, but McJeb doesn't have any dependencies, so that's not an issue here. If you are installing by dragging from github or somewhere like that, the two things I often read about people doing incorrectly are 1) installing the source instead of the compiled mod. Github would have the whole source. I presume the compiled mod is also there, but I'd have to go paw around to tell you exactly where. 2) putting it in the wrong place. It should end up as a MecJeb2 directory directly under GameData. I think if you download the whole thing from github, you might be in danger of having the compiled mod end up at a lower level. (P.S. Hope this doesn't end up getting posted twice. I tried once forgetting that I wasn't signed in. When the forum griped about that, I signed in to post; possible both copies might end up posting.)

That's a little short on details for anyone to help much with. Perhaps note the prominent "no logs no support" line at the top of the OP. For what its worth, the latest dev version (2.12-1092) works fine for me with KSP 1.12.1. If you aren't using the dev version, I'm not sure that yet supports KSP 1.12. Otherwise, no clue why your's is different from mine.

Ah. I had basically the same question. Thought I'd search here before asking. Like Mush_Morton, I've gone to Mun a zillion times - enough so that it's just pointless tedium to manually create the nodes. Tried the new maneuver creator app just for kicks. Guess I'll continue using McJeb for this (or Astrogator, which sometimes seems to do better for interplanetary transfers).

I also read and didn't submit it. Regardless of their lawyers wanting excuses for employment, I seldom click "agree" on overly long legalese like that. If I were serious about agreement, I'd want to spend significant time pondering it's exact implications instead of just skimming for "well, it's probably getting at something like..." If I'm not serious about it, well, there needs to be more motivation for me to overcome the aversion of "agreeing" to something without being sure I really understand it. The thing I find most annoying (and I forget whether this one had such a clause or not) is the common item saying that I promise I have read and understood all this. I figure the lawyers that write crap like that ought to be found guilty of knowingly encouraging fraud of some sort because they darn well know that almost everyone who agrees to that will be lying. If there's a spot for comments, I occasionally add one to that effect and explicitly say that, contrary to the check box, I did not in fact read or agree to the whole thing. Never yet had any pushback from my addition of such a disclaimer. Reminds me of pay time sheets at NASA from back before I retired (and when the time sheets were actual sheets of paper). We were supposed to put down what project or other bean-counter code we had worked on down to something like tenths of an hour. Sort of silly in the first place (and extra so because some mandatory stuff didn't have codes so we were supposed to just put it down as whatever we most otherwise worked on). We were then supposed to sign this statement promising that it was all true. But the system's processing of time sheets was slow enough that they were required to be turned in a few days before the end of the time period were were testifying about. Oral explanation was that if something else ended up happening, we were supposed to adjust it later by a balancing lie on the next pay period. Of course, that's not what the legalese actually said. I took to hand inserting the word "planned" above the pre-printed legalese. That made it at least plausibly honest (well, except that I didn't track what I worked on that precisely anyway - but at least the hours of leave were honest). First time I turned in a sheet like that, I expected it to get bounced back to me. Nope; nobody seemed to actually care. As long as there was a signature, they were happy, even if I was signing to some quite different statement.

The tradeoff, of course, is that multiple people asking means more work for the person responding. As you are asking the favor of someone else taking the time to respond, it is generally considered polite (as well as more effective) to make at least a token effort before asking. This principle of also considering other people's time applies to life in general, I might add - not just to forum posts. As a software author (before I retired), I occasionally ran into people asking me to essentially read the documentation to them - documentation I had spent a lot of time writing so as to keep from having to explain the same thing to many people. I'd point them to the exact page, but they still wanted my time to essentially read that page to them. Those people tended to make it on my list of ones not worth responding to in the future. I don't think anyone expects you to paw through 150 pages of thread, but it doesn't take much effort to check at least the last few posts for something so likely to have come up recently. Look up the somewhat snarky acronym lmgtfy on similar matters.

As a devout Pastafarian, I have to say that noodlecraft sound like a good idea to me. :-)

And don't tell the students about the dev build. :-) I suppose there's some merit to that, as students who can't find it probably shouldn't be using it. Oops, blew that as Sarbian has a link to it in his sig in addition to the one on the first page.

Unless I'm confused (which I suppose is possible), there is no stock alarm system prior to 1.12, which does make that pretty much a 1.12 issue. Mind you, it's also an issue I'm interested in, but I have patience. Quite a few mods I'd like to see updated to 1.12; it will happen in time, I'm reasonably confident.

That was a real thing for Gilly. I had been known to take advantage of it. Sometimes on purpose. And then sometimes by accident when being a little too impatient moving around on the surface. :-)

Ooh. A lot of bugfixes, I see. Some of them sound relevant to me. Guess I'll have to try this out.... as in right now. :-)