sarbian

[1.6.x] Anatid Robotics / MuMech - MechJeb - Autopilot - [2.8.2] [3 February 2019]

Recommended Posts

Sarbian,

Using 793 with 1.4.1, on Linux, seeing a minor cosmetic issue with the LGAP. The target indicator isn't showing up when you try to select a landing location on the map, nor is the basic trajectory path. LGAP functions correctly, as far as the landing itself is concerned. Just the indicators in map mode not showing up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Download links to CurseForge are unavailable. Please address the issue. If someone has the latest version of the mod on their hands and could upload it somewhere until the author can fix the links I'd be very grateful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Didnt use Mechjeb for years, got used to do everything manualy and never expected to use it again.  I thought that KSP withot MJ is more fun, i was wrong. I just installed MJ day before yesteday, because my daughter had troubles to fall asleep and only slept when i held her, wich meant that i had only one hand free for playing the bloody game, so i was not able to steer the rockets, and i just decidet to keep MJ. It is much more enjoyable when i dont have to steer every ship manualy. So THANK YOU  MJ DEVELOPERS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@sarbian perhaps I'm going on your nerves, but there are still several icons missing...

  • Aircraft_Autopilot
  • Flight_Recorder
  • Scripting_Module
  • SmartRcs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2018 at 2:22 AM, viperwolf said:

Anyone remember which dev version that the landing worked pretty good. I cannot remember which one it was, my craft is going crazy now when landing. I tried every combination of engines and the craft itself is well balanced. Anyway, i understand MJ is a constant progress, Im just cannot remember the version that worked good. normally i just run the latest dev version :)

be sure the MJ2 you have to match the version of ksp you play, i had trouble when 1.4.1 vers installed for 1.3.1 version. for me 2.7.1.0 version MJ2 do perfect landings in ksp 1.4.1

Edited by Acvila
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/03/2018 at 10:28 AM, sarbian said:

That said I have a well written bug report that make me think there might be something wrong with the docking AP (beside the monoprop use that still require some love). 

The problem is in the stock MOI calculations that gets wrong when the control part isn't the default one, see the comments in the KOS source : https://github.com/KSP-KOS/KOS/blob/develop/src/kOS/Control/SteeringManager.cs#L632

I tried rebuilding Mechjeb replacing all stock MOI calls to the custom code from KOS, this completely fixes the issue (that I can confirm) described by @Starwaster :

On 26/03/2018 at 6:16 PM, Starwaster said:

Here's a craft file to contribute to the cause. It's the same basic configuration as in the video using all stock parts.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/j7or2tb33u874jx/Control Authority Tester.craft?dl=1

Don't try to dock it to anything though, not just yet. Just cheat it on up into orbit and put it through various attitude paces using SmartASS using all default Attitude Controller settings.

Control it from its probe core first and pick an attitude (Prograde, Normal, Radial), Force Roll: 0. 

Once you are satisfied that it can adopt an attitude with a particular forced roll setting then switch control to one of its docking ports.

Watch it thrash and roll and oscillate back and forth unable to reach its goal.

If it can't do that then it can't dock no matter what you do to the docking AP. Fix the control issue first and the docking AP will be able to dock it. Whether that means calling it a pilot issue and tweaking PID settings or whether that means you decide that the attitude controller should be able to control it just fine and that it needs a code fix is up to you. But one of those has to happen in order to dock a craft of this configuration no matter what code changes are made to the docking AP.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Starwaster said:

@Gotmachine how about a pull request?

No needs, that s the old MJ code. I just have to revert once I stop scratching my head at the fact that it bring back something I labeled as a bug. ( the addition of  * Quaternion.Euler(-90, 0, 0))

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, fixed in dev. KoS has the additional "Quaternion.Euler(-90, 0, 0)" and it is wrong. See KRPC #293 and I just tested it again to be sure.

The problem in the old MJ code (and stock I guess) is that the part are rotated against vessel.vesselTransform instead of vessel.ReferenceTransform

On 3/27/2018 at 3:44 AM, BARCLONE said:

Sarbian,

Using 793 with 1.4.1, on Linux, seeing a minor cosmetic issue with the LGAP. The target indicator isn't showing up when you try to select a landing location on the map, nor is the basic trajectory path. LGAP functions correctly, as far as the landing itself is concerned. Just the indicators in map mode not showing up.

Do you have anything in the log ? It works on Windows so hopefully it logs something useful on Linux...

Edited by sarbian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if it's said before, but Ascent Guidance doesn't seem to stage Engine Plates, at least, it doesn't for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sarbian said:

Ok, fixed in dev. KoS has the additional "Quaternion.Euler(-90, 0, 0)" and it is wrong. See KRPC #293 and I just tested it again to be sure.

The problem in the old MJ code (and stock I guess) is that the part are rotated against vessel.vesselTransform instead of vessel.ReferenceTransform

Do you have anything in the log ? It works on Windows so hopefully it logs something useful on Linux...

Hey Sarbian - both Chrome and MS Edge are giving warning about invalid site certificates for the link to your dev site. Any chance you've been hacked? Hope not ...

Edited by LameLefty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarbian,

I just installed 794, and ran another simulation. Same results. I'm trying to get you a file upload with a couple of screenshots showing what I see on my screen, plus the KSP.log and player.log texts. Honestly, looking through those files isn't what it used to be. I don't see anything mentioning the flight events like I used to in either file. Both are spammed with hundreds (if not thousands) of messages about a missing "KSPParticleEmitter.pe" file. If there's anything related to MJ in that mess, I didn't see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh. I remember when the web was so much simpler. The effing connection either worked or it didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LameLefty said:

Hey Sarbian - both Chrome and MS Edge are giving warning about invalid site certificates for the link to your dev site. Any chance you've been hacked? Hope not ...

Nah, if you prod the error you get NET::ERR_CERT_DATE_INVALID - Expires on: Mar 30, 2018

Just expired, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NoMrBond said:

Nah, if you prod the error you get NET::ERR_CERT_DATE_INVALID - Expires on: Mar 30, 2018

Just expired, that's all.

Sure.  But expired site certs can also indicate that a site has been compromised and exploit the user's tendency to click past errors

In any event, even if it's an innocent issue, I doubt I'll be the last to notice and ask about it in the coming hours/days until and unless Sarbian gets an updated cert for his site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't d/l Mechjeb dev because the website cert expired and Firefox won't let me pass :)

"This site uses HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) to specify that Firefox may only connect to it securely. As a result, it is not possible to add an exception for this certificate."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Kerbital said:

"This site uses HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) to specify that Firefox may only connect to it securely. As a result, it is not possible to add an exception for this certificate."

Eh? I just added an exception without problems, on FF 58.0.1. Is there more "security" stupidity in 59.x?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LameLefty said:

Sure.  But expired site certs can also indicate that a site has been compromised and exploit the user's tendency to click past errors

In any event, even if it's an innocent issue, I doubt I'll be the last to notice and ask about it in the coming hours/days until and unless Sarbian gets an updated cert for his site.

I am getting same thing.  How can i turn off / bypass this error on chrome? 

first time i have seen this with sarbian's site.

I just used IE 11 and bypassed the error, and was able to get the dev downloads.

Edited by drtedastro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, drtedastro said:

I am getting same thing.  How can i turn off / bypass this error on chrome? 

first time i have seen this with sarbian's site.

I just used IE 11 and bypassed the error, and was able to get the dev downloads.

Yeah me too, its weird, I never had this happen before from this site. FireFox

even my antivirus is freaking out, but its easy to allow, Firefox just straight up blocks it.

Edited by viperwolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Chrome users: Right-click the link to Sarbian's page, open in a new incognito window, click "advanced", then at the bottom of the paragraph click the link which starts "proceed to..."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've got an issue with both the 793 and 794 builds - Landing Guidance to an equatorial site on Laythe using a single-stage vessel is waaaaaay off-target. The vessel does a deorbit burn, resulting in a landing estimate within a few minutes of the target. The landing estimate remains there until basically the craft hits atmosphere and then it all goes to hell. From an equatorial 67km starting orbit, aiming at an equatorial landing site, I repeatably end up touching down >60km west of the targeted site when using parachute landing assist. Back in the (good? bad?) old days, before the atmosphere stuff got rejiggered for the 0.90 release, landing guidance used to be able to hit the spot almost perfectly even when using parachutes. Basically, after the deorbit burn, MJ didn't need to touch the throttle at all until the last few dozen meters to zero out landing velocity.

Before I go bombarding Sarbian with logs and .craft files and such, I need to know if anyone can get reasonably good accuracy landings from a similar Laythe orbit using either dev version and KSP 1.4.2? (If so, I have a mod or something causing some kind of issue). If not, and this is a broader issue than my install, I start doing more controlled tests, gather logs and screenshots, etc. 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an odd question, possibly even a request to make...

 

I am currently in the early planning stages of doing an "Elkano Challenge" run, but with a submarine. In order for me to maintain an accurate heading, I have attached a Mechjeb unit to my submarine and have enabled the autopilot mode to assist with the heading issue. However, if I try to set my altitude to anything less than 0, it will not compute.

Obviously, I am using this mod in a way it was not intended: I am using an aircraft function to pilot a submarine. My first question is this: is there a variable or limitation I can edit within the Mechjeb file itself to allow for negative altitude setting with the autopilot function?

Secondly, can I set Mechjeb to follow a set of coordinates? If, for example, I drop a coordinate point in one spot of the ocean, and a second one somewhere else, can I command the unit to autopilot to the first point, then proceed directly to the second point? I have attempted this, but the sub will not turn to proceed to the designated point, using the Rover Autopilot function.

Sorry if some of these questions are vague or nonsensical, I tried to make my statements as clear as I could. If something is confusing or needs further explanation, please let me know.

Edited by Smokey the Bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now