cybutek

[1.3.0] Kerbal Engineer Redux 1.1.3.0 (2017-05-28)

Recommended Posts

This doesn't help for crafts that have either of the two "chip" type parts on. As they no longer exist, the crafts fail to load (and vessels in flight get deleted from the save? not sure if this still happens).

I'm pretty sure you get an alert on loading the save that flying ships X and Y were not loaded because of incompatibility, but I haven't seen that recently.

I don't mind fixing the save or doing the plugin shuffle- the weird thing for me was the way the VAB just broke. If I have time I'll try to do enough testing to write a real bug report for KSP itself if that's what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm pretty sure you get an alert on loading the save that flying ships X and Y were not loaded because of incompatibility, but I haven't seen that recently.

I don't mind fixing the save or doing the plugin shuffle- the weird thing for me was the way the VAB just broke. If I have time I'll try to do enough testing to write a real bug report for KSP itself if that's what it is.

You would need to check the output_log.txt. Chances are there was an exception thrown by something that caused some important code to not run...

I think it would be better if the existing parts were kept exactly as they were but the PartModules replaced with dummy ones. Then the new KER can use the KSPAddon mechanism rather than a PartModule and everything should just update seamlessly...

Edit: The build engineer does now use a KSPAddon. The important bit is that the parts are missing and the flight PartModule has changed name. The flight engineer should also use a KSPAddon rather than a PartModule and the "dummy" FlightEngineer could easily be made to be the only way to make it visible (e.g. it would only add the toolbar buttons if there is a part with the module on the ship). There is also a nasty 0.24 bug that messes things up when a saved part has a different set of PartModules to the currently installed state, so, while that will probably be fixed in a 0.24.1 patch, it is another reason to avoid changing the PartModules in any way.

Edited by Padishar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't like the new KER 1.0. too many button and big button blocked my toolbar on top left of screen. back to old 0.6.2.7.

I plan to move it onto the stock toolbar soon.

Excellent. This was pretty much my only gripe with the new v1.0 Engineer - the large immobile button.

Is there no longer a way to turn off the Engineer7500 module in-flight? Context menu didn't seem to have a disable/enable button. It's nice to save battery power for circumstances where telemetry isn't needed.

The tests I ran using v1 went ok, though the SRB ÃŽâ€v estimates seemed a bit off (on the high side). Might be due to losses in atmosphere though, and I don't have enough data points to say yea or nay. I'll test in vacuum sometime and see if the estimates match up to the actual.

Otherwise I really like it, especially the stock toolbar integration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I really love the new build engineer! Especially the tool tips are incredibly helpful. I find it utterly bewildering how hard it sometimes is just to identify a part (which you can now do by a short hover), and finally there's a way again to get the dry mass. I don't have a clue why they removed that from the part tool tips, as it's quite important information, but it's very nice to have it back at least!

As for the flight engineer, I'm kinda sad to see it is still an actual part and not partless like the build engineer. I do very much like it though that you've moved the controls (like sim delay) to the UI. I guess I'll keep adding the (newly renamed) module to my pods and probes for this version as well ;)

Is there no longer a way to turn off the Engineer7500 module in-flight? Context menu didn't seem to have a disable/enable button. It's nice to save battery power for circumstances where telemetry isn't needed.

But it doesn't even consume electricity anymore, why do you need to turn it off? It also doesn't even have a context menu for me, so are you sure everything went alright with the install, as in did you delete the old Engineer stuff first? I don't have the stock toolbar icon either, but it is on by default for the previous version...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hint... The backslash "\" key is bound to the visibility of the window. But there's a known bug in the editor where if you hide the window whilst the mouse is hovering over it, the editor will remain locked. Just unhide and move your mouse over and out of the window to fix, or just don't hide it with your mouse hovering for the time being. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it doesn't even consume electricity anymore, why do you need to turn it off?

Ah, guess I missed that bit of the update. If that's the case, then rock on. :)

It also doesn't even have a context menu for me, so are you sure everything went alright with the install, as in did you delete the old Engineer stuff first?

Yeah, it's installed right. I just updated it to include a radial decoupler module, which would explain why it still has a context menu for me. I tend to play with few mod parts on my main save and like to have an easy way to ditch them for when I need to "scrub" the non-stock stuff. I do the same for the Hullcam VDS cameras and any extra little science gizmos too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Version 0.6.2.8 is now available!

I have merged Padishar's fixes into the official release. Also because people have mentioned that they either love or hate the extra atmospheric and debug tweakables for various reasons, I have moved them out into their own modules.

Added: BuildEngineerTweakable module including the extra tweakables.

Added: FlightEngineerTweakable module including the extra tweakables.

Padishar's Fixes:

Fixed: Possible inaccuracies in the Slope readout.

Fixed: Problems caused with NEAR mod (uses the same fix as with FAR).

Fixed: Problems when the settings files were not read/written correctly.

Version 1.0.0.1 is now available!

Added: Stock toolbar support in the Flight Engineer.

Changed: Orbital Period has higher precision.

Fixed: Various NullRefs in editor window and overlay.

Edited by cybutek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confused.

Tested 1.0.0.1 in .24x64 KSP - together with lots of other mods - adding my usual cfg to the game.

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]
{
MODULE
{
name = FlightEngineerTweakable
}

MODULE
{
name = BuildEngineerTweakable
}
}

But I do not get the Flight window of KER?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any chance to re-size the windows? They are so small on 1.0.0.1 :(

Edited by GunTuga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Version 0.6.2.8 is now available!

I have merged Padishar's fixes into the official release. Also because people have mentioned that they either love or hate the extra atmospheric and debug tweakables for various reasons, I have moved them out into their own modules.

Added: BuildEngineerTweakable module including the extra tweakables.

Added: FlightEngineerTweakable module including the extra tweakables.

Padishar's Fixes:

Fixed: Possible inaccuracies in the Slope readout.

Fixed: Problems caused with NEAR mod (uses the same fix as with FAR).

Fixed: Problems when the settings files were not read/written correctly.

Version 1.0.0.1 is now available!

Added: Stock toolbar support in the Flight Engineer.

Changed: Orbital Period has higher precision.

Fixed: Various NullRefs in editor window and overlay.

Sorry, but I don't understand: why two different versions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am confused.

Tested 1.0.0.1 in .24x64 KSP - together with lots of other mods - adding my usual cfg to the game.

@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]
{
MODULE
{
name = FlightEngineerTweakable
}

MODULE
{
name = BuildEngineerTweakable
}
}

But I do not get the Flight window of KER?

change that to FlightEngineerModule and delete other one, you should be good, it should be look like this.

@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]:Final
{
MODULE
{
name = FlightEngineerModule
}
}

Edited by MADTJ
Quote are not in right place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, but I don't understand: why two different versions?

0.6 is the "classic" version.

1.0 is currently in public testing and will be replacing 0.6 when ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@cybutek: Could you add PhysicsSignficance = 1 to the FlightEngineer part?

@KerbMav: cybutek mentioned it a few pages back, but the flight engineer module name was changed to FlightEngineerModule. You also no longer need to the BuildEngineer module – that function is available by default. This should work:


@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]
{
MODULE
{
name = FlightEngineerModule
}
}

@jlcarneiro: 1.0.0.1 is in testing – it might not work as expected, but it also has lots of awesome new features. As of last night, it worked extremely well, and it sounds like the update fixed the biggest issue I'd noticed.

Now to try it with KSP 24.1. 3 minutes to go...

And... double ninja'd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am confused.

Tested 1.0.0.1 in .24x64 KSP - together with lots of other mods - adding my usual cfg to the game.

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]
{
MODULE
{
name = FlightEngineerTweakable
}

MODULE
{
name = BuildEngineerTweakable
}
}

But I do not get the Flight window of KER?

KER 1.0 does not include the Tweakable modules and has no need for them. It only has the FlightEngineerModule module and the build engineer is completely part-less.

Edit: Double ninja'd also! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0.6 is the "classic" version.

1.0 is currently in public testing and will be replacing 0.6 when ready.

Ah, thanks!

But... Wouldn't it be easier to just make cosmetics changes when ready? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, thanks!

But... Wouldn't it be easier to just make cosmetics changes when ready? :confused:

The changes are not cosmetic... KER 1.0 has been months in the making, not just a weekend. The base code is completely different to 0.6, otherwise I would of just called it 0.7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hint... The backslash "\" key is bound to the visibility of the window.

Hmm.... Is there any way you could make that reconfigurable in the settings files? I don't actually have a backslash key, and the keystroke I use to make it work (Alt + ¥) for whatever reason doesn't capture as a \ for Unity. (I've just recompiled it for now using a key that works.) If not - no worries. Clicking the toolbar works too. Thanks.

Edited by Cydonian Monk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm.... Is there any way you could make that reconfigurable in the settings files? I don't actually have a backslash key, and the keystroke I use to make it work (Alt + ¥) for whatever reason doesn't capture as a \ for Unity. (I've just recompiled it for now using a key that works.) If not - no worries. Clicking the toolbar works too. Thanks.

Yea, having the same problem here (my combination for a backslash would be AltGr. + ß, 2 keys to the left of backspace). I also tried the usual keys which have the backspace in english layouts, but none work. I didn't bother to recompile though ;)

I also have another small suggestion: When you toggle the engineering window in the VAB from extended/normal to 'Compact' mode, could you keep it aligned to the right if it's close to the right window border? This would allow placing the window to the right and switching between normal and compact mode without dragging it around every time. This is especially useful since the left border isn't fixed, as the width depends on the open tab. Action groups and Crew are significantly wider than the part selection, which is why I would prefer the window on the right side if I could still toggle the compact mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, now I actually have a problem with the current test release: I've added the flight engineer to all pods & probes and also gone into my savegame and replaced all the occurrences of the old module. So far, everything works fine. Unfortunately, after starting a mission and reaching orbit, I separated the orbiter from the launch stage (which has a probe core to allow lading/retrieval) and the moment I then switched vessels the KER icon disappears from the toolbar (and for some reason the window wasn't shown either, even though making a savegame and checking the vessel, it had "isEnabled = True" for the FlightEngineerModule). This can be reset by returning to the space center or swtiching to any vessel that's not in physics range, but any switch within physics range (weather it's via map or the keys next to backspace) seems to remove the icon. For some reason, even though the window should've been visible for my orbiter, it still wasn't on the initial switch.

TL;DR: Switching vessels with shortcuts removes the KER icon from the stock toolbar. Returning to KSC and then switching back to the same vessel makes it appear again.

Edit: I've just noticed the test version is also missing the biome display the other version recently got, I'll be eagerly awaiting that as well :)

Edited by Creat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay this mod link is starting to confuse me.

Do I just need the 0.6.2.8 or do I need 0.6.2.8 AND the padishar dll or does 1.0.0.1 replace everything?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

0.6.2.8 is the latest version of the 0.6.x.x series. It includes all the changes from my dev thread but changes some things so you need to mess about a bit to get the extra tweakable sliders and buttons to work. Only ever install my dev version over the top of a matching release version. My dev version is still currently 0.6.2.7.

Alternatively, version 1.0.0.1 is the new version that Cybutek has been developing for some time. This is considerably different to the 0.6.x.x series and you must only install one of them. This is a very early release and there are various issues and things it doesn't do that 0.6.2.8 does, especially if you want to use old craft that have the old "chip" part as that has been removed.

So, if you want the least change from what you are used to then just get 0.6.2.8 but if you want to try out the future of KER then get 1.0.0.1 instead.

Edited by Padishar
more grammar fail, I'm having a bad today...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0.6.2.8 is the latest version of the 0.6.x.x series. It includes all the changes from my dev thread but changes some things so you need to mess about a bit to get the extra tweakable sliders and buttons to work. Only ever install my dev version over the top of a matching release version. My dev version is still currently 0.6.2.7.

Alternatively, version 1.0.0.1 is the new version that Cybutek has been developing for some time. This is considerably different to the 0.6.x.x series and you must only install one of them. This is a very early release and there are various issues and things it doesn't do that 0.6.2.8 does, especially if you want to use old craft that have the old "chip" part as that has been removed.

So, if you want the least change from what you are used to then just get 0.6.2.8 but if you want to try out the future of KER then get 1.0.0.1 instead.

Thank you for the reply. Maybe it is just me but something like this should be made clear on the first page because it was confusing the heck out of me. It almost seems like you are supposed to install both the 6.2.x mod and then the modified dlls. But at the same time it seemed odd to install a mod then replace both of it's only dlls. So I was considerable confused.

Maybe also change the names to make more sense instead of just kerdlls maybe kerdlls_patch_0627 or something to give people a clue that it is to only be applied to the 0.6.2.7 KER.

Maybe even put it under another heading instead of directly below the 0.6.2.8 link which also made me think it was to be applied to the the 0.6.2.8 release. I appreciate the work and just wanted to make some suggestions to make the link page more clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have another small suggestion: When you toggle the engineering window in the VAB from extended/normal to 'Compact' mode, could you keep it aligned to the right if it's close to the right window border? This would allow placing the window to the right and switching between normal and compact mode without dragging it around every time. This is especially useful since the left border isn't fixed, as the width depends on the open tab. Action groups and Crew are significantly wider than the part selection, which is why I would prefer the window on the right side if I could still toggle the compact mode.

Heh, this is one of my only annoyances with KER.... I second this. Even as a quick/easier fix, it would be nice if the "Compact" button was the first button in the top window button list... so when you clicked it, the "compact" button would stay under the mouse, not be pushed out to the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like you have a lot going on with the 1.0 migration, but I wanted to toss in a feature idea:

  • Stage/Chute landing m/s estimation displayed in the VAB

This would be useful for determining whether or not you have enough chutes on your lander/booster stage to arrive alive.

A single new column could be added to the KER window stage table, labelled Parachute Estimate, displaying the expected m/s of each stage with all chutes attached to that stage deployed.

It could use the various planetary body atmo stats (different density/pressure on Duna, Laythe, etc) using the selector buttons at the bottom of the window... much like the ISP calculation.

It would need to assume that all stage fuel tanks were dry, or alternatively show wet/dry separated by a /. Dry is useful for Kerbin based boosters that are intended for recovery/refit, and wet (full) would be useful for landers that anticipate taking off again. Of course, your tanks wouldn't be perfectly full after your deorbit or landing retrofire burns... hence the "estimate" label.

It would also need to assume you're landing at "sea" level... landings at higher altitudes would have less efficient chute performance due to lower atmo density.

For planets with no atmo, it could just display "-" or "n/a".

Thanks again for all the work on KER!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.