BudgetHedgehog

Yep, it has plenty to get into orbit and also deorbit itself. I didn't go the whole way, but you can see in the last picture, I have 900 m/s left and only a tiny circularising burn to to. I didn't limit thrust, but you can see how low the throttle was during ascent - it had TWR of about 4.something at launch with full throttle, really have to ride it all the way up to stop it going too high and out of control. Also, I have a feeling Proot has had a bit of fun with the exhaust FX...

What version of MJ do you have? It's likely yours is outdated.

Ugh.. It's hard to tell sometimes. Sorry.

Along with SPUE, this is the next RLA/KSPX! Excellent work man, you just keep on giving!

MrBarragan, make sure you're using the up to date version of Engineer - that problem was fixed. (EDIT: For clarity, I mean the one from the 'test of new KER dV simulation code' thread which I believe is linked in the OP)

In other words, "Hey! Hey you! Stop having fun, dammit! You're doing it all wrong! Stop! Your fun doesn't count!" Pathetic. EDIT: I didn't see what I was supposed to see, ignore this post

Just something I've been wondering - is there a particular cause for the letters to be at different heights on the screen? And Hyomoto, please don't ever think that my particular niggles/bug reports make me frustrated with your mod. I can barely read the standard RPM font, the information isn't as easy to access as yours and I would take your version over standard RPM any day. I look back a screenshots taken in the standard RPM and I think "how did I ever cope...". As great as the ALCOR pod is, if it used a version of this mod instead of standard RPM, it would actually almost make that pod too awesome for KSP (almost, mind you..). The only reason I post here so much with little things like this is because I'm drawn to IVA so often because it looks so fantastic and because I also want to help make this mod be the best it can be.

And KSP doesn't even attempt anything close to that. It literally just tells you how much you need to change your velocity by and how much fuel you have left. It's entirely down to the user to figure out if that's enough, which I repeat, I have no problem doing, but I don't want to spend time doing that when I could be flying the thing instead. Well obviously, if a dV readout was included, it'd need to be accurate and not choke up on complex craft designs. I'm not denying that. I'm saying that KSP should have such a thing and, at the moment, it has nothing close to it. This is true, but on the other hand, I don't want to feel like the X amount of hours I've put into the game planning an Eeloo mission have been wasted which requires either waiting a substantially long time for a transfer window to send a refuelling mission (which I don't have the time for) or a revert to launch/quicksave/VAB which actually would mean that all progress up to then is wasted, apart from the knowledge that I need more fuel - a problem that could've been avoided if I had worked out/been told beforehand.

I believe they're from FASA. E: pesky ninjas...

And there are some that do rely on it so why are you saying it's not critical or needed? I'd say it's critical for people who do rely on it. Yes, they could install mods, but the poll question isn't about that. It's asking if stock KSP should have a dV readout and in my opinion, yes it should. That's why I install KER - because it includes info missing from the stock game. Of course, it's hard to know how many of the 86% of people who answered 'yes' rely on a dV readout rather than those who would just like it as extra info (which, I must remind you, is all it is - extra information), but clearly, the desire for one (whether people need it or would like it) is something most players have. However many people your 'many of us' is, it's not going to be more than the people who would like one.

So why not include the extra information too? As it stands, KSP has half the information (and as Tarmenius said, no easy way of using that half information) which doesn't make any sense, hence my "incomplete at best" remark. It says we need X amount of dV but there's no easy way in stock to see if we have that until we either finish the burn or run out halfway through. And again, you're arguing against adding a DV readout because you personally don't need one. Why? Hooray, you've never needed a transfer calculator. That's impressive and an honest well done to you. However, not everyone plays the same way as you. Other people either need or would like to know transfer times and/or dV of their craft. Do you consider how you play to be 'the right way' or 'the way developers intended'? If so, great, but it's wrong to argue that other players should play the same way as you because of that.

No it hasn't, it's been working fine. What's broken is your ability to download the update for it Anyway, my dropped mods include: Most things that add science parts (L-Tech, DMagic et al). I find I complete the tree far too easily with them. Interstellar - as mentioned above, unless you plan around it, it's clutter. I could never get it to work right and got frustrated at my lack of knowedge of it and by the end of it, the only bits I was using was the radiators and that's only because KSPI also adds waste heat.. Shame though, I really enjoyed trying to figure it out. B9 - not much of a plane guy, the parts are all Structural, some are obsolete, some are bugged (this was before I found the 0.23 fixes for it), doesn't fit in with other parts well. Chatterer and Soundtrack Editor - I usually play with KSP really quiet or on mute so they were pointless being there. Both very good mods though, on the occasions I had the volume up, I did enjoy them. But I had the volume down more often than not, and soon after I downloaded them (from KSPRC), I started getting more and more crashes so they were among the first to go. And probably some more.

Info and planning and executing most manoeuvres. I find ascent to be hit and miss because of FAR so I launch manually, landing is hopeless in atmo (and I can land using less fuel on non-atmo bodies manually anyway. It's a lot more hair-raising though, my suicide burns are really REALLY close to actual suicide), docking is way more fun when done manually and from IVA and I don't really bother with Smart A.S.S. Interplanetary transfers though I don't let it compute because of how often it messes them up. I go by KAC transfer windows, manually place a node, use the node editor because stock node editing is just awful to tweak it and then I'll let it execute the burn. I could do them myself but I am pretty lazy though so I'll use it for Hohmann transfers and sometimes rendezvousing, mainly thanks to the autowarp feature. If I did it manually, I just know I'd overshoot.

Ferram, you should update your download to include 2.0.5.

You misunderstand me: Delta-V is displayed on the screen on the top right, under liquid fuel and oxidiser. There's no config file for it because it's not an RPM screen, it's all in the ALCOR code.

I'd considered that, but I've long deleted the parts from the Gamedatabase so there's no need to worry about adding a second MJ module to a craft that already has one in the form of the case or pod. EDIT: Extremely off topic, but I recently downloaded StretchySRB and instantly loved it. Just wish it was possible to work with CoolRockets as well :/

Because people find it useful. The popularity of KER and info from MJ shows that people want to be told their dV and other orbital and vessel stats at any time they wish. On the other hand, I haven't see a satisfactory answer to why we SHOULDN'T have one that can't be answered with 'don't use it then'. And no, your '200/360 m/s' is not sufficient because it's still introducing dV into the display. For someone who doesn't understand it, they won't know what it means. Either KSP should have a burn time at full throttle (correctly calculated) instead of dV or keep the node dV display and show it at other times as well. It's like saying this: 'This leg of your road trip is 64 miles and will take you an hour to do' 'Well, how long will the rest of it take?' 'Not telling you. Figure it out for yourself, you should get right almost to the end of your road trip and then you can find out that you won't finish it in time. That's the better option.' It's incomplete at best and unhelpful at worse. If you don't see a difference between 200 m/s and 200 units of fuel, that's fine and I honestly don't mind. But why are you arguing that everyone else should play like you because you don't see a difference? Other people understand it and want it, why are you saying they shouldn't have it just because you personally don't need it?

Oh wait, sorry, I just remembered - it's not an RPM screen, it's one of its own i.e. there's no config for it, it's all in the code.

Or, if you want to gradually unlock features in the tech tree, there's this: @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]] { %MODULE[MechJebCore] { MechJebLocalSettings { MechJebModuleCustomWindowEditor { unlockTechs = flightControl } MechJebModuleSmartASS { unlockTechs = flightControl } MechJebModuleManeuverPlanner { unlockTechs = advFlightControl } MechJebModuleNodeEditor { unlockTechs = advFlightControl } MechJebModuleTranslatron { unlockTechs = advFlightControl } MechJebModuleWarpHelper { unlockTechs = advFlightControl } MechJebModuleAttitudeAdjustment { unlockTechs = advFlightControl } MechJebModuleThrustWindow { unlockTechs = advFlightControl } MechJebModuleRCSBalancerWindow { unlockTechs = advFlightControl } MechJebModuleRoverWindow { unlockTechs = fieldScience } MechJebModuleAscentGuidance { unlockTechs = unmannedTech } MechJebModuleLandingGuidance { unlockTechs = unmannedTech } MechJebModuleSpaceplaneGuidance { unlockTechs = unmannedTech } MechJebModuleDockingGuidance { unlockTechs = advUnmanned } MechJebModuleRendezvousAutopilotWindow { unlockTechs = advUnmanned } MechJebModuleRendezvousGuidance { unlockTechs = advUnmanned } } } }

That's a solution I hadn't thought of and I like it. TAC LS makes inactive vessels still use resources, so I know it can be done to make it so a station must always need electricity. 1 Science a day for 1 year is a reasonable number, with little bonuses for other bodies to encourage long term residence there. That, along with life support and everything would make a pretty fun game I think.

Somewhat related - if you have the ALCOR pod installed along with Mechjeb, ALCOR pulls the dV info from MJ and displays it on its screens.

Nah, it's alright, I already have one.

Fair enough then. Glad you got it all worked out fine now though

Personal anecdotes aside, you still haven't satisfactorily answered why an option to either display it or not would be so bad. People who don't want/need it don't ever have to display it and vice versa. Yes, I agree that other stuff should be fixed/implemented before this, so once all of those things are done, would you still be against a dV readout? And I'd hardly call wanting to know how far your rocket can travel "only for math-driven players". Quite the opposite in fact - it seems that there are people who would rather work it out by hand and are against a game display for that reason ("if you want it, you have to work for it" kind of thing). Now those people are what I'd call math-driven, not people who would prefer to have a readout to tell them their rockets dV.

Ah I see, you are using Hyomoto's version. I am too, let me just load up KSP and get back to you (EDIT: I also see you aren't using the latest version of them. Update them while I load up KSP). EDIT: Sorted - click Total. Then change pages with the up and down arrow. At least that's how it is in the latest KSI which is 1.2. Either way, R0cketC0der got you your answer first EDIT2: no offence, but why didn't you try clicking stuff before going to the trouble of taking a screenshot, uploading it, posting here, having to wait for an answer etc..? To me, it seems common sense to try and figure it out and the word 'total' should've been a clue as to what pressing that button does.