schlosrat
-
Posts
600 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by schlosrat
-
-
-
On 3/27/2024 at 1:12 PM, imWACC0 said:
lift (launch) default settings?
I changed settings to get off Minimums, now I can't get a good launch from KSC.
Anyone know the default settings for Lift?
For that matter, anyone know good settings for each planet/moon?
You probably set the altitude you want to finish at to be lower. Go to the config settings for Lift (gear icon) and set the altitude to finish at to be something higher that's outside the atmo for Kerbin.
-
I think that @cfloutier has a bunch of plans for future K2D2 improvements, but right now he's pretty busy with an overhaul of the UI. One of the things that he and I have talked about a little is improvement in the landing autopilot. My thought is to have FP offer a deorbit burn node that would put you on a collision course to a waypoint or lat/lon surface coordinates, and then for K2D2 to do something with the waypoint or lat/lon to try to bring the landing down more precisely to those coordinates.
I don't know if cfloutier might have any thoughts on how to handle staging on the way down. My approach has personally been along these lines. If I've got a transfer stage with some fuel in it and would like to spare the fuel cost on my descent and landing stage then I may do the deorbit burn with that stage to get my craft headed toward the surface, then stage and turn things over to K2D2 for the remainder. One problem I would see is that the K2D2 landing autopilot is probably making calculations for when to turn the engine on and how long to burn based on the TWR of the current engine. If you start down with one engine, then jettison that once it's done, you would at best need K2D2 to recalculate for the performance of the new engine - and you could very easily get into a situation where you've not got enough time left to land safely with the second engine. So, it's not that easy of a problem, and the much easier thing is to make sure you're on your descent and landing engine well before you're close to the surface so that K2D2 can do its thing based on that engine.
Similarly, for ascent (lift), staging can be tricky if what you want is to insert a delay between stages. Here, I think the problem is that there is both a time component (how long a delay you want), as well as the many variables of design. It would be a very tall order to ask K2D2 to assess your particular rocket design and make some choices based on that.
As for using the lift curve, I'd need a bit more info to offer any advice. I've found it easy to use, but then I've been using it for a long time. If it's not doing what you're expecting then it may be that you're not fully understanding how to use it - which is something that I think can be helped.
-
Release 1.2.1
- Added check to prevent the mod UI from being toggleable while the game's UI is hidden (F2). This should help to prevent situations where the mod's UI is inadvertently raised while the game's UI is hidden which can result in the mod's UI only being visible when the game's UI is hidden and vice versa.
-
On 3/6/2024 at 1:06 PM, RadioFreeKerbin said:
One thing I've noticed that causes it (and can correct it) is if I'm switching between the Map and regular game with the UI hidden. it appears the game resets the UI state but the mods don't. So I have found I can at least get the manever node window unhidden by hiding the UI again by pressing F2 and then switching to the map. This seems to flip the coin again and gets them back in sync.
I've confirmed that this state can be entered. One way I've found to enter it is to hide the UI via F2, and then launch MNC via the hotkey (Alt+N). That will quickly get you into a state where toggling the UI's visibility has MNC up when it shouldn't be and not when it should. I'm looking into this, and will also be looking for why switching between Flight View and Map View with the UI hidden has this effect. Hopefully, I can run this down soon and get a new version posted where it doesn't do this.
-
Update to version 0.4.0
-
Added capability to switch between Open and Closed part variants in the VAB. This update impacts the FPS-60, FPS-400, and FPS-2000, eliminating three parts from the part picker and instead delivering the capability to choose from Open (has no top truss structure or top attachment node) or Closed (has a top truss structure with a top attachment node) in the VAB. Selecting the Open variant will be lower mass.
- For backward compatibility, the old parts are all still in the asset bundle (so sadly it isn't any lighter), however, they are hidden in the parts picker. This means that any craft previously built with the now deprecated variants will still load and work as they have, but any new craft built will only have the new parts.
-
Added capability to switch between Open and Closed part variants in the VAB. This update impacts the FPS-60, FPS-400, and FPS-2000, eliminating three parts from the part picker and instead delivering the capability to choose from Open (has no top truss structure or top attachment node) or Closed (has a top truss structure with a top attachment node) in the VAB. Selecting the Open variant will be lower mass.
-
21 hours ago, Mike S said:
I hope I didn't give you the impression I was having issues with accuracy here in respect to any maneuver being planned. It has a bit more to do with the tool switching to "return from moon" mode automatically (as your screen caps have shown) without giving me the option to do anything but that. If I were orbiting Eve, I would have the other maneuver options available. The behaviour isn't limited to Eve/Gilly...any planet with a moon will do the same thing and deny the ability to do anything but "return from moon" if I am orbiting a moon. Which isn't what I want to do and not necessarily just the host planet orbit either. In the case of Eve/Gilly, I stopped at the moon first to drop off a probe before going on to Eve to place a second probe and learn a bit about it (I consider myself a year long "newbie").
The tool would not give me the option to create a plan from Gilly to Eve. As I said, it was an easy maneuver for me to manually create a path to Eve without the tool. I was hoping it is a simple matter of a toggle to enable the other options on demand. Eve to Gilly, the tool allows a maneuver to be planned, but not return back to Eve using those same tools...on a multi-moon system for example, I cannot use it to go to the other moons as is. I can return to the host planet and THEN the tool will allow a maneuver to be created to another moon. (Kerbin and Minmus/Mun) As you no doubt know, this is an aweful waste of fuel. Unless I missed something important, it seems restricted. I never got far enough in KSP1 (severely buggy when modded), but I think Mechjeb had something like that...maybe others who know that tool and have used it to plan maneuvers from moon to moon...I never got far enough in that game to try it, so I don't know how it works from experience.
Anyway, still love the tool regardless.
Thanks, this does help me understand the issue better. When you’re looking for a way to plan a Gilly to Eve trajectory the tab you need is indeed the Moon tab, and the maneuver is Moon Return. Of course going the other way it’s not this tab and you’re just planning a simple Hohmann transfer. Right now the Moon Return maneuver is giving poor results for Gilly to Eve, but that is the one intended for this purpose.
It sounds to me like you’re finding this arrangement of maneuvers and tabs counterintuitive, and if you are then others may be as well, but this arrangement is by design.
When you go from Eve to Gilly, you’re starting in an orbit about Eve and going to another object also orbiting Eve. Consequently the tools you need are basically the same as you need if you want a Hohmann transfer to rendezvous with another ship also orbiting Eve.
When you go from Gilly to Eve, OTOH, your starting orbit is not about the same body that your target is orbiting, thus the math is a little different. There is still a hohmann transfer involved, but you need to escape Gilly’s SOI first, and to do so in such a way that your excess velocity puts you on a Hohmann transfer to Eve.
Tab availability is situational. If you have two ships both orbiting the same body and one targets the other you’ll get the Target Relative Maneuvers tab for Vessels. This should work at any body including moons. If you target a celestial body that’s orbiting the same body you are then you’ll get theTRM tab for Celestials. If you’re orbiting a planet and target another planet you’ll get the Planet tab which gives you interplanetary transfers. You don’t get this at a moon, which may be frustrating or confusing, but again this is because the interplanetary transfer tools are not designed to get you out of a moons SOi, and then out of a planets SOI after that to put you on a transfer to your destination.
Your use case of moon to moon transfer (at Kerbin or Jool) is a good one. I’ll explore if interplanetary transfer code can be used for this since the situation is analogous
-
In the (very brief) testing I've done, the only moons where I've seen this problem are Minmus and Gilly. In every other case, I get pretty good results, although with Bop and Pol the returns to Jool are not nearly at the requested 100km Pe and instead at a few thousand Km Pe. Not really a bad result when we're talking about Jool - I mean, do you really want to be swinging around within 100km of its "surface"?
I had thought I'd find the same problem at Bop and or Pol given their very small size, but apparently not - though my testing was hardly exhaustive. I do wish I had a good theory for why this happens in some cases and not in others...
-
18 hours ago, Mike S said:
I am enjoying this very useful mod. However, I am running into an issue in regards to using the tool to change SOI from Gilly back to Eve, as I chose to drop off a lander on Gilly first before dropping the second onto Eve. The tool refuses to give me the option and forces a return to Kerbin as the only thing I can do with it. While it isn't really that hard to do this manually in this instance, I thought it might be worth while bringing this up as something to allow the user to decide which planet it should focus on, or allow to toggle it off when not needed perhaps.
OK, I'm home now and I've been able to do some simple testing at Gilly, perhaps this is the problem you've encountered...
In a 15.7km x 15.7km circular orbit at 0 inclination at Gilly, I used the Moon Tab to get a Return From Moon trajectory with no target selected. As with performing a Moon Return at Minmus, the result is a good burn vector at a very silly time. By a "good burn vector", I mean the Prograde, Normal, and Radial components are good - but as with returns from Minmus the node time is just plane wacky as you can see below.
The resulting trajectory, while not headed all the way back to Kerbin (it's only a 221 m/s maneuver), is definitely leaving both Gilly's and Eve's SOI. In fact, if you turn the camera so you can see where Eve is in relation to all this, you'll clearly see the node time is just wacky.
For a good Moon Return, or for that matter any transfer from a higher orbit to a lower orbit, we need to burn in a direction that will decrease the orbital energy so that the Pe will drop. In other words, we need to take off in more or less the opposite direction of the moon's orbital velocity about its parent. Fooling about with Maneuver Node Controller, I was able to get a not too terrible result with only modification to the time of the node.
Here, the node time has been pushed out by about 2:10 - which is a lot for this orbit and results in a Gilly ejection that is headed in about the opposite direction of Gilly's motion as shown below.
This problem has been reported before (by me and by others) and is being tracked on GitHub with this issue: https://github.com/schlosrat/FlightPlan/issues/49
The good news is that there is a relatively simple (albeit tedious) workaround, and also that I am aware of this and working on it. Not fantastic news, I'll grant you - but not bad news either.
55 minutes ago, Gorby1 said:Why yes, it definitely would be!
I am also working on this one! In fact, with this one, I feel closer to a solution than I do with the Moon Return problem, but we'll see.
-
17 hours ago, Mike S said:
I am enjoying this very useful mod. However, I am running into an issue in regards to using the tool to change SOI from Gilly back to Eve, as I chose to drop off a lander on Gilly first before dropping the second onto Eve. The tool refuses to give me the option and forces a return to Kerbin as the only thing I can do with it. While it isn't really that hard to do this manually in this instance, I thought it might be worth while bringing this up as something to allow the user to decide which planet it should focus on, or allow to toggle it off when not needed perhaps.
Are you saying that you’re orbiting Gilly and you don’t have a Moon tab with a Moon Return maneuver or that the Moon Return maneuver isn’t giving a good Pe at Eve in this case but is sending you out of Eves SOI?
Any time you’re orbiting a moon there should be a Moon tab. You would not need to target Eve or anything really to be able to use it, though it does recommend that you be in a low inclination/low eccentricity orbit for best results. I’ll test the Gilly to Eve return when I get back to my PC, but it may help if you can describe more about your situation and the options you’re getting in FP
-
Release 0.10.5
- Corrected issue where in some cases the Next Window time for a transfer window would be computed incorrectly and count up rather than down.
-
1 hour ago, Rezania said:
Using version 0.10.4 now, and the timer is counting down.
Same conditions, LKO and Dres targeted.
Well, that's odd. I verified it in 0.10.4 with Node Manager 0.7.3. In fact, I just reverified it in a debug build - so I've verified that the bug is possible in both the release and debug versions of FP 0.10.4 Since I'm able to reproduce it I should be able to get to the bottom of it.
In my test case, I'm at UT 1y, 3d, 1:22:03 and flipping back and forth between Duna (which seems to work) and Dres (which is showing the bug). At Duna, I see this
- Relative Inclination: 0.06
- Phase Angle to Target: 134.531 (counting down)
- Transfer Window Phase Angle: 44.361
- Transfer Time: 302d 0:13:23
- Synodic Period: 2y 57d 2:04:17
- Next Window: 227d 4:51:33 (counting down)
At Dres, I see this
- Relative Inclination: 5.00
- Phase Angle to Target: 8.414 (counting down)
- Transfer Window Phase Angle: 82.056
- Transfer Time: 1y 177d 0:55:54
- Synodic Period: 1y 101d 5:22:42
- Next Window: 107d 5:22:42 (counting up)
The difference here is that in one case (Duna) Phase Angle to Target > Transfer Window Phase Angle, and in the other (Dres), it's not. It's also not for Moho or Eve at this UT, but those have Phase Angle counting up - which Dres does not. For any case where the target is in an inferior orbit, you can expect that the Phase Angle to Target counts up, and vice versa.
All of this points to a bug in my logic where I was checking to see if Phase Angle to Target > Transfer Window Phase Angle when I should have been checking to see if the target is in an inferior or superior orbit relative to the starting planet. I've fixed this in 0.10.5 and verified it with all the stock planets. I should have a release out for you shortly.
-
21 hours ago, Rezania said:
Hate to say this, but the bug with the transfer window timer counting upwards is back again. LKO, target Dres, timer is counting upwards.
That is sooo weird! I tested with Moho, Eve, Duna, and Jool before releasing 0.10.2 and they all work fine (still do, too). I tested again with Dres and by Jove you're right - it is indeed counting up for the window.
I'll look into this and sort it out. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
-
Release 0.10.4
- Multiple fixes/improvements to Resonant Orbit Maneuvers Tab
- Fixed handling of Synchronous Alt, Semi Synchronous Alt, and SOI Alt to display altitude instead of radius from the center of the body being orbited.
- Fixed Diving prohibition to account for atmosphere depth. You are now (correctly) prevented from setting up a diving resonant orbit around a body with an atmosphere where the Pe would be inside the atmosphere - which, I think we can all agree, would be bad.
- Updated FixPe and FixAp Maneuver buttons to allow for "after a fixed time" burn time option and also force a better default ("at Ap" for FixPe, and "at Pe" for FixAp)
- Multiple fixes/improvements to Resonant Orbit Maneuvers Tab
-
@Poppa Wheelie Thanks for the detailed checking and the screenshots. Ending with an ecc of 0.004 is not unusual for FP when circularizing. My operating hunch is that backing off the node start time by exactly 1/2 the burn time is close to optimal, but clearly, something better could be achieved. The optimal result would be ecc 0.000. I believe this has to do with the fact that as you burn the node your mass decreases while thrust stays the same, and so acceleration increases and you're gaining more delta v in the second half than you did in the first half.
The problem here is that the optimal amount to back off the node time is not a fixed percent. Depending on how much fuel you've got, what your thrust is, what your payload fraction is, and perhaps some other factors, the optimal for one craft will be different than for another. It's possible that some sort of optimization routine could be run around the problem where the offset factor of 0.5 burn duration is just an initial guess. This same thing will be in general true for all planned maneuver nodes since the cause is not unique to circularization.
My priorities at the moment are to try to fix some things that are working very poorly, but it may be a good idea at some point to circle back and clean up the smaller problems like this one.
The bigger questions I'm currently looking at include these.
- Why is it that a moon return from Mun works so well, whereas a moon return from Minmus works so poorly? Curiously, if you change the time of the moon return burn at Minmus by about 1/2 an orbit you can play with the time until you do get a good or very good result, but why is it that when at Minmus the node time is so far off?
- Why is it that when making a Hohman transfer from Kerbin to Minmus there is often no encounter and the node is not even getting the new Ap out to the orbit of Minmus, but when going to the Mun it will often give you an impact encounter? Both typically need some help from MNC. It would be very nice if they didn't need the help.
- Why is it that the Interplanetary Transfer works so very poorly unless you're selecting the "as soon as possible" burn option after time warping to be within a day of the next transfer window?
- Major problems with the Advanced Planetary Transfer make it not workable at all as it can't even get an encounter and so fails to make a node and there's nothing for you to adjust with MNC
- Wouldn't it be nice if you could give Flight Plan a landing point (lat/long) and then it could at least give you the deorbit node that would put you on a course toward your destination so that K2D2 could then land somewhere near there?
Those are the things that keep me up at night much more so than circularization giving an ecc of 0.004! Still, it would be nice if this was my big problem instead of those others...
-
4 hours ago, RadioFreeKerbin said:
I keep having an issue where the node editor window keeps getting "hidden" out of sync with the rest of the UI, and it doesn't show up unless I press F2 to hide the UI, and then it's the only UI element visible. Is this a known issue? If not I can mess around a bit and see what steps I can take to recreate it, but it does happen rather often.
Thanks for reporting this! It’s is not one I’ve encountered before but I’ll be happy to look into it. Can you elaborate on what triggers it. What circumstances are you in when it reliably behaves like this? I’ll need to be able to reproduce this in order to sort it out
1 hour ago, Biggen said:So I've been messing around with trying to get an encounter in orbit between two crafts for the better part of a few hours. What I'm finding, is that its easy to use the mod to tweak the encounter by advancing the orbit several times and playing with the settings. However, when I go to hit the "warp to maneuver" button on the screen, the encounter on the map views changes from what I had setup before I hit the "warp to maneuver" button. So instead of being with a few hundred meters from my target with a close relative velocity that I painstakingly setup, now I'm back to several hundred kilometers away as the map encounter icons read.
I am skipping like 15+ orbits to setup the encounter so I don't know if that has something to do with it or not.
Edit: So I just figured it out. My PE is actually lower than what the orbit details are telling me. Somehow, my PE is almost 1km lower. That is the issue and it's throwing off the math. Looks like orbital decay still exists.
15 is a lot of orbits to need to skip. If you’re low enough that orbital decay is a factor then that could certainly add up and may be the cause of it. Have you tried setting the rendezvous up in Flight Plan? If you’re looking to do it more manually then that’s obviously not the solution, but if you just want to get it done reliably then it’s a great option.
-
Release 0.10.3
- Corrected issue where the "at an altitude" burn time option was interpreting the altitude to be from the center of the body rather than above the reference level (sea level) as other altitudes are specified throughout Flight Plan. In this version, when selecting the "at an altitude" burn time option, the burn will be scheduled for the next time the orbit is at the specified altitude above sea level (bounded between the current orbit's PeR and ApR).
-
3 hours ago, Aerius said:
Crap, I couldn't identify the issue on the bug tracker or release notes so I thought it was a new regression.
Thank you for the workaround.
If you want, I could submit the issue on github.
I believe this issue is actually related to two issues documented on GitHub.
The first one (Issue 10) was an early one I created on May 8th, 2023, when I first noticed the problem with some Hohmann transfers, and in that one, I note it's affecting both transfers to moons and interplanetary transfers. The second one (Issue 31) reported on Oct 30th, 2023, identified a related problem with Moon Return. I've since then learned more about the underlying cause, but still have not gotten a solution. The new info I've got will hopefully help me to put this to bed, but it will not be easy.
Since these are all related issues, I'll close those and open a new one that includes the workaround info.
-
Release 0.10.2.1
-
Update to appease the CKAN gods who've been deeply offended by the mischievous machinations of the GitHub demons - we can't have that!
- No actual code was harmed, modified, improved upon, or in any other way molested in this process.
- All features are precisely the same as they were in version 0.10.2
- Warranty void if speed exceeds c
-
Update to appease the CKAN gods who've been deeply offended by the mischievous machinations of the GitHub demons - we can't have that!
-
2 hours ago, jinvenzo said:
Same error and same mods...........
2 hours ago, -dbv- said:Same for me - Deleting and reinstalling leads to the same message.
3 hours ago, Redacted said:Seeing the following error just recently during re-install:
"CKAN.InvalidModuleFileKraken: FlightPlan 0.10.2: C:\Users\1Smug_stand-up guy\AppData\Local\CKAN\downloads\downloading\B8934B49-FlightPlan-0.10.2.zip has SHA1 0BBDC9A7D9FB356D139FF7FCE5D0E4009BA91DA7, should be 07737EEE69A10698037C3DF4B1DEAC1B84AC1284
at CKAN.NetModuleCache.Store(CkanModule module, String path, IProgress`1 progress, String description, Boolean move, CancellationToken cancelToken)
at CKAN.NetAsyncModulesDownloader.ModuleDownloadComplete(Uri url, String filename, Exception error, String etag)"After dismissing the notification, I can either retry or skip. With retrying looping back to the original message.
Note using CKAN 1.34.4 and current KSP2 science release. With mods, BepInEx, SpaceWarp,UTIK for KSP2, Maneuver Node Controller, Node Manager,
Yes, I've confirmed this issue. It relates to a problem I encountered last night with GitHub, and now CKAN is confused about what to expect for the hash. The file is actually OK, but CKAN has no way to know this. You can download the file manually from GH or from SpaceDock and install it easily if you're comfortable with that process. I've been working for a bit on this, and it's beginning to look like the only way I can get CKAN to be happy is if I release a new version of the mod. I don't like doing that when there are no functional changes, but I do want people to be able to install using CKAN, so...
Stand by and expect a FP 0.10.2.0, or something foolishly named like that.
-
11 hours ago, Aerius said:
Hi!
I like the tool, it's great to avoid Try&Errors with the current KSP2 UI.
It's working great with basic maneuver and rended-vous.I dont know if it's a bug or some corruption on my side : On the last versions, when I'm planing a interplanetary transfert, the maneuver time is not matching the next windows.
Here is a screenshot :
I just created a Transfert Maneuver to Moho.
Next Window to Moho is in 11 days.
The freshly Interplanetary Transfert node created is in 90 days.
It's not working to intersect Moho, as displayed on the map.It's the same for all planets.
…
Is it a known issue?
Yep, it’s a well known issue that’s been present for some time. Here’s a fairly recent post where I explain what’s going on and what thee work around is.
Hmmm… That forum link doesn’t seem to be working correctly when I test it. Go back to page 7 on this thread and look for some long posts from me on 1/21 with a lot of pictures. That will show you the workaround
Update for version 0.10.2
- Fixed issue where Flight Plan would retain settings from a previous session after loading a new game session
SpaceDock: https://spacedock.info/mod/3359/Flight Plan
-
3 hours ago, zande said:
Hi noticed that you can still click through the UI on the orbit lines and objects in map view. I don't know if is a known limitation of the UI blocker.
Thanks! This is a new feature, so I especially value this feedback. I'll take a look and see if I can replicate it.
-
Update to Node Manager version 0.7.3
- Added check to clear the node list when at the MainMenu game state. This prevents stale node info from inadvertently propagating when you load a different save.
-
12 hours ago, Poppa Wheelie said:
Thank you for this mod! And for the combination of Flight Plan, Maneuver Node Controller, and K2-D2. I use these all the time.
I've noticed one issue with Flight Plan and/or Maneuver Node Controller:
If I create a node, then load a save previous to this node creation, Flight Plan and Maneuver Node Controller still have a node.
Node Manager has been updated to 0.7.3 which should correct the issue of stale node info remaining from a previous session when you load a different save. This does correct the issue for MNC where it would still have the old node info.
Same conditions, LKO and Dres targeted.
K2-D2
in KSP2 Mod Releases
Posted
I think we're already collaborating pretty well. If you like the FP interface, you can have it call K2D2 behind the scenes to execute nodes for you, and if you prefer the K2D2 interface it can call FP for you, so you really only need one or the other on your screen at any time.