rmaine

Yeah. I've noticed this problem for a long time now. But it's trivial enough that I've just ignored it. @Linuxgurugamer has plenty on his plate and I just didn't feel it worth bugging him about this one. Even in this particular mod, there are things that bug me more - such as the mod telling me there are eva experiments to do when there are no eva experiment packs onboard to do em with. But that's pretty trivial as well; I just get used to ignoring it.

Also world peace. As long as we are asking for things that have no chance of happening, I'll throw that request in. :-) And a pony. I want a pony. Um... actually, no I don't. Too much trouble to take care of. :-(

I'm not currently using [x] science (though I have done so in the past), but I suspect I can help with the CKAN question here. When something says it is compatible at first glance, but CKAN doesn't give you a checkbox for it, I've often found that's because one of its dependencies is not listed as compatible. In this case, I see that both Click Through Blocker and SpaceTux Library only show compatibility up to 1.12.1. I'd lay good odds that they really are fine in 1.12.2, but CKAN just hasn't been told that. You can tell CKAN to consider anything for 1.12.* to be ok (settings/compatible game versions). Or you can use a trick that was recently pointed out to me (thanks HebruSan via Darthgently); if you go into the versions tab in CKAN, you can select a specific version of a mod regardless of what compatibility it lists. That way you don't open yourself up to accepting a bunch of other mods that you might want to (though I doubt that 1.12.* is really much of a problem).

I was about to say that its working fine for me; got bonuses playing just last night. But then I noticed you said 1.11.2; I'm on 1.12.2. I slightly doubt that is the difference, but it could be.

Ah, nice. I hadn't known about that feature. Sounds like one I'll make use of. Thanks for the info.

Somewhat puzzled about automatic disengagement. I see a changelog entry about auto disengagement when a vehicle starts to fly. I suspect that is related, but I'm running into disengagement at inconvenient times where I certainly don't *INTEND* for the vehicle to be flying; indeed preventing that is part of why I'm using parking brake. I occasionally see the auto-disengagement on scene load. One time I jumped focus to my Gilly base only to see it leap into the air (a common problem on Gilly) while saying that the parking brake was disengaged. Fortunately, the base didn't leap too high or completely flip over; it managed to land intact and erect, at which time I reenabled the parking brake. Also on several occasions I've had rover parking brakes disable when the pilot left the external command seat. The auto-disengagement mostly isn't catastrophic, though it has the potential to be so; I've lost one re-supply ship to it, but the ship had delivered its supplies (and crew) and was just hanging around in case it might be useful for something else, so it wasn't a big loss. BTW, I definitely am using parking brake in 1.12.2. For one case, I occasionally find myself with a rover that is trying to mine an ore on a slopes a bit steeper than the regular brakes will hold on. If I can briefly get the craft velocity low enough to set the parking brake, I can then mine successfully. I don't need parking brake as often in 1.12.2, but it's still useful. In 1.11 it was downright critical to the extent that I found base building without it to be game-breakingly painful.

For what my input is worth (which is not much) I started a 1.12.2 career using TAC-LS. Nothing looks obviously broken so far. Granted the "so far" is not yet far enough to be doing anything that involves sending Kerbals outside of the Kerbin system, as this is a "Probes Before Kerbals" career. Your mileage may vary.

You might want to glance at the Probes Before Crew mod. It is a *MUCH* more extensive mod aimed at encouraging uncrewed missions first. No reason one can't have this as a far less intrusive option. Just thought I'd mention the other in case you weren't aware of it. (I just started a new career yesterday using Probes Before Crew, so it was on the top of my mind.)

@NermNermNerm I very recently started a new 1.12.2 career using PKS. Had been waiting for a version of EL that worked with 1.12.2; have one now. Anyway, 3 things I'll comment on - one new and 2 old. The new thing is a bug in the base game that hits PKS. Fortunately, @nertea helpfully pointed me to a fix, which other users of PKS might also want to be aware of. They will want to install the community fix for the recovery cost bug in KSP 1.12.2. Without that fix, you can't get any credits for selling shinies. Not that selling shinies is horribly necessary, as contracts can provide plenty of funds. But without the ability to sell them, they seem to lack much point (though I do tend to produce them just to help hasten my production tier leveling anyway). The old things. I've grumbled before about how annoying the rover stuff is. With Bon Voyage, it is at least tolerable, though I am careful to save before every Bon Voyage expedition because of the high frequency of explosions on arrival. (The stabilization feature of McJeb's rover autopilot seems to somewhat help that.) But there is one aspect that is extra annoying. Sometimes, I'll get a deposit that is essentially impossible to get at - for example halfway up a nearly vertical crater side where you can't get a rover to stay still even if you do get it there. (Parking brake can't be set if you can't manage to at least momentarily stop sliding first). There's then no way in PKS to abandon that deposit and go after a different one. If you exhaust a deposit, you can find a new one, but if you can't exhaust the first one because you can't get to it... well I hope you have a save from right before you located the deposit (I now always do) or you will forevermore be blocked from further development on that body. I really think there ought to be a way to abandon a deposit and search for a new one; even if there's a cost of some sort that would be ok. Forever blocking development isn't so ok. One other old thing is to correct a misstatement I made earlier. At least now that I relook at it, I come to a different conclusion. I had commented about the orbital hydro labs as being pointless for missions shorter than about 1000 days. But I now can't reconstruct how I came up with that except by guessing at a significant omission in my calculation. I can get a figure something like that if I compare the weight of a hydro lab with the weight of the snacks I'd have to haul without the lab. But that omits the weight of the containers I'd need for those snacks. And those containers (from the Stockalike Station Parts Redux) are *HEAVY*. (Also the snacks get pretty expensive, but money doesn't tend to be much of an issue by the time I'm doing interplanetary missions anyway). So I guess the hydro labs look more useful after all (even before you tweaked their weight and production a while back).

Bingo. Thanks a lot for the pointer for something that wasn't even directly related to your mod. It showing up as a negative cost recovery on the logistics module is what made me think that it might possibly be in this mod. Evidently not, but asking the mod author seems to have helped anyway. :-)

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.