Jump to content

Gilph

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    696

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Gilph

  1. Gilph
    This is heavily discussed in the MechJeb thread. In many of the MJ functions, it appears that the methods called to get data have been changed in 1.3.1 to return different results. They made a pass at the Landing function to change calls from one method to another, and it worked. It seems that they need to make a pass through their code to change references and get the data in the format they expect.
  2. Gilph
    I have almost never had landing gear work. If my craft uses the landing gear 1 (the smaller one), directly attached to a center part, it seems to work fine. I design many of my landers to have fuel tanks surrounding a center tank, and I put the landing gear on these outer tanks for a wider stance and more stability. By that point, I usually need the bigger ones (lg 2?). In this configuration, deploy landing gear has never worked, even back to 1.0 days. Not sure if it's the second layer of tanks or the larger landing gear. My workaround is usually the same as @Gorby1, unless nature calls and I hit 'G' and trust to Mechjeb.
  3. Gilph
    Q limit is also part of Utilities. When you see it happening, open the Utilities to see if it is enabled. If it is, just clik it off. This may be functionally the same as you describe above, but this may persist between modes.
  4. Gilph
    Also, if this is not a one way and you wish to lift off again, consider this great mod.
  5. Gilph
    940 was partially fixed with the latest dev release (747?), but there are a few issues with Landing that have been discussed in the Mechjeb forum that may require a few fixes. The partial fix for 940 was to change some method calls that supplied data to the module. Squad had changed some of these in 1.3.1 and now MJ is using the correct calls, getting the data it expects, and the recent problems have been fixed. But that did not fix all of the legacy Landing module issues that existed prior to 1.3.1. It appears the MJ team understands the issues and I'll assume they'll address them whenever they are able. These affect both stock and GPP, so it's not a specific GPP issue, as far as I can tell.
  6. Gilph
    In addition, it can be used even if you do not wish to run any other USI stuff. I use it in a GPP career save where I concentrate on exploration without worrying about base building and life support. The nukes are very useful, and the ability to level up Kerbals in the Science Lab is awesome. Having that as a standalone download makes that easy.
  7. Gilph
    You have not mentioned your hardware. TBH, if you are using minutes as a metric to load small craft when it should take seconds would indicate you may be very underpowered somewhere. Look through the install instructions and the posts regarding performance. A clean install and adding the Kopernicus/GPP components one at a time is usually recommended to find the issue.
  8. Gilph
    Another shout out to @Arrowstar and this awesome tool. I'm sending some hardware to Gratian (GPP), a mid level outer planet. When I calculate a departure burn estimate from a parking orbit of 0 inclination, it was about 2300 dv (1400 prograde, -1650 normal). The high normal part was that I needed a 27 degree inclination, LAN of 7, orbit to leave Gael. Based on all of the fine information posted with respect to launching directly into the optimal orbit, I used the Launch Analysis tool to launch into a 27 degree inclination orbit with a LAN of 7 (it works with GPP, just need to input the correct planet and Lat, Lon of wherever you are lifting off from). The total deltav changed from 2300 to 1650, almost all prograde. That's serious savings. Not only was that great, the optimizer gave me burn that put me dead on the spot I wanted at the target. GPP has 7 or so different launch sites at various locations. I can now figure out which launch site will give be the best inclination directly for each mission. Thanks again.
  9. Gilph
    I'm using both SSPE and Spacecraft in a 1.3.1 career. All good so far.
  10. Gilph
    It seems like my optimizing for the Pe at target was not getting me what I wanted, so I started to make the applicable event in MA be the SOI to the target body and setting a few optimizations there. It seems like I was able to get better results for the transfer burns and was getting much closer to the expected results. I wasn't taking the plane change into account at that time. But, I've done two burns to that planet (Thalia) and each time calculate a transfer burn at about 22 degree inclination, which created about a 5 degree transfer orbit inclination. So my next project is to figure out how best to launch into the proper inclination and RAAN directly. I know there is a estimate launch section in the initial state window and a launch tool to estimate when to lift off. Will have to play around with it. Thanks.
  11. Gilph
    Not new...that's been an issue for a while now.
  12. Gilph
    Relay and scanner just arrived at Otho. The lightning effects under the cloud cover was really well done.
  13. Gilph
    Just tried #747 on an airless moon landing. It was excellent, landed within 300mm of target. There was still the hiccup at the plane change point that did not restart the warp to the low orbit burn point, but that's really minor. Thanks very much for the fix.
  14. Gilph
    Nope. mine work OK. I believe you need Firespitter (USI) to enable it.
  15. Gilph
    A little more information: in 1.3.0 and 1.3.1, build 745 will not start any burns to start the landing process. But,if you start manually and are about half way to the surface and select land anywhere, it works fine. It seems to be the beginning part that is not working. in 1.3.0, build 741 works with non atmosphere landings and Land at Target is accurate. In 1.3.1, there is no build that will land accurately at a target going back to build 734. The deorbit burn is off by around 90 degrees. Hope this helps.
  16. Gilph
    Roverdude developed MKS for that exact reason (plus others). Having smaller bases, grouped together within a range, unconnected but acting connected, prevents the physics engine from blowing things up (usually).
  17. Gilph
    I would vote no, as it is part of the patched conic branch of mathematics. All of the terms are scalars and not vectors. It is also the same regardless of orientation, which would not be the case if it were vector based (I think).
  18. Gilph
    I have been playing around with this. It seems like the regular porkchop/departing burn does the trick nicely and optimizations from MA do not change that significantly. One question I have is when you optimize for arrival deltav in the porkchop/departing calculations, which parameter do you actually minimize? My next activity is to try and optimize velocity at the target Pe. If I know the velocity at a given Pe at Thalia in a highly elliptical orbit, and I know that my capture burn will be between 1200-2000m/s, then I can put that in MA to optimize. The issue is that there are a lot of velocity parameters to optimize for in MA and not sure which is the best one to use. Will post the results when I get them. Thanks
  19. Gilph
    i have it 1.3 also in Docking Autopilot. The status screen says I'm moving toward the target at 1 m/s, where the Target navball says I'm moving close to 2. It looks like the velocity is not being recognized correct in MJ and the control mechanisms are late in correcting.
  20. Gilph
    Yes, sort of. I guess I should just ask the very specific question I have. I fly to an inner planet a lot from my home planet (Gael -> Thalia, similar to Kerbin->Eve). My capture burns are about twice the optimum listed in the deltav maps (1200 optimum, mine are from 1600-2800). It's my understanding that to minimize that capture burn (the highly elliptical orbit with the Pe close to the planet and the Ap just inside of the SOI), I should arrive at Thalia Pe at close to the same time as the sun centric Pe, which is the point where the relative speeds should have the smallest difference. So, what kinds of things can I optimize for in MA for departure burns and transfer orbits to arrive in the best orientation? It seems like I want the Thalia Pe at 90 degree angle to prograde, and in the same place as the transfer orbit Pe, so I'm moving almost parallel to Thalia's orbital path. Also, I think the hyperbolic orbit after SOI should be closer to 2-2.5 than 1. These kind of things are probably similar to reducing the injection burn for Moho and wanted to find out what the smart people do. Thanks
  21. Gilph
    Release looks great so far. I wanted to ask about optimizing arrival deltav in MA. WHen porkchops are calculated, we have the option of optimizing for arrival deltav, although I don't really know how that is calculated. In MA, it's common to define injection burns after we coast to Pe, but the examples usually just optimize for inclination. If I were to program a capture burn like what is shown on the deltav maps, I could optimize for ecc=.95 or define the SMA or Ap height, but what MA optimization will give be the most optimal injection burn? Thanks
  22. Gilph
    Hi, had another error in the departure burn screen. When you right click "FInd Earliest arrival for Deltav" and input a deltav number, this error was logged: Thanks
  23. Gilph
    Logs are here In loading a fresh 1.3.1, Kopernicus .2, and GPP 1.5.3, seeing these errors (were not there with Kopernicus alone): Thanks
  24. Gilph
    xScience worked fine with 1.3.0. I expect no issues with the newer versions
  25. Gilph
    3-4 per one RE 3.75 Tundra bay and one Assembly MK bay. They both need chemicals. If you have a few MPUs making Chemicals, you can get away with 3. The Wiki has the conversion rates. Yes, I made the same assumption and had the same problem. But, during catch up processing, the simplified version is that it only does one pull every 6 hours, which is different than the real time pulls when the vessel is in focus. So if you need 1000 chemicals in 6 hours and you have space for 800, you are only going to use 800 (actually a bit less). Many factors go into that number but if you budget for tank space at 12 hours of consumption, you will be fine.
×
×
  • Create New...