DerekL1963

Step 1: Take a deep breath, it's only a game. Step 2: Set your final distance in the rendezvous autopilot to something more reasonable (e.g. further away). That way you have plenty of time to switch to the space center and come back without risking a collision. Step 3: You don't need to switch scenes anyhow, do a quickload by quicksaving (F5) and then as soon as the quicksave finishes (watch the top right corner of your screen) use F9 to load the quicksave. Control will be restored.

The staging without decouplers you see in videos aren't advanced rocket control methods, they're stupid party tricks that allow the video maker to brag about how much science he gathered.

I take it you've never actually used MJ then? Because MJ isn't like a computer - it doesn't lock up, it doesn't suddenly power down and can't be powered back up, etc... etc... It does occasionally produce an error, but in all but an infinitesimal number of cases you can recover by selecting a different MJ option with no need to go full manual. In that vanishingly small number of cases where you can't... you're usually in a situation where you can't recover manually in time either.

Ok... does anyone have the appropriate config setups?

Indeed. The problems caused by "Target Active" won't go away just because "Target Active" does - because they weren't caused by "Target Active" in the first place. They happen because RT2 is a complex and unintuitive mod with a steep and unforgiving learning curve. When "Target Active" goes away, they'll just find another function to be the cause of "most errors".

Futzing around with #180, nice job on adding the MJ functional modules to the tech tree Sarbian!

It's not so much the wiki approach failed as it was (no offense intended) poorly implemented and executed. Wiki's work best when there's at least one strong maintainer who can put down the bones that will then be fleshed out by others. The RT2 Wiki had/has no such strong maintainer, and there really can never be one because there's no documentation and we (the users) are stuck with scraps and hand-me-down information gleaned from posts you've made. There's nothing from which to build the bones. May I suggest trying a hybrid approach? That you build the documentation in the wiki, that provides the bones that the rest of us can then build on.

IIRC, you can remove the DLL *but do not remove the parts*, and your ships will return to normal (stock) operation.

Does anyone know if this works with TAC Life Support resources? KSP Interstellar resources?

If you were nearby, I'd buy you a beer or a wee dram if that would help... KAC is on my "must have" shortlist. (In a normal game, I'll sometimes end up with twenty or thirty alarms listed between launch windows, reminders to rotate station crews, etc....)

Ah, OK. As it works out, Eve is one of the few places I haven't sent at least a pair of vehicles to so that wasn't obvious. Another thing I noted; VI.2/9 Sometimes MJ will calculate a node in the next window rather than a few minutes away in the current one. If this happens click "Remove All Nodes", time warp forward four or five minutes, then try again. You may have to do this several times.

Since we aren't talking about perpendicular forces... I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. Turns lead to bending moment, not 'perpendicular forces'. That being said, there's still considerable stress on the joints and they are little more than flat disks. And the Saturn V doesn't wobble or bend. They aren't anywhere near as strong as their real world counterparts - as evidence by the complete lack of real world rockets that bend and wobble on ascent.

OK, studying the guide further... I'm not at all clear why you think Eve is such an issue. It's Jool that's the bear for me. Even with ships arriving days apart, it's quite possible to have three or four ships strung out between the boundary of Jool's SOI and your circularization burns. (If you aerobrake, it's even more complicated.)

No, it's not a stretch. 'Stretch' doesn't even begin to cover the mental gyrations needed to accept the premise you're defending. You're trying to extrapolate from the tiny number of people who will math tutors to... to I'm not sure what you're extrapolating to. You've leapt to the defense of math tutors but completely failed to anyhow make any logical connection to the thread at hand. The only things I'm adamant against are the nonsense and lack of logic from those who oppose MJ, the insistence that there is something wrong or deficient with people who use it, and feeling among some that they can dictate how other people play. Your statement above is an example of the last. To some people, yes. But not to all. (Again, your logic fails because you extrapolate from the fraction to the whole.) The mind boggles that someone can simultaneously say "I'm not dictating how people should play" and "I recommend they play a certain way" without realizing the two statements are almost completely at odds with each other.

Look in the settings menu.

Sometimes. Other times they won't.

You do know the Saturn V was joined with nothing more than essentially flat rings? The ISS too. Rigid connections don't need to be deep, they just need to be properly designed. (Or in the case of KSP, properly simulated.)

My RemoTech2 relay bird - covering everything from the Mun to Eeloo in one station.

Except... your anecdote only "proves" they've used calculators too much and have thus been "harmed" only if you accept the premise that knowing all the square roots up to 100 is a desirable state. You're essentially making the same mistaken assumption when it comes to MJ - starting with an untenable assumption and then extrapolating from there. A castle built on air has no foundation. You do realize that MJ has been abandoned by it's makers twice already? On top of being on it's third maintainer, there's at least three additional people that are currently contributing or have recently (I.E. within the last month) contributed code. Or, to put it another way, this is a variant of the same logical error you make above - you start with a mistaken assumption and then just dig yourself deeper from there. "Don't start using MJ because it might go away someday" is the silliest anti-MJ argument I've ever heard - because the same could be said of any mod. But anyone who has been playing the game more than a month or two has seen what really happens when a desirable mod goes away... the community steps up and replaces it. There's a strong community of coders and testers, and it would take quite a bit for that to just vanish. And if it did, I expect one of the other autopilot mod authors would step up to fill that niche - there's abundant evidence that autopilots and informational plugins are very desirable to the playerbase. Heck, I'd bet that 90% of MJ is already available in bits and pieces scattered across a dozen other mods. No, really, it's not. It's the very heart of your position (and the logical fallacies above), the position taken and argument used so very often by MJ's detractors - projecting your chosen playstyle onto others, declaring other playstyles invalid, and coming up with ever more tortured reasons to justify that position.

You forgot one all important, must not be forgotten, point - F5 is your friend. (Almost as important is "keep notes - preferably on a pad next to the keyboard so you don't have to swap windows".) "Never get involved in a land war in Asia" is a distant third.

There's nothing in the game that MJ does that you "need to learn" that will "lead to ruin" if you fail to learn it. I don't see where that's obvious at all, nor does anything in your anecdotes provide any support for that.

Nice, downloading now... though the L-shape is going to drive me bananas because the internal trusswork on the sides is the opposite of what it should be...

Testing docking with #180... Initial impressions, it doesn't seem to me to be much of an improvement. In some ways, it seems a step backwards. It doesn't handle unbalanced payloads nearly as well, and still has the annoying tendency to sometimes try and dock while still moving laterally and/or with significant lateral misalignment (the "lets just get it in range and let the magnetics handle it" school of docking). Turning "smart translation" on and off doesn't seem to have any effect.

This has a downside too... "The last 10% does 90% of the work" - a 0.3m/s error isn't much in Kerbin orbit, but in an interplanetary burn it's a heck of a lot.

Looks like lots of good stuff, will give 'er a spin when I'm done with forums - and I have a mission queued that needs docking too! While you're fixing stuff, could you look into the autoland program? When it has to make a plane change, it doesn't resume autowarp afterwards.... very annoying when the deorbit burn is half an hour away.