blizzy78

What sense would it make to spawn asteroids always in the exact same position? Not quite realistic.

This is intended.

Not unless sarbian adds it to the MechJeb Toolbar extension. The Toolbar Plugin itself doesn't know about specific buttons.

Plugin breakage should be expected for any release. KSP's API is not what one would consider very stable (ie. always backwards compatible.)

Considering that if you activate multiple engine packs the calculator has to look through literally hundreds of thousands of combinations, I'm still impressed that it remains pretty fast (more or less.) It does try to use all of your CPU cores, though.

Okay, I've fixed a logic error in the code. It should now work as expected.

Total Isp would be 350. Total Isp would be ~321.4. This is odd indeed, the 350 Isp calculation should win over the 321. I shall be looking at the code again to see what's wrong. It is not, I promise

Yes, it does. The default priority list looks like this. These are per total rocket, not per stack nor per engine. Also, a "shell" is a spot where you can place an engine (center, outer, radial.) var SORT_PRIORITIES = [ 'engineTWR', 'twr', 'isp', 'engineMass', 'numParts', 'numShells' ]; As a user, you can pick one of these and pull it to the front, but the rest stays the same. Note though that throttling may still give better TWR (engines only.) than using other engines and not throttling them. I haven't looked into the specific engines you mentioned because I'm at work right now. Perhaps you can post the recommendations again with total thrust, mass, Isp, and throttle setting.

I have not. Personally I don't play with stock only, so I've not had a real need so far to use the adapters. The problem with smaller payloads (and in turn, small lifters) is that the calculator will tend to suggest SSTOs, which makes sense from the mathematical standpoint. It does not make sense in reality because when the tanks get empty, you still carry around all that mass. The same goes for the engines: In the higher atmosphere, you don't need all that thrust, so any engine mass you haven't lost by then is practically dead mass. In the end, the calculator is designed around the asparagus staging, shedding useless mass as soon as possible.

So, to get back to the "no clipping" setting. What it currently does is to prevent clipping between the center and outer engines. Which means that there should be no clipping occurring in a straight line from outer-center-outer. Of course it can be considered a bug that you can have so many outer engines that they will still clip into each other. You can see that pretty easily from the graphic.

It depends on the booster stack size. On a 3.75 m tank, you can fit a lot of Rockomax 48-7S at the outer spot. The calculator currently does not allow to pick a booster stack size, it recommends one itself. This is mainly to prevent booster stacks clipping into each other. Of course you're not bound to use the recommended stack size, you can use any size you want. For example, if the calculator recommends using 2 booster stacks, you can practically use any size.

It does not check if the number of engines at a spot (outer or radial) will clip into each other. So as a workaround, you should reduce the maximum number of engines at that spot.

You might want to check out my engine cluster calculator (see signature.)

That is not my decision to make. I'm not sure what you mean by "clunky," perhaps you can elaborate on that. Did you know that you can change the appearance of the toolbar?

Right. I'm not a guy of many words in these situations, so I'd just say thanks for giving me the opportunity. I've already forked the Git repository to https://github.com/blizzy78/ksp-precisenode - so if you want to create issues in the issue tracker or send pull requests, please do it there instead of regex's repository. I shall be updating the OP with new URLs over the next days or so. Other than that, you can always just make a post in this thread; I usually read all posts in the threads I'm subscribed to.

Please check that there is exactly one Toolbar.dll in your complete GameData\ folder (it should be at GameData\000_Toolbar\Toolbar.dll).

See if you can see any exceptions in your output_log.txt.

I use it all the time, mostly because I just HATE to babysit things like long burns, or ascents. And the readouts are of course really helpful.

Right. I don't think he said anything about their trajectory, only where they spawn.

I think HarvesteR mentioned in Scott Manley's video that asteroids are only spawned near Kerbin's orbit.

So who's excited for some asteroid achievements?

Who needs science points for achievements when you can have the real thing? (see signature *cough*)

Please see the FAQ in the first post:

It should only ever disappear if there is not a single button that could be shown.

Yes, this. In your screenshot, the "Delete Toolbar" option is enabled. It will only ever be enabled if there is more than one toolbar (so that you cannot delete the last one.)