jlcarneiro

I think the rover missions have some kind of problem: I've successfully finished the deployment mission, but when I accepted the next mission it failed before I even tried to execute it... I'll try find out what is causing this. I didn't have time when it happened...

Liked it very much, thanks! Although I KNOW I'll have to read it again on the PC (I'm on the phone now) to grasp it fully... Waiting for the next!

This! I don't use RemoteTech anymore (due to CPU restrictions, I preferred EVE, PlanetShine and Distante Object Enhancement Bis) and what I miss the most is the Flight Computer. Last night I took a look at RT's and MJ's source code. I intended to "delete all code unrelated to executing the next maneuver of the simpler one". Unfortunately, I'm ashamed to say I couldn't make heads or tails of either of both... So, I must trust @Snark's opinion that MJ is "stupefyingly complex" and assume that my idea is not feasible (at least by me)...

Another vote for some way to automate maneuver nodes execution, just the next one. I currently use KER, Precise Maneuver, Autorove and Better Burn Time. If I had a simple maneuver execution mod, I also would ditch MJ2. MJ helps a LOT, but I think it's too resource consuming if you use it only for data and maneuver execution...

Sorry to hear that! I suggest something like S.A.V.E.. I has helped me sometimes...

Have just found this thread! GREAT IDEA! Thanks!

Mine is confirmed: the latest (2.1 according to AVC).

Are you getting water sounds and text saying something like "surfacing" or "emerging" when in orbit of Kerbin?

Thanks, @Zhetaan! Nice detailed work! About, my question, so I should alter @ABZB's MM patch altering the part related to amount and maxAmount keeping them equal to 1, right? If so, I think it would become something like this (I added the [!launchClamp*] part because the Launch Clamps were being activated automatically): //hits all parts with module generator that has no inputs and outputs EC. runs on the final pass to avoid parts with specific configs @PART[!launchClamp*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleGenerator]:HAS[@OUTPUT_RESOURCE[ElectricCharge],!INPUT_RESOURCE[*]],!MODULE[ModuleDiminishingRTG]]:FINAL { @description = By exploiting the 'natural' decay of radiological isotopes, electrical power can be generated for prolonged durations—indeed, indefinitely, but the output tends to fall off over time. Accountants have also noted that different 'hot rocks' are hotter or cooler than others and tend to cool down a different rates, with the two aspects not necessarily being related. //scale everything according to mass of stock RTG config (0.08) MODULE { name = ModuleDiminishingRTG efficiency = 0.05 // factor (0..1) of 'pep' into ElectricCharge volume = 7 // roughly, in deciliters. ("units") @volume /= 0.08 @volume *= #$../mass$ //scale efficiency compared to the stock RTG electric output @efficiency /= 0.75 @efficiency *= #$../MODULE[ModuleGenerator]/OUTPUT_RESOURCE[ElectricCharge]/rate$ } //use the replace-if-not-create to avoid duplicate resource node %RESOURCE[ElectricCharge] { %isTweakable = true @amount = 1 @maxAmount = 1 } !MODULE[ModuleGenerator]{} } About your offer, I think this thread has been too quiet lately, but I would like to be enlightened, if you don't mind...

Sorry, let me see if now I got it: Kerbalism is NOT implementing RTG output decay rate, you just thought about disabling other mod's and after some thought conclude that you'd better stay out of it? What a shame, I thought I would reduce one more mod in my count (I like JDiminishingRTG, but it seems forgotten)...

Excuse me, but how does this RTG output work? I searched this topic about it but couldn't find it... Does it make JDimineshingRTG unnecessary? Does it affect any RTG or just stock's?

Excuse me, guys! I use version 0.2.5 with 1.1.3 and it works just fine (apart from AVC's warning, that is). But I'd like to know about version 0.5, is it 1.1.3 compatible?

Oh, the way you Said on the release led me to think all eight TMA had to be dealt with... So, I assumed they existed... Thanks!

Thanks! But what about TMA-4, TMA-5 and TMA-8? What they correspond to? Since I didn't complete all eight, I must know which ones I should force complete...

Thanks! No problems! I just asked to be prepared for any weird behavior... Like what I reported here:

Hey, @linuxgurugamer, do these need some change due to the new Contract Configurator version?

Hi, @nightingale! First of all, thank you very much for your hard work! Second, I think you changed the order of some Anomaly Surveryor's TMA contracts. I know you instructed us to accept the new TMA contracts, check which ones of the first eight (TMA-1 through TMA-8) we've completed and "force complete" them (Alt-F12 style), substracting the corresponding double funds, science and rep points. I just completed the first 5 (TMA-1 through TMA-5), but by their coordinates, I think they don't correspond to the new TMA-1 through TMA-5... According to Anomaly Surveyor's files and to my persistent.sfs, they are as follow: Latitudes Old Contract New Contract -0.640167398451803 (Kerbin) TMA-1 TMA-1 20.6708959294282 (Kerbin) TMA-2 TMA-2 -28.8083158360341 (Kerbin) TMA-3 TMA-3 57.6603611293676 (Mün) TMA-4 TMA-6 -82.206266198768 (Mün) TMA-5 TMA-7 Since I checked the coordinates from my persistent.sfs file, I didn't get the old TMA-6, TMA-7 and TMA-8. Could you please post something like an equivalence table (only which old TMA correspond to the which new one, not the coordinates)?

Nope, sir! Thank you very much! A little off-topic: you removed Mini AVC because one would be probably using KSP-AVC. I never got this right: if I install KSP-AVC, I may delete all AVC dlls from all other mods?

About the feedback you asked, so far so good! Thanks, once again! I have a doubt though: I started using Modular Rocket Systems and its RTG, converted to decaying mode by @ABZB's MM patch, got a bit unrealistic, as far as I can tell: I think its generating too much power. Is that MM patch correctly balanced? If not, what changes should I do to your MM patches to do balance them to it? EDIT: I've made some calculations (I considered the mass of both RTG as the parameter for comparison) and I think pwer generation is actually quite equivalent. My biggest concerns are related to the MaxAmount of generated power. JDiminishingRTG sets Squad's RTG MaxAmount to 1, while ABZB's MM patch changes MRS RTG to 6250! Which one is correct? I mean, should the MaxAmount power be limited to 1 (since the RTG is not a battery) or should it be increased since 1 is for smaller generation and on a bigger RTG would mean lost of generated power?

Sorry, I didn't get it: should I build the ship again, put the same scientist back in and then recover it again?

Oops! Let's say I missed it because it's early in the morning here... Thanks, @GoSlash27!

Nice explanation, thanks! Just didn't get what quick manipulation you did on the equation to go from S = 1/2 a.t^2 to S = 1/2 v^2/a...

A little of topic, but is there a mod like a "Mechjeb Lite"? It would consume less resources and would only have the Maneuver Planner or, at least, a button to execute the next maneuver node... That feature is fantastic! Iike the others, but this one is invaluable!

Any news on this mod or another one that does its job (sounds and effects on IVA)?

I think you nailed it! I created a new vessel, very simple, like the last one, and hyperdited it to Luna. Messed with warp factor repeatedly and O2 consumption didn't seem to be affected. Then hyperedited it to Mun orbit and repeated the proccess. Everything seemed ok. Poor Luna 4, I think it'll be scrapped and the project will go back to the drawing board... Thanks! If I see something weird again, I'll let you (and @leomike) know.