Jim DiGriz

Thanks that was it. I was building master. - - - Updated - - - https://github.com/MuMech/MechJeb2/issues/570 It should be fixed in the dev builds (#455 seems to be the latest stable one), or wait until the next official release

Yeah that's what I'm using and I saw that in the Makefile and it looks setup correctly.

What do you need to do to get MechJeb compiling under linux? I'm not really looking to get an IDE setup, just want to get `make build` working. Error output I'm getting is: I tried looking at what Jenkins is doing to compile it, but the config isn't visible as an anonymous user. I'm very familiar with building software on linux, but no experience at all wtih C# or mono.

I was last playing at making SSTOs with FAR+DRE with 0.90 (plus Tac-LS and RemoteTech, etc) more or less 'hard mode' 0.90 (or at least advanced intermediate hard mode, i wasn't playing with RSS). So, 1.00 pretty much nailed it for me on all the big things. Integrated FAR+DRE, plus fuel cells, and they fixed the inverse square law for solar panels. Plus bigger landing gear for planes. It looks good. I already knew about proper gravity turns with rockets in FAR so I haven't had any issues with rockets flipping over or anything. Not sure how I feel about science and career mode. Got real life to deal with so its been kinda slow plowing through career mode and getting science, and I never liked the science game much. I suspect that I'll probably start playing sandbox after installing RemoteTech, TAC-LS, MKS/OKS and just focus on colonizing the solar system without too many deaths rather than playing career, but that's kind of my style anyway. Haven't tried SSTOs yet. That looks like the most interesting challenge with 1.0.x And as far as bugs in 1.0.0 goes... I'm part of the brotherhood of software developers and can appreciate how much work it clearly took to put out 1.0.0 and the fast turn around of bugfixing the critical bugs and releasing 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 is really the right way to go about it. There's probably a hundred bugs they could spend their time trying to fix and they could have released 1.0.0 next fall sometime. Instead release it now and let actual usage dictate the priority of the bugfixes, get the new features in front of people and the iterate quickly on fixing the biggest issues. People who are whining about 1.0.0 being buggy don't write software and don't understand how its written.

Yep, cannot +1 enough

You've got enough to be very useful. You should release a build and get it onto CKAN so its easy to use.

Nightingale, can you make a patch to allow specifying the longitude of the periapsis or apoapsis of an orbit or something similar in a contract? It seems like the stock contracts will do something like that, but I don't see the options in your wiki or the code. EDIT: hmmmm... nm, I just found the BEHAVIOURS section and the OrbitGenerator...

What about taking a larger black hole, spinning it up with the reverse penrose process, and then extracting energy from it to run a star drive like a large battery? Black hole could be large enough so that it wouldn't evaporate and you could turn this kind of engine off...

Thing to do would be to have a tri-coupler that was both a top and a bottom of a stack, which had three connectors 'inside' it where you could hang engines and fuel tanks, and make the length procedural. That way the tri-coupler has one parent above it, it has four children (the three stacks below it, and whatever connected to its base). Probably need to have different versions for solid bases and bases without any collision mesh so that engines could fire 'through' it. There's a few parts in one of the big packs -- NovaPunch or KW Rocketry -- which are kind of like this.

video with two explosions and one seriously energetic decoupler leaving like a bullet... (first 9 seconds of the vid are still for some reason -- 0:38 is where the first boom is at)

here's my actual ship file in case its some weird edge condition in the construction: https://gist.github.com/8015022 EDIT: video of the latest mishap has been captured -- encoding, editing it down, uploading, reencoding will take awhile...

nope. and i took out FAR + KJR and last flight it behaved fine. the last exploding decoupler i had was not under any warp, not under any thrust. i had the upper staging wrong, so i was manually clicking on one of the decouplers on the pod and it exploded. i guess i'll have to see if i can figure out how to make a movie and get the mods reloaded...

okay next flight the radial decouplers were fine but when i got rid of the main stack it exploded. EDIT: then manually triggering the top radial decouplers one of them blew up. gonna try removing FAR + KJR and see if it goes away...

this went boom when i triggered the radial decouplers:

just had an interesting radial decoupler explosion. had some liquid boosters attached with a stock radial decoupler and a stock strut each, with stock 0.23 and just KJR and FAR loaded as mods, and when i stage separated it kind of blew apart and took a good chunk of my inner stack with it...

Does there have to be a reason? We choose to spam this forum in this day and make nginx return 500s not because it is easy, but because we have nothing better to do...

Moar struts?

yeah, but this thread is clearly about people just wanting to vent. its better to have one self contained thread to let everyone get that off of their chest than to spam it all over multiple threads across the forum, and any other thread is just as likely to spin out quickly from suggestions to venting. and i don't much see the point of a suggestions thread, really. you've got people at squad smart enough to write a physics simulation with realistic rocket science. they already have a resources plan on the shelf. i'm certain they're not casually making decisions about the direction of their product.

James T. Kirk: How much refit time before we can take her out again? Montgomery Scott: Eight weeks, Sir, [Kirk opens his mouth] but ye don't have eight weeks, so I'll do it for ye in two. James T. Kirk: Mr.Scott. Have you always multiplied your repair estimates by a factor of four? Montgomery Scott: Certainly, Sir. How else can I keep my reputation as a miracle worker? James T. Kirk: Your reputation is secure, Scotty.

I looked into doing this recently and decided instead to stick with dual-booting between linux and windows. The info I found on the state of virtualized framebuffers didn't impress me. (Although these days I just tend to stick with linux and haven't used windows games in awhile)

Your use of "realism" there still makes no sense to me. It also isn't realistic that the o-rings in our tanks also don't freeze and cause our rockets to randomly explode and we don't have to hold kerbal senate hearings to manage getting to the bottom of the parts exploding -- because its a video game and senate hearings are the opposite of fun. So you had nothing to do with the quality control of your parts as well. You said something in your previous post that emphasized a "sense of pride and accomplishment" in putting together rockets, docking, etc. I can agree with that more, but its necessarily subjective. Once you understand circularizing orbits and doing burns, it can get tedious and the "sense of pride and accomplishment" can easily be replaced by "endlessly fiddling with maneuver nodes".

Yeah that'd be awesome. There are some parts that are converters that go to multiple stacks, but really I just want a piece that has a top and bottom that are the large diameter and then accept a few smaller diameter pieces 'inside' of it, and then let the sides and bottom eject kind of like a stage separator, leaving the top piece and the insides still attached. That looks more or less like exactly what you were building there... Procedural heights on the outside farings would be awesome if you could pull that off... (and thanks for the tip on breaking{force,torque} starwaster...)

Yeah, I'm not sure I really need a 5m.. =) The problem with multiple rockets engines, though, is that even with kerbal joint reinforcement the strength scales hugely with the diameter of the connection and if you've got a tall (because of FAR) 3.5m rocket with multiple 2.5m engines somewhere in the middle of it, it snaps in half right where the 2.5m engines are, and I'm having a heck of a time trying to engineer around that problem (even with a ton of KW rocketry 220,000-strength struts as superglue on every joint). A single 3.5m part with multiple 2.5m models in it would also work fine, kind of like this one only scaled up (and with your models): http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/double-nerva-3/ Been looking around and I can't find a 3.5m nuke in any parts pack anywhere..

Any chance you could make some 3.75m and 5m engines?

And dragging maneuver nodes around with your mouse, yanking on the different sliders to increase/decrease prograde/retrograde/etc and being ADD trying to get a perfect circularization burn setup is something that you consider to be realistic? Or trying to figure out if its this orbit or the next orbit that you'll match up closely enough to do your transfer to intercept and dock by moving the maneuver node around and trying to line up two arrows... only to find you're not close enough yet, so you warp and try the next orbit, repeat, etc? Not only is that not realistic, but fighting the maneuver node system gets really old after awhile.