diomedea

I can certainly confirm, CLS is still unique, stock KSP wasn't made to implement the checks it does. And CLS remains a much needed add-on for those who like more realism in building/operating complex vessels.

You're right, I haven't gone throught the slides, didn't notice those were updated. Just thought the interface would have made it clear. Thanks. I like to use 6/426, but can't say a majority of users do. It may be a worthy case for a poll with this thread?

Re-downloaded version 0.60, re-did the comparison with version 0.50. Still can't find about 2-body porkchop plot option and Equatorial Prograde Velocity field. Only changes I notice are the different default search window and (with graph) adjusted Travel Time scale. I'm not saying those other improvements don't exist, but rather they are very well hidden so I can't use them.

Tried version 0.60, however can't find the new features, 2-body porkchop plot option and Equatorial Prograde Velocity field. Where those just be visible? (It appears to me like a version 0.50 under a new version name, running both versions side by side can't spot a difference).

@ Camacha: what KSPMA version are you running? The issue of not being able to add a 64bit version was solved with version 1.4.0.12 PR and it still is solved on my side as of version 1.4.0.15, independent of the distributor (I have it recognize folders from KSP Store and from Steam).

Me, I don't post for nothing. Oops, done.

What, you got permission from the author to increase version number? If not, you can only tell you are making a modified version based on an existing one (e.g., 1.4.0.PR15.a), as the main line of versions is to be used for official ones. This will only be confusing, as the 1.4.0.16 version is possibly already with a meaning in the author's plan. If the author wanted to use that version number, your version will necessarily have to change it (and I will make sure of that).

If ever it happens again, please follow the guidelines about reporting issues. Even if the game did not crash, the log may include information showing what happened. Conditions still markes as fulfilled while clearly out of range show an uncorrect behaviour, any problem you had earlier when those were in range but that contract could not be completed is probably also tied to the same.

Excellent news, really . Ability to use different sizes for US parts is perfect to build crafts optimized for a specific mission, and allows ample freedom in choosing how best those parts can be integrated. Perfect for those designs I was hoping to make.

Hi, welcome to the forum .

That is a stroke of pure genius ! A rather easy way to find the drag coefficient, so it can be applied to the "real" maneuvers in MA. And, I guess, that would also be independent from the aerodynamics model used in KSP (so, usable with rather good confidence also in case the model is modified by ferram4's FAR or NEAR add-ons). You will probably remember one other tool for KSP that actually computes aerobrakes (Komputron, by Elington). That tool also uses numerical methods to find the solution, and is very precise, but suffers from this limitaton: the user can input a drag coefficient of his choice, but has no way to know what that value is. With stock KSP most parts have drag coefficient = 0.2, and therefore using 0.2 provided good solutions in most cases with the stock model. But not with FAR, and I had to make experiments setting that coefficient so to simulate (afterwards) what effect I experienced from an aerobrake, hoping the same would apply to the next.

You're probably looking for Haystack (continued). Or, for Targetron (but that is currently not updated to 0.24.2).

OS = Operating System (Windows | Linux | MacOS)

No prob, nice to be of help. And at last, Welcome to the forum .

See if this helps (downright area of pic):

LV-909 is perfect for Mun landings with most "normal" landers, but if yours is very light it may still be excessive. On Minmus gravity is so low, it could be possible to takeoff with RCS only. Really what you should be looking at is the TWR while on Mun or Minmus (that is much higher than it would be on Kerbin), but computing TWR may be a bit much if you are still new to KSP, you may want to use a add-on like Kerbal Engineer Redux to have that reading. A TWR = 2 is generally the best. Also, practice is very important. Thrust changes may be too sharp if you can't make very fast button presses on left-ctrl and left-shift. I use a joystick and that helps a lot to finely modulate the amount of thrust.

Played a bit with KSP TOT v.1.1.7, so far so good . Time in Kerbin units shows fine in all modules I tested till now (couldn't yet check all due to lack of time, will do at the earliest possibility). Mission Animator is very nice, though I could not find a way to change the "camera" distance (so to enlarge/restrict the view), and rotation of the view could only happen by changing values in the angles boxes (would be more intuitive to rotate dragging the view). Minor issues really, that module is a beauty already.

Definitely, very interesting. Yes, the orbital plan check is clear. And that sequence makes clear why most of computing time is spent on the actual SoI check, the optimizer has to make a few runs to solve for the transition. Though, I was thinking previous steps had more importance (so much to allow that important gain in time you wrote before), and guessed it was required to have multiple checks if a coast segment was crossing the orbits of a number of different bodies .

That is certainly interesting. If I had devised something to limit the checks for SoI changes, I would have considered a sequence of checks. Distance from the SoI mainbody seems to be fast to check, and good in most cases to discriminate; but if the distances match I would then consider the phase angle of the two objects to further limit the search; and if possible without much detriment to the algorithm speed, I may have considered a third check about the vertical separation of the objects (with some weird math about inclination and true anomaly by distance to find the vertical displacement to the ecliptic plane). I believe the SoI change is actually dictated by the distance of the craft from the new body, unless there is some tricky change in reference system that involves a lot of math, computing the distance may be easier than the vertical separation, so that third check may not be worth the time taken. Also, how often is called the routine that checks for possible SoI changes? Or, how small the interval moved along the trajectories before another check is done? I would consider to do another check only after the craft has moved a distance equal to how distant it was from the closest body, minus the SoI range of that body.

Thanks for telling, MacTee . Very nice to keep users informed, even while no progress is in sight. Let me wish everything is for your best while you have to stay away from improving this tool.

Must say, I really appreciate that you listed those issues, it is certainly of help for players who want to contribute/test your mod . At the same time, I'm a bit puzzled: you have your mod on Github, certainly know better than me how to put issues on Github, and how useful that would be to keep track of things.

From those two pics, I understand you have not actually launched, you are still on the pad. Your crew has not yet started to depend on the resources stored aboard, sure your astronauts prefer fresh snacks than the ones stored.

Yes, I have an idea: that if it was a "broken patch", the many experienced testers and players that already tried it would have reported the same. Instead, I suspect you did something horribly wrong with the game. But, without proper information (as required in this guide for filling a support request) it may be impossible to understand where to start looking about this issue you have.

Now, that new feature is impressive. Would like to know if the mission animator will be limited to one mission segment at a time, or will automatically switch segments as time goes for the whole mission.

Two steps: 1. upload your screenshot file to a remote online host that allows to link directly: most used here is imgur; 2. find the link from that site and paste it into your post, checking the tags are correct.