diomedea

Fine. I'm happy with you considering this, I know it won't come soon (given how much time you devote to more important issues).

Given the above, I wish I could be of help. Coding Jebnix parts would actually be far beyond my ability (at least for now), but I believe I may at least help with testing, and possibly some debugging in future. Am I correct in guessing Jebnix is being developed in C#, just like kOS? If so, I will put some time in reading kOS sourcecode to have a start.

@ CleverLikeMe: I use both MJ and VOID, too, and for the same reason as yours (VOID allows higher precision with manual maneuvers). Fact is, they both work fine with me, no issue like you reported (no content in Delta-V window). Therefore I believe the issue you are experiencing is tied to something else. @ Sarbian: about improving precision with MJ, thanks, I would like that too. Best way would be to allow the user to select the degree of precision he wants, tied to the scale, exactly as VOID currently does. But if you are going to allow customisation of each data value displayed, I would also like to be able to select the colour of the font for each value independently. I believe that would help to catch immediately the important values from all the mass of data shown.

You're absolutely correct. I used the map switch/switch trick everytime, now I know the crafts are just zoomed out. Can't say if that is RT2, or another of the 50+ mods I have installed.

Believe this mod is a gift from heaven. Being able to test any part opened while still in the VAB/SPH will help me a lot in designing spacecrafts, and avoid some nasty surprises later on. Many thanks.

Let me wish every success with your endeavour. This is going to implement some of the improvements I needed and suggested for kOS. Other features (I don't see yet in the OP) I would like Jebnix to support: - multidimensional dynamic arrays of typed variables (typed variables being any kind Jebnix will support, so e.g. including vectors); - allow input interaction with user (at least, a basic keyboard "INPUT" statement); - ability to run compiled code (at least, include a pre-processor to parse kerboscript in advance, if possible optimize for execution speed, and store the parsed code while waiting for it to be run).

A compiler is exactly what I need. I used kOS till now, but it is too laggy with my "real-time" closed-loop control algorithms (though my PC is pretty powerful), so much that I had to stop including further refinements. And beyond that, kOS script language is not being developed to support even basic control flow program structures that would mean more efficiency. Therefore, I will be waiting for your updated ProgCom.

This below should be of help, until some more experienced forumites write better info. The module name you pointed at effectively matches code with the same name for its class definition. Standard module names should all be part of the KSP.exe; module names defined in mods are built into plugins (.dll files). I found this (and most other useful info) explained (it is a series of 7 videotutorials, the module name is shown in the 2nd video).

Happy to see you have uploaded this fantastic part!

Many thanks for listening to us and further improving the toolbar.

Yes, that's more or less it. The tool reads a craft in its definition language (KHDL), to this moment no automatic converter from a craft .file; however that's not too difficult to write even for a large and complex vessel as Kerpollo7 is. You may specify how much fuel to keep "in reserve", for the remainder of the mission, and the tool will automatically find the best angles and thrust to apply during the whole ascent, so to obtain the highest performance. In some comparative tests I did, this tool could get higher than the ascent module in MechJeb, for the same vessel and fuel used. This could be overkill in most cases, but sometimes a tiny difference in performance is all in making success or failure in space missions. As I reckon you're replicating Apollo Lunar missions, and those in reality were performed with very strict margins. Therefore believe even a slight increase in performance may be of importance here.

Most probably, yes. As therealcrow999 and Talisar, I put it in GameData and it works. I know there is some order of precedence at loading time based on the alphabetic name of each file and folder in GameData, if you put it under 'GameData/Plugins' this should load after any mod with a folder name coming before 'Plugins', and therefore can't apply corrections to those.

@ John FX: I believe you may be interested to know what the optimal ascent profile for Kerpollo 7 could be. This was obtained through a numerical optimization tool ('Komputron' by Elington), and here are the KHDL vessel definition, flight profile obtained and a screencapture to show it on that tool. Used 22% of 3rd stage to a circular orbit @ 94.65 Km altitude, not too different from the performance on your opening post.

One of the great advantages in KSP is the ability to choose which mods are best for one own playstyle. ECLSS (apart from some awful FPS drops, mainly due to calculating resource expenditure for every single part of every single vessel) has this "peculiarity" of very big sizes with the resources required; that was debated on the ECLSS thread and somebody already observed how hard could be to use it. TAC LS has different volumes for its resources, but those match with the resource consumption rates being used as a basis for life support. Those consumption rates have been discussed at length, and I reckon in the end they were found to be correct. I would not say TAC LS is overpowered; but certainly ECLSS makes for a much more difficult game.

Thanks. Of course that puzzles me, why to use a different version if it does not improve over the previous? That will only make for trouble.

I'm a poor soul trying to learn something about modeling, Unity 4.3.0 and Blender 2.69.4 installed, going through tutorials. I find only very generic references to the .mu format, and nothing at all about v3 .mu; needless to say, googling just brings back to KSP, KSP wiki is outdated, and no other thread in KSP forum seems to show anything on the v3 .mu subject. Could someone provide info about what changes from the previous .mu and v3 .mu; what models use one or the other .mu format or how can I find out myself about their format; and possibly, some link to "official" reference documents to explain those formats? Thanks in advance.

I may provide a list, but better a procedure to find that info: - open either one of the part.cfg files in "MechJeb2/Parts/MechJeb2_AR202" or "MechJeb2/Parts/MechJeb2_Pod", any text editor like notepad will do; - search for this string: "MechJebCore" within the opened file; - the lines after that string are the names of each module with MechJeb, and next in brackets the name of the technology that unlocks them.

@ Athlonic: Excellent. Thanks for keeping this mod updated, and even improving it.

Bookmarked. I may even understand how science works, now.

I already had MJ with full toolbar support, thanks to the additional plugin (MechjebMenuToolbar.dll) from sarbian. It is just MJ 2.1.1. that, on my system at least, does not interface with that plugin. Back to the dev build, and that works again.

MJ version 2.1.1. seems to have reverted to no support for the Toolbar plugin by blizzy78. That is a NO-GO for me, so I'm back to the latest dev build (by sarbian).

Thank you. Your explanation is clear, enough for me to get it. If you need a tester, I'm in (but will be away from PC some days around New Year's eve).

If what you mean is that the RT2 Flight Computer is better than relying only on radio commands, totally agree. If you mean that the Flight Computer allows to fly a correct ascent profile, then I would like to know how. I wrote ascent autopilots with kOS, able to adapt to specific profiles and to keep strict control of flight parameters so to maintain the desired profile even if case of unpredicted events, therefore I believe to know something on the subject. But I can't fly any acceptable profile by just giving commands like "set pitch to 60°, heading to 90° and burn for 30 sec (or for 300 m/s DV)". I want to be able to set a specific altitude with apoapsis and periapsis and obtain a specific inclination of the orbit. Therefore, if you know how to set apoapsis/periapsis and inclination with the RT2 Flight Computer, I am here to listen; if that can't be achieved, I better rely on radio commands or hope kOS will someday work with RT2 and KSP 0.23.

How about this ?

@ blizzy: I reckon that toolbar position and size are saved, for each scene (easy enough to see: those info get written in toolbar-settings.dat). However, I continue to have the toolbar "lose" its settings about flight mode. Each time I restart the game, my toolbar is back to a (long) horizontal line of buttons, instead of a rect box of x by y. For info in case, my screen is at 1280x960 windowed, the toolbar box positioned @ x=840, y=820, width=137, Height=147, no autohide. No issues with the toolbar in other scenes, but then there are not that many buttons in those so I am fine with just the horizontal line there. I suspect it may be down to one mod calling the toolbar plugin in a improper way, so forcing it back to default each time it loads. What may I do to trace what goes on, or would it be possible to have it displayed when your plugin can't load its settings properly or otherwise has to reset them (and possibly what caused that) ? Thanks again.