Padishar

I've not had time to look at your roll rate KER issue yet but do you see the same sort of fps hit when using KER (with the vessel pane in particular)? If so then it would point the finger at the KER simulation code and, if not, then I guess it would point at something specific to VOID. @toadicus, do you have any readouts that recalculate on every frame (Update or FixedUpdate) but need to scan the whole vessel to do it? Something like drag or a whole vessel heat average...?

Have you looked in GameData/ModuleManager.Physics to see if the patch is actually being applied? I believe that all patches that are applied should also be reported in output_log.txt. Have you checked the MM thread to see if the issue has already been reported? Do you have any other mods that use MM to apply config patches? I would have thought it unlikely that you would be the first person to notice this but it's possible... Incidentally, this discussion should probably be taken elsewhere, e.g. either the MM thread or a new thread in the 1.1 Pre-release Modding forum. Perhaps, after looking into the above questions, if you haven't located and fixed the problem, post a new thread including a complete output_log.txt and your patch that is failing to apply...

Thanks for this. It looks like an issue in the code that determines which parts of the vessel that will be decoupled in the next stage are preventing staging (either engines that are burning or fuel tanks that are being drained). This isn't surprising as the mechanism has a number of issues and is on my list for sorting out. Since it seems to affect all STAGE_PRIORITY_FLOW using engines I will try to take a look at it quite urgently...

Something certainly isn't playing nice. The last third or so of the log is spamming that the video device can't be accessed. There are also quite a lot of other exceptions in your log that appear to indicate that several of your mods are almost certainly not (fully) compatible with KSP 1.1 yet: For a start, you have 3 different versions of ModuleManager and I very much doubt that all of those other mods have been (fully) updated yet. The cause of the crash is that the program tried to use a null pointer. It appears to be something to do with the steam integration and/or your video driver so I suspect that, for some reason, the video driver refused to give KSP back exclusive access to the video card and then the steam integration code ignored this and crashed. If you have copied the install out of the steam location then you could try removing the various steam related bits but I suspect you will still see problems of some kind if the video card fails to give back exclusive access so you should probably avoid leaving the game running in the background when alt-tabbed out of full screen mode (wasn't this deliberately disabled at some point to avoid such issues?).

Rather than adding your post to a 10 month old thread that only bears a very faint resemblance to your issue, you should read the post that Supernovy linked above and, if you can't diagnose and fix the issue yourself with the information given there, then post a new thread including all the information that thread mentions (screenshots, logs, dxdiag etc).

It appears that the deltaV simulation is failing to fire stages 8 through 3 until all the engines stop burning. This may be an unavoidable (without allowing user input for the staging conditions) consequence of your vessel design or it may be due to a bug in the code. Can you upload the craft (preferably in the KER thread) so I can take a look? I don't really want to hunt through a full debug simulation log of a 1239 part vessel (especially where most of the parts are fuel tanks), I suspect the log output will be many megabytes in size, but the simulation staging in KER does need tweaking for various edge cases and this looks like one of them...

I presume this was a rhetorical question, but on the off-chance it wasn't, probably the same reason that most people haven't heard of the majority of mods. There are a lot of mods about and, while some are very popular and virtually anyone getting into mods hears of them quite quickly, others are a lot less so and people only tend to find them when they go specifically looking for them. In this case, I am a bit surprised that you didn't search the Add-on Releases forum for threads with camera in the title...

Where has he insulted you (or anyone else)? The only person trolling here is you. The joints in the pre-release version are known to behave differently to 1.0.5 due to changes in Unity that have not (yet) been fully accounted for. Ferram has clearly stated in a number of places that KJR will not be updated until after the official 1.1 release mainly because the stock joints will, almost certainly, change several times before that happens and he (understandably) doesn't want to keep having to tweak KJR during the pre-release period. The point is that many people play with the stock joints just fine so they can't really be described as "broken".

This is a known issue that has already been fixed for the next release. In the meantime you can avoid using the parts by switching to Partless mode using the Settings button in the KER VAB/SPH window (or by using an engineer or a level 3 tracking station).

I do feel that way about the need for deltaV/TWR calculations, I only bought the game once I noticed KER in a YouTube video... However, there isn't any mod whose absence would make me quit KSP because most of my KSP time these days (well, probably since 0.90 if not earlier) is spent investigating bugs (in both plugins and the core game) and developing and testing plugins (either to fix bugs or as tools for investigation). The last bit of "serious" play that I did was back in 0.25 when I created my icosahedron station. If I did feel that strongly about any particular mod then I would write a replacement...

Please don't post speculation that has previously been directly stated as being false earlier in the thread...

Yes, it has been considered in the past (most likely as an extra stage after all other stages have been activated) and the new throttle control makes it more likely to actually get done (possibly for more than just an extra final stage). Yes, this is a known issue.

It has all been said in this thread already but since people don't bother to read it and keep repeating the same incorrect arguments, I'll say it again... This is true for a project that only has a single author or where all the contributors have explicitly reassigned copyright of the code to a single person/body. Otherwise, the consent of all the contributors that have retained their copyright must be acquired before a GPL licensed project can be relicensed. In any case, it isn't just the license issues. All of the mods that calculate deltaV have limitations that lots of people would consider unacceptable in a stock feature, they are also implemented in ways that may not be very suitable for the particular way that Squad want to present the feature and they could, almost certainly, be written in considerably simpler ways if integrated into the core game. It really would be much better for Squad to write their own and it would make sense to share as much code with the rework to the resource flow mechanisms that is (currently) planned for the version after 1.1.

If you have something in LEO then you should be able to fly it and create maneuver nodes for the transfer to the Moon and the capture burn. You may need to update your patched conic settings though I think you should be able to do 2 using the defaults.

Isn't that setting fuelCrossFeed on the Part not the two PartResources? I'm not saying that it's a sensible thing to do because, despite the name, this mod has almost nothing to do with other "fuel crossfeed" settings, it simply allows fuel to flow either way between a part that is surface attached to another part. I believe the second part of the MM cfg will not actually do anything as all parts that contain LF or Ox already have that setting set to true.

In my opinion, regardless of the mod's license and whether or not you have complied with it, this is seriously out-of-order. The current maintainer of the mod has clearly indicated why a 1.1 release will not be done yet and given an idea of when it will be: What is to stop people from running the version you have built and then flooding this thread with useless bug reports when problems are found? At the very least, you should create your own thread and direct any users to post all feedback there, though, in this particular situation I would much rather you hadn't released it at all...

The original suggestions mentioned looping through the PartModules and doing the action for each ModuleDeployableSolarPanel found. If it is possible to have more than one per part then this should definitely be done or some parts will only deploy one of their sub-panels (e.g. I suspect some of the Near Future panels might have multiple if it's possible). Ahhh, on a more in-depth reading, I see Nathan has already mentioned that...

The output_log.txt/player.log file is written out for every run of the game and contains lots of useful information to anyone trying to investigate a problem. Does switching to partless mode fix it for you?

Are you in career mode? Have you changed the setting to partless or added the part to the vessel (or have a level 3 tracking station)? I would suggest switching to partless mode anyway until the next version of KER is released as this will avoid an issue with the part models causing severe log spam due to non-convex colliders. Also, why are you running build 1174 of KSP when the latest version is 1183? You should obviously use the most recent version of KSP as Squad are fixing bugs all the time. Edit: Also, when reporting bugs you should include a full output_log.txt/player.log file and details of all the mods you have installed. There have been 2 versions of KER released for KSP 1.1, which are you using? Any other mods?

I'd like to think that people would read the thread before posting opinions that directly contradict Squad staff...

Assuming that you are starting in a circular orbit and you are basically asking what is the Ap speed of an orbit with Pe of 670Km and speed at Pe of 2525.4 then all you need is the Vis-Viva equation. GM is the same as mu so you should be able to rearrange that to give a = ... and then plug in the Pe radius and Pe speed. The a is the semi-major axis of the resulting orbit so the Ap satisfies a = (Pe + Ap) / 2 To work out the speed at Ap, just plug in the value for a and the Ap height for r into the original equation...

The vessel name was added as an an optional in-flight readout back in October of last year. You will need to edit one of your windows and add the readout (it is in the Vessel category). I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist but it has been thought of before. A mod that lets you effectively create a "dummy" vessel with full control over the orbit would be useful for so many things (e.g. general mission planning). Currently, you would have to actually switch to flying it to create nodes on the orbit so it may need to be a "real" vessel consisting of a "dummy" custom mod part to avoid issues if you manage to fly close to it (or hit it). The current best solution is to use hyperedit to stick something (e.g. a probe core + RTG) in the orbit you want, just try not to hit it when you launch...

Because the tangent you want to pursue has already been addressed and yet you continue. Firstly, there is no "pretty much" about it. The original topic of this thread has been clearly shown to be false, Squad do want to provide this feature. Even if you add "yet" to the end, it has still been clearly answered. Besides which, to "stroll of on a tangent" is explicitly prohibited by the forum rules... Surely you can see the benefits in discussing things in the expected place. When someone from Squad goes to look for reasonable discussion about this feature they really don't want to be scouring through every thread on the forum that mentions deltaV on the off chance that some off-topic remark made a good point. While this thread is, admittedly, in the correct sub-forum for such a discussion, it isn't what this thread is supposed to be about and, so far, very little in this thread hasn't been discussed back and forth numerous times in other threads before, most of it is just noise.

The licensing issue isn't actually that relevant in this case and, in any case, isn't about the modders not giving permission, it is about them not being around to ask. Squad would be foolish to integrate any mod solution for this directly into the game as it is fundamentally tied to how the resource flow mechanisms work and the plan is that this area will be having a (hopefully substantial) rework for the next version (after 1.1). The mod implementations also have to jump through various hoops that a stock implementation probably wouldn't need to. I had hoped that @NathanKell's post on the previous page would basically kill this thread but it seems not...

So that's about 1.5 revs per second or ~90 rpm (yes, not the best revving engine ever ). It does sound suspiciously like the change in roll angle isn't being divided by the timestep, you would need to multiply the KER value by ~26 to get the equivalent value. I'll take another look at the code and confirm it doesn't factor the timestep in somewhere else.