[PART, 1.0.2] Anatid Robotics / MuMech - MechJeb - Autopilot - Historical thread

[Crater]

When MechJeb is in control, what's "up" on a rocket? I have a rocket that tends to tip over, and I don't know if it's imbalanced drag or MechJeb thinking that up is towards the horizon. The rocket has an airship payload, so the command capsule is facing sideways (as is the MechJeb).

Does it still know that up is the end that points away from the ground on the launchpad?

"Up" is the direction that the currently selected "Control from here" capsule is pointing.

In other words, no, if you have a cabin poining sideways, or a mechjeb pointing sideways, then Mechjeb will try to aim that "up", and leave your engines sticking out sideways, then wonder why they don't push it in the correct direction.

[Troberg]

Ah, then I'll have to add a command pod facing upwards. Is it important that it's centered over the the rocket, or does it just have to point in the right direction?

[Crater]

Just the direction matters, not the location.

You can also use a docking port, if that's any easier, or an inline probe body in one of the stacks. Just make sure that you click it and select "control from here" before you launch.

[Troberg]

OK, then I'll have no problem finding one. It's an airship with a deployable ground base, 8 tiny rovers, 4 tiny airship rovers, 1 larger airship skycrane/rover and 2 mobile labs (all at some 180 tons, iirc)...

[RoboRay]

Minor suggestion...

I noticed that the Orbital Period reported becomes Days:Hours:Minutes:Seconds if your period reaches 24 hours. Earth days? That doesn't seem to be a very useful measurement in KSP. I don't think 6 hour Kerbin days would be ideal, either, since we do go to other places.

How about eliminating the Days portion of the reported number and just keep adding up Hours beyond 24?

[John FX]

Minor suggestion...

I noticed that the Orbital Period reported becomes Days:Hours:Minutes:Seconds if your period reaches 24 hours. Earth days? That doesn't seem to be a very useful measurement in KSP. I don't think 6 hour Kerbin days would be ideal, either, since we do go to other places.

How about eliminating the Days portion of the reported number and just keep adding up Hours beyond 24?

Whilst I agree it does not make sense for each `day` to be made from 4 days (timecube anyone?) I feel it would make less sense to have a way of measuring time which is different from the KSP way. (I recently posted a suggestion to have a `day` last from midnight to midnight on Kerbin)

[drtedastro]

I would personally like to keep the units in their base form, hours. Maybe the best would be, when the mod creator has time, to allow some form of user choice for units and display of those units. Units could be Earth days, planet / moon days, or hours...... Most likely there are just as many ways to do this as there will be players...... This is just my opinion.....

[RoboRay]

Using 6 hour Kerbin days is going to confuse silly humans who expect a day to equal 24 hours. I think just eliminating days from the reporting data is a better way to go. Hours are always hours, but a day varies with what planet/moon you're standing on.

[drtedastro]

Using 6 hour Kerbin days is going to confuse silly humans who expect a day to equal 24 hours. I think just eliminating days from the reporting data is a better way to go. Hours are always hours, but a day varies with what planet/moon you're standing on.

Exactly.... This is why "I" would prefer hours in the form of HH:mm:ss.ss , but again, my 'guess' is that there will be lots of players that have completely different ideas. if this was 'slightly' modifiable' then each could find something that they liked....

EDIT: And yes, I did put format for decimal seconds...... in some of my sync orbits, even the decimal second make a difference. being out by that small amount has cost me lost sat's due to collisions after years of time in space. they have 'walked' in their orbit and found another to 'play' with and go boom.....

Edited August 13, 2013 by drtedastro
clarification

[japa]

Up is wherever the navball points.

[Tassyr]

Hey, in 0.2.09; is there a way to get the 'force roll' option in docking autopilot back? It's a large part of why I need a docking autopilot. XP

[Starwaster]

Hey, in 0.2.09; is there a way to get the 'force roll' option in docking autopilot back? It's a large part of why I need a docking autopilot. XP

Besides Sarbian's dll?

[Tassyr]

Besides Sarbian's dll?

Sabian's dll? I think I'm missing something here. >.<

[sojourner]

Do a search for Sarbian. He has a link to an updated .dll in his signature.

[DChurchill]

Yeah force roll saved me some sanity docking station parts. I use Lazor Docking Cam and can get the roll to within .1 degree usually, but my OCD sighs with contentment seeing that 0.00 degrees on the z-axis when you make contact when force roll is on.

Otherwise I don't bother with it.

[Starwaster]

Sabian's dll? I think I'm missing something here. >.<

http://www.sarbian.com/sarbian/MechJeb2.dll

Yeah force roll saved me some sanity docking station parts. I use Lazor Docking Cam and can get the roll to within .1 degree usually, but my OCD sighs with contentment seeing that 0.00 degrees on the z-axis when you make contact when force roll is on.

Otherwise I don't bother with it.

Yeah, a few months back I downloaded a really nice looking nuclear interplanetary ship but it depended on having FOUR tanker ships docked with it. I was able to get it launched ok even though it was huge and even though I hadn't found Mechjeb yet...

but I could not dock the damned things together. With Sarbian's 'force roll' option I tried again

I got two tanker ships docked! It was tortuous because for some reason I got locked out of the RCS controls (a known bug I think but I'd never seen it before) so I couldn't take over the job. (I often get impatient and try to RCS thrust forward to speed things up or just outright take over the job)

Too bad the combined ship parts were bringing KSP to a grinding halt. And also too bad that I play with Real Fuels now; the 'interplanetary' ship barely has enough Delta-V to de-orbit. So sad

[triffid_hunter]

Hi, bug report time!

MechJeb gets the TWR of stages 1 & 2 of This Ship (req. MechJeb, KAS) completely wrong- it thinks the TWR of Stage 1 (skycrane) is >54 when it's actually well below 1, and lists a TWR of ~17 for Stage 2 (the NERVA)!

My suspicion is that it has something to do with having engines and decouplers both above and below the root node.

I haven't checked with KER just yet because it doesn't calculate dV for solid boosters.

[gendalf]

how to make windows partially hide-able behind the screen and not pop up back to fully visible

[ebaydan777]

why is sarbian's version preferred over 2.0.9? just curious of its benefits

[Toyotawolf]

Hi, bug report time!

MechJeb gets the TWR of stages 1 & 2 of This Ship (req. MechJeb, KAS) completely wrong- it thinks the TWR of Stage 1 (skycrane) is >54 when it's actually well below 1, and lists a TWR of ~17 for Stage 2 (the NERVA)!

My suspicion is that it has something to do with having engines and decouplers both above and below the root node.

I haven't checked with KER just yet because it doesn't calculate dV for solid boosters.

Bug reports are pointless as the developer seems to have abandoned this mod, but go ahead keep posting them, nothing will happen. Sad really for the most downloaded mod in KSP

[Guest]

why is sarbian's version preferred over 2.0.9? just curious of its benefits

Not sure about this. I used the Build 72 version to rendezvous with an Agena target and successfully dock, and on another mission land a direct-ascent vessel on the Mun and return it safely. I'm not seeing any faults with R4m0n's work.

[Toyotawolf]

Not sure about this. I used the Build 72 version to rendezvous with an Agena target and successfully dock, and on another mission land a direct-ascent vessel on the Mun and return it safely. I'm not seeing any faults with R4m0n's work.

Sarbian coded the fix that R4m0n put in for 2.0.9 if memory serves correctly

[sojourner]

Sarbian's .dll has some further tweeks that help with docking among other things.

[viperwolf]

Sarbian's .dll has some further tweeks that help with docking among other things.

Ive been getting throttle fluctuation with the sarbians dll, i think i seen a conversation about that in the this thread somewhere. anyone remember where or do you know something else i could to solve this?

[Traches]

New to the forum, been playing .21 for a while, have MJ209 installed...

I didn't see this suggested anywhere, but if it has, maybe point me to a discussion. I'm wondering if a feature could be added where a launch could be timed to the position of another vehicle already in orbit, either by a direct time measurement or by the moment the (selected) orbiting vehicle passes a reference coordinate on the surface.

What I'm trying to do is set up a comm relay network where the relay sats are equally spaced in their orbit. I think I know the basics of doing it (manually), but it's difficult to "push the go button" at the precise moment, since I can only watch one spacecraft at a time. The time it takes to switch views from the orbiting sat back to the ground, engage the ascent computer, then make it go, moves the orbiting sat farther ahead than what I want.

Not sure if this has been answered, but you can do that using phase angles and some math. Set up a custom info window with the target's phase angle in it, then do a test launch. remember where your phase angle was when you launched, and when you finish your circularization burn. Work out the difference, and then subtract that from whatever separation you're going for.