Jump to content

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

r4m0n

By r4m0n
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

SupremeSoviet

SupremeSoviet

Posted
Posted
I agree. The best thing would be to have an 'Aligned with Docking Axis by X Distance' field. Maybe that's not the best wording, but you get the gist. I have several ships and stations where a docking port is relatively close to fragile solar panels and radiators, etc., and I would like to move straight in from 10 or 15 meters out to avoid them.

I understand that this isn't a vital feature, but it sure would be nice to have. :)

And, @SupremeSoviet, of course it works, it has for a long time. What do you think we're all talking about in these last few posts?

No idea last time I played was .18 so its been a while and that didn't really work back then. lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Motokid600

Motokid600

Posted
Posted (edited)
I use the following to add Kerbal Engineer and MechJeb to all my pods (KE for the Flight Engineer readouts and MechJeb to see my sea-level-thrust -- crucial when building launchers with Realism Overhaul):

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = BuildEngineer
    }

    MODULE
    {
        name = FlightEngineer
    }

    !MODULE[MechJebCore]
    MODULE
    {
        name = MechJebCore
    }
}

So having just learning how to use module manager I decided to go this route with applying MJ to all my command pods. Now I just copy this into a .cfg file and drop it into gamedata? Didn't work.

The thing is.. I have Mission Controller. It has a bug with MJ making it super expensive. So the solution was to get rid of the name=Module Command line in the MJ part itself. ( the radial one I got rid of the pod ). So I fear this may be the issue as to why this module manager setup isn't working.

.. I think.. lol. Any pointers?

EDIT: Nevermind.. the part.cfg for MJ has the name=MechJeb Core so it should work despite me deleting Module Comnmand, no? The only other thing I can think of in this instance is the asterisk not meaning All.

Edited by Motokid600
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Motokid600

Motokid600

Posted
Posted
Try with adding :Final like this :

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]:Final

You do have the latest (1.5.6) Module Manager dll in /gamedata ?

Yes 1.5.6 is installed. I tried adding Final after that line. No luck. Do I have to name the cfg anything specific by chance? Heres it is..


@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]:Final
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = BuildEngineer
    }

    MODULE
    {
        name = FlightEngineer
    }

    !MODULE[MechJebCore]
    MODULE
    {
        name = MechJebCore
    }
}

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sonicsst

sonicsst

Posted
Posted (edited)
Yes 1.5.6 is installed. I tried adding Final after that line. No luck. Do I have to name the cfg anything specific by chance? Heres it is..


@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]:Final
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = BuildEngineer
    }

    MODULE
    {
        name = FlightEngineer
    }

    !MODULE[MechJebCore]
    MODULE
    {
        name = MechJebCore
    }
}

!MODULE[MechJebCore] makes no sense in that context. Try this:


@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]:Final
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = BuildEngineer
    }

    MODULE
    {
        name = FlightEngineer
    }

}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand],!MODULE[MechJebCore]]:Final
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = MechJebCore
    }
}

Edit: Oops, it does make sense there. I guess I don't know the MM syntax as well as I thought. The syntax is slightly off though, as Starwaster describes below.

Edited by sonicsst
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Motokid600

Motokid600

Posted
Posted (edited)
Try this:

No luck. Tried both stock and mod cmd pods for what it counts..

My mods if it helps.

000_Toolbar

E7OPpwz.jpg?1

Would it have anything to do with name=ModuleCommand not being in Mechjeb's .cfg?

Edited by Motokid600
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sarbian

sarbian

Posted
Posted

Try this one and make sure the file is named .cfg


@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand],!MODULE[MechJebCore]]:Final
{    
    MODULE
    {
        name = MechJebCore
    }
}

If it still does not work I'll need to see your log.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
Yes 1.5.6 is installed. I tried adding Final after that line. No luck. Do I have to name the cfg anything specific by chance? Heres it is..


@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]:Final
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = BuildEngineer
    }

    MODULE
    {
        name = FlightEngineer
    }

    !MODULE[MechJebCore]
    MODULE
    {
        name = MechJebCore
    }
}

!MODULE[MechJebCore] means you are removing MJ from a part that already has it before re-adding it back in. Not sure why you think that would be necessary but assuming that is truly your intent, the syntax is wrong.

it has to be

!MODULE[MechJebCore]{}

note the braces at the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Motokid600

Motokid600

Posted
Posted
Try this one and make sure the file is named .cfg


@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand],!MODULE[MechJebCore]]:Final
{    
    MODULE
    {
        name = MechJebCore
    }
}

If it still does not work I'll need to see your log.

That did it. Works great. Thanks so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AndreyATGB

AndreyATGB

Posted
Posted
Yup the little mec jeb pack that looks like battery packs?

I do have the VOID and Engineer mod installed? Are they conflicting?

I don't see why they would conflict, MechJeb is like a case with a green light when it's active, in the control tab it's called AR202. I know it doesn't conflict with Engineer at least, don't know about VOID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
crazyewok

crazyewok

Posted
Posted
I don't see why they would conflict, MechJeb is like a case with a green light when it's active, in the control tab it's called AR202. I know it doesn't conflict with Engineer at least, don't know about VOID.

Im putting thr ar pannel on my craft but im getting no extra screens....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
reschke

reschke

Posted
Posted

I am getting all kinds of funny control inputs now that I have FAR added into my game and it is not allowing me to use MJ to put up pieces and parts of stations to stay on course for building my interplanetary waystations. I will try to get my mod list and any log files up here in just a little while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bobe

Bobe

Posted
Posted

A couple suggestions, sorry if they've been mentioned before:

In the maneuver planner, list all maneuver nodes with their T- time, estimated burn time and ÃŽâ€v, as well as total ÃŽâ€v for all nodes.

In the landing guidance module, add the ability to specify distance from target. I realize I could plant a flag where I want the craft to land, but sometimes it's just a pain to send a manned mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
codepoet

codepoet

Posted
Posted
A couple suggestions, sorry if they've been mentioned before:

...

In the landing guidance module, add the ability to specify distance from target. I realize I could plant a flag where I want the craft to land, but sometimes it's just a pain to send a manned mission.

Could you please clarify what you mean by this. The guidence screen does already display the distance from the predicted landing site to the target landing site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LameLefty

LameLefty

Posted
Posted
I think he wants to set an offset to the landing site, like 100m north.

I admit, I have wished for this a time or two when sending rescue ships. I once missed my target (the lander I'd come to rescue) by about 8 meters on the Mün only because I aborted the auto-landing, translated over a few meters at the last second by RCS, then put the lander down manually. If I hadn't, I'd have wrecked both landers. That's a testament to how accurate vacuum landings can be, but it's nerve-wracking.

On "Offset" option, maybe with the option to click "Uprange" or "Downrange" and then a text entry field to let you specify the requested target distance would be great. That way, you could initially target a flag or a landed vessel or base, but then tweak the requested landing site so you don't risk destroying anything important on the ground by landing right on top of it. The "Map" view of KSP isn't nearly detailed enough to specify this kind of offset when you target a spot manually, and most of us don't have enough of a feel to be able to manually enter the lat/lon coordinates to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bobe

Bobe

Posted
Posted
I admit, I have wished for this a time or two when sending rescue ships. I once missed my target (the lander I'd come to rescue) by about 8 meters on the Mün only because I aborted the auto-landing, translated over a few meters at the last second by RCS, then put the lander down manually. If I hadn't, I'd have wrecked both landers. That's a testament to how accurate vacuum landings can be, but it's nerve-wracking.

On "Offset" option, maybe with the option to click "Uprange" or "Downrange" and then a text entry field to let you specify the requested target distance would be great. That way, you could initially target a flag or a landed vessel or base, but then tweak the requested landing site so you don't risk destroying anything important on the ground by landing right on top of it. The "Map" view of KSP isn't nearly detailed enough to specify this kind of offset when you target a spot manually, and most of us don't have enough of a feel to be able to manually enter the lat/lon coordinates to do so.

Precisely. Well put.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
codepoet

codepoet

Posted
Posted
I think he wants to set an offset to the landing site, like 100m north.

Oh, I see, so it is to prevent landing on top of something else. So it is basically a complaint that the landing is too accurate! I will take that as a compliment!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LameLefty

LameLefty

Posted
Posted
Oh, I see, so it is to prevent landing on top of something else. So it is basically a complaint that the landing is too accurate! I will take that as a compliment!

Exactly! It IS a compliment. Landing has gotten really good lately! :D

For a lot of us, if not returning to KSC or picking a target in the middle of a crater or whatnot, we like to try to land near a prior mission for role-play purposes. Perhaps at a base or to rescue a prior mission. MJ lets us target a flag or the lander for the earlier mission but often, especially on vacuum bodies, it will land right on top of the target. As I posted this morning, the accuracy is phenomenal but dangerous to both crafts in this kind of circumstance. If the KSP Map view let us zoom in much more closely, we could use the "Pick a Target on the Map" feature in MJ's Landing Guidance to get close but not on top of the target. Since we cannot do that, on option to land short or long or even laterally offset by some distance would give us a workaround, as well as just being a great addition.

Functionally you could get the same functionality by entering lat/lon coordinates if you had a good feel for how much distance is represented by an arcsecond is on every celestial body, but since most of us don't, an offset distance would offer this ability, and more functionally for most players as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...