[1.12.x] BetterBurnTime v1.10: Provides extra burn-time indicators on the navball for suicide burns & target rendezvous.

[technicalfool]

Hid a post because we can't allow decompilation tools to be listed here.

I'm asking if we can list the internal fonts used.

[Trann]

You're the best. Not only explaining your thought process and details how a thing can/cannot be done but for referencing old issues/discussions with a Kraken-damned link.  Thanks!  *thumbs up*

[meister.]

Is this mod compatible with Realism Overhaul? 

[Snark]

6 hours ago, meister. said:

Is this mod compatible with Realism Overhaul? 

Hi, and welcome to the forums! 

My understanding is that the answer to your question is:  technically yes, but in practice, no, and it never will.  It's been asked before, and what it boils down to is this:  RO forces you to use engines in a way that's fundamentally different from how KSP works with engines normally, and which completely defeats BetterBurnTime.

The issue is that RO has minimum throttle for engines, even liquid-fueled ones (i.e. you can't throttle an engine down to zero).  RO players cope with that restriction by not staging the engine until it's time for a burn.  And that completely defeats BetterBurnTime, because of course it ignores any inactive (i.e. not-staged-yet) engines.  An inactive engine doesn't exist, as far as BBT is concerned; it only takes active engines into account.

And there are very deep, strong reasons why BetterBurnTime has to be that way.  For a detailed explanation about "why is that?", please see here and here, but the TL;DR is "because reasons, and I will never add a feature that changes that restriction, so don't ask." 

I'm sorry about that-- I wish I could oblige you.  But RO is just too odd of a duck for BBT to cope with.

[Gordon Dry]

Now, with RealFuels for KSP 1.3 installed, the "Start burn in > 24h" issue is back ...

Without RO btw.

Edited July 31, 2017 by Gordon Dry

[Snark]

20 minutes ago, Gordon Dry said:

Now, with RealFuels for KSP 1.3 installed, the "Start burn in > 24h" issue is back ...

Without RO btw.

I assume it's because RealFuels is doing something non-standard with how engines work.  BetterBurnTime makes no particular assumptions about which resources an engine needs to burn-- it just reads whatever the ModuleEngines says it needs.  The only resource that BBT gives any special treatment to is electric charge (namely, it ignores it, so that ion drives won't think they're fuel-starved).  I don't know anything at all about RealFuels, but if all it did was swap out a different set of resources for the engine modules, then I'd expect BBT to work just fine.

So if it's not working, I assume it's because the RealFuels mod is doing something creative with the coding around engines, which means it's simply not going to play nice with BetterBurnTime.

[Gordon Dry]

Perhaps because RealFuels got SolverEngines as an dependency?

[Snark]

1 hour ago, Gordon Dry said:

Perhaps because RealFuels got SolverEngines as an dependency?

Could be, have never run RealFuels so I just don't know.  It looks to me as though SolverEngines is ultimately derived from ModuleEngines, so in principle it should work with BetterBurnTime.  BBT doesn't look for exactly ModuleEngines itself, it looks for "ModuleEngines or anything derived therefrom".  However, if SolverEngines is doing something cute with how the module actually works, such that you can't treat it simply as a ModuleEngines, then that could certainly throw BBT off-kilter.

(For example, if it were using some other, custom field for storing the engine's max thrust, such that the actual ModuleEngines base field for that is unused, or is used in some nonstandard way, then that would screw up BBT because it depends on that field.  I'm not saying that's the problem here, since I have no idea-- simply providing one example of how it potentially could cause a problem.)

[Spaceman17]

it a good idea the thing of no more N/A

[Battou]

Hi. I have a problem. I always have N/A when my engines are on zero thrust. So to see burn time I need to fire engins alittle. Im using Real Fuels, so many engines gave only one ignition. Does your mod not working with Real Fuels?

[DStaal]

21 minutes ago, Battou said:

Hi. I have a problem. I always have N/A when my engines are on zero thrust. So to see burn time I need to fire engins alittle. Im using Real Fuels, so many engines gave only one ignition. Does your mod not working with Real Fuels?

Pretty much see Snark's answer for RO - technically, this mod works fine with Real Fuels: It shows what burn time you need with the currently active engines, just like intended.  However, as you point out, activating those engines is different than with stock KSP, so the result isn't what you want.  'Fixing' this would change the design intent of the mod, and is therefore unlikely to happen.  So, practically, the mod doesn't really work well with Real Fuels.

[Geschosskopf]

@Snark, when I recently returned to KSP after a year off, this was one of the 1st mods I got.  Haven't thanked you for it again lately, so THANKS AGAIN!  Also, I like a feature I didn't remember from before, the time until leaving the atmosphere.  Nice touch  

[JAFO]

@Snark Many, many thanks for this mod.. it's been one of my "must have" mods for a long time now..

When I recently had reason to go poking around in your code, I noticed something. (Long story short, I'm basically trying to get Kerbulator to accurately calculate burn times - I'm getting there, but still not as good as BBT)

For the gravitational acceleration constant, your code uses 9.81. As testing has demonstrated (scroll down towards the bottom of that thread), since around the time of 1.0 KSP has used the correct constant of 9.80665. A very small difference to be sure, but on long burns, it may tend to add up. Correcting this constant could help BBT become even more accurate than it already is.

Edited October 13, 2017 by JAFO

[Snark]

 

On 10/13/2017 at 5:27 AM, JAFO said:

@Snark Many, many thanks for this mod.. it's been one of my "must have" mods for a long time now..

Thanks, glad you like it! 

On 10/13/2017 at 5:27 AM, JAFO said:

A very small difference to be sure, but on long burns, it may tend to add up.

Well, kinda depends on your definition of "add up".     That's a difference of one part in 2928.  So it would take a burn of nearly a full hour to amount to a difference of one second.  And it seems to me that if you're making an hour-long burn, a one-second difference in the burn time makes no important difference at all.  It's lost in the noise.

That said, though, I do appreciate your pointing it out-- thanks for the link.  Next time I have occasion to update BBT, I'll bear it in mind.

[Snark]

Hi all,

I've released BetterBurnTime v1.6.1.  No new features, this one's just a fix for a bug that happens if you're in a career game and haven't upgraded the tracking station yet.

The bug was as follows (again, it would only show up if you're in career and haven't upgraded):

• The impact tracker would throw continuous exceptions the whole time you're in the SoI of any body that doesn't have an atmosphere.
• The atmosphere tracker was nonfunctional (wouldn't come up at all).

With 1.6.1, both of the above behaviors are now fixed.

Enjoy! 

[Kerbart]

19 minutes ago, Snark said:

Hi all,

I've released BetterBurnTime v1.6.1.  No new features, this one's just a fix for a bug that happens if you're in a career game and haven't upgraded the tracking station yet.

About time you fixed it!

JK. DIdn't notice the bug was even there. Thank you for making this great mod even better!

[InterplanetJanet]

How do people play without this mod?  This is one of my required, will-not-play-without-it mods.  Thank you Snark!

[eberkain]

49 minutes ago, InterplanetJanet said:

How do people play without this mod?  This is one of my required, will-not-play-without-it mods.  Thank you Snark!

It should really just be folded into stock at this point. 

[InterplanetJanet]

On 1/15/2018 at 4:45 AM, eberkain said:

It should really just be folded into stock at this point. 

Seconded!

[I3laze]

Any plans to update for 1.4? This is a must have mod imo. 

[Snark]

21 hours ago, I3laze said:

Any plans to update for 1.4? This is a must have mod imo. 

Of course it needs to work for 1.4, it's a must-have mod for my own gameplay. That's why I wrote it in the first place.

However, I'm pretty busy this week, so it'll be a few days before I can look at this.

Have you actually tried it on 1.4?  I wouldn't be surprised if it still works just fine as-is, I've got no reason to think it would be broken.  If it's broken, I'll definitely update it soon. But that might not actually be necessary.

[DStaal]

Also note that 1.4.1 is out in less than a week...

[I3laze]

Sorry I didn't mean to sound rude or demanding. Your mod does indeed seem to still work. Its maybe for the best to wait for 1.4.1 like DStaal mentioned. 

[Snark]

21 hours ago, I3laze said:

Sorry I didn't mean to sound rude or demanding. Your mod does indeed seem to still work. Its maybe for the best to wait for 1.4.1 like DStaal mentioned. 

Oh no, not at all, it was a reasonable question-- a lot of folks don't realize that just because a mod says "version N" doesn't necessarily mean it won't work on N+1, or that KSP updates don't automatically break everything. 

Thanks for the tip that it still works, good to know.

[DStaal]

Just wanted to note that I did a couple of quick launches with a stock 1.4.1+Making History.  (Just to make sure the download and install had worked - no attempt to install mods.)  Your mod was the one that I was most annoyed that it was missing. 

 

Good work on an excellent mod.