Do you use mechjeb anymore?

[Leafbaron]

33 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

foamyesque,

 Your guesstimate is pretty close, but the Poodle is actually the 3rd lightest option.

#1: 2 Poodles. 62.105t, $9,000

#2 3 Aerospikes. 62.487t, $20,850

#3 7 Terriers. 62.838t, $12,030

#4 1 Vector. 65.140t, $27,750

#5 1 Skipper. 65.850t $12,500

 That's what I mean... unless you have a spreadsheet to check all the engines, you're never really sure if you've found the best option.

Best,
-Slashy

Break this spreadsheet down for me  Slashy. Have you indexed all parts in excel and just use a filter? or are you running a constraint model? i.e. here are my requirements x, y, and z. >run constraint model.> excel spits out all relevant parts and quantities for requirements. Ive never done this with parts but i have used these models to optimize resource use for businesses.  

[GoSlash27]

20 minutes ago, Leafbaron said:

Break this spreadsheet down for me  Slashy. Have you indexed all parts in excel and just use a filter? or are you running a constraint model? i.e. here are my requirements x, y, and z. >run constraint model.> excel spits out all relevant parts and quantities for requirements. Ive never done this with parts but i have used these models to optimize resource use for businesses.  

Leafbaron,

 I have no idea what any of those terms mean.  Your description of "constraint model" sounds about like what I'm doing.

I plug in constraints (either direct entry or pulldown) that tell the spreadsheet the job I want the stage to do. Payload, DV, minimum t/w, starting and ending % atmospheric density, and reference body.

It then applies the reverse rocket equation to each engine in order to derive the stage design. It displays all pertinent information about the designs for all engines in a table, highlighting the best/worst options using color and bold/ underlining.

Hope that explains it adequately,
-Slashy

 

[RX2000]

1 hour ago, Diche Bach said:

Much the way your Operating System "operates" your hardware for you, and much the way your browser "navigates" the internet for you, and much the way a paint app "controls" the graphics software on your VGA for you.

So does this mean you're going to uninstall your OS, and start running everything from the equivalent of a DOS prompt as a matter of "pride" or something? You do realize that _MOST_ of what you have ever done on a computer amounts to "using an autopilot" don't you?

People are being over the top silly if they honestly think that there is something "unethical" or "wrong" about anyone playing this game anyway they want, much less using a famous, well-designed, and very popular app like MechJeb. It is a single player game, short of breaching your EULA or otherwise engaging in cybercrime/IP crime, play it however, whenever, and for whatever reasons you want and enjoy and do not judge anyone else because they do not play it in exactly the same way as you. "Cheating" is impossible in a single player game; reserve the judgementalism for the script kiddies who love to troll the various multiplayer gaming communities.

None of what you mentioned is a game. I dont use my operating system as a game in & of itself.

I dont think anyone has ever said that using MJ in KSP, since its singleplayer only, is unethical or wrong.

I'm certainly not being judgmental. I'm just stating my opinion on the matter. It probably sounds worse on an internet message board than it would in real life, since you cant see any body language. I'm not trying to be mean about it or anything, I'm just stating that for me, I dont want to use MJ to fly for me because I play KSP as a game, not as a simulation, & its fun for me to do it all myself (although I'm certainly not saying that wont change in the future. I probably have less in game time than anyone else in this thread hahaha). If anyone else wants to use MJ to fly stuff for them, thats fine with me. It doesnt matter to me how people play their games.

As they say in Mexico, "El respeto al derecho ajeno es la paz."

49 minutes ago, Leafbaron said:

We could break it down even further. Since the ingame SAS already has a maneuver node hold setting we can remove the "handling" aspect from the equation. whats left? MJ basically just controls throttle. Especially if you create the node yourself and then just execute it using MJ. 

Right. You have to earn the later probe cores (at least in career mode anyways.) Cant MJ do it for you right off the bat?

Edited October 19, 2016 by RX2000

[regex]

5 hours ago, StarStreak2109 said:

Why is it that MechJeb is such a HOT topic for many and that even more people feel the need to justify their using it in the first place???

A common troll here and elsewhere is that using Mechjeb cheats you of the game experience. This has been going on since Mechjeb came out. You'll see these threads pop up all the time and a lot of people with a lot of different ideas who play in many different ways will use these threads to make themselves feel better at the expense of others' play styles.

This thread here is the perfect example of a KSP "size comparison". Even the most harmless-looking Mechjeb thread can easily turn into it, which is why it's such a common and popular troll.

Edited October 19, 2016 by regex

[John Cochran]

12 hours ago, RX2000 said:

Thats just it though. All of stuff you mention are actual things you do in life that could be a job (pilot) or just something dull you have to do every day (drive to work). If KSP is that boring or is drudgery, why even play it? Games should be played for fun right?

I guess I just have trouble understanding why I would want something to PLAY my game for me? I mean I understand watching other people play a game, a la Twitch, but if I am playing the game supposedly for fun, why would I want something doing it for me? I dunno, just doesnt make sense to me personally.

But like I always say, if MJ is your cup of tea then you do you man.

Yes, KSP is a GAME, not a job. However, with that said, different people find different things "fun". Designing rockets may be fun for some people. Planning overall structures to be built on remote body may also be fun. And some aspects of the game just aren't fun for some people. So why not skip past those parts that you consider drudgery? Can I land manually? Yep. Do I find that part of the game fun and interesting? Nope. I find it purely mechanical and boring. Why should I act like a robot when I have a robot available to do that task for me? There are a LOT of different aspects to KSP and different people will find different levels of "fun" with each aspect. Should they be forced to manually perform every aspect because that's part of the game? I say "no", so let them automate those aspects that they find annoying, or in other words "not fun".

 

[Leafbaron]

40 minutes ago, RX2000 said:

Right. You have to earn the later probe cores (at least in career mode anyways.) Cant MJ do it for you right off the bat?

No, in Career mode the options of mechjeb such as ascent guidance, smart A.S.S. landing guidance, d-v readouts, orbital information, rover pilot, etc... are all unlocked progressing through the tech tree. i don't think you get the first mechjeb control box until tier 3 in 1.2 with the new mech jeb integration. Even then all it does is give d-v readouts and orbital information. 

52 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Leafbaron,

 I have no idea what any of those terms mean.  Your description of "constraint model" sounds about like what I'm doing.

I plug in constraints (either direct entry or pulldown) that tell the spreadsheet the job I want the stage to do. Payload, DV, minimum t/w, starting and ending % atmospheric density, and reference body.

It then applies the reverse rocket equation to each engine in order to derive the stage design. It displays all pertinent information about the designs for all engines in a table, highlighting the best/worst options using color and bold/ underlining.

Hope that explains it adequately,
-Slashy

 

sounds like a fantastic design spread sheet 

[GoSlash27]

24 minutes ago, John Cochran said:

Yes, KSP is a GAME, not a job. However, with that said, different people find different things "fun".

Precisely this. It is the height of arrogance to suggest that somebody else is playing a single player game "wrong". 

We should also keep in mind that people sharing *their* preference isn't an attack on anyone else's preference.

Best,
-Slashy

[Kerbart]

6 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Precisely this. It is the height of arrogance to suggest that somebody else is playing a single player game "wrong". 

Especially since those claiming that are playing it wrong as well. Assuming they're not playing it the way I am playing it.

[Just Jim]

13 hours ago, Higgs said:

Squad needs to make mechjeb stock. Like it or not, ker IS mechjeb sans autopilot. These style threads are attempts to justify one stance or the other. Make mj stock and end these. Please

The problem here is some of us, myself included, started playing without MJ or KER, and I still don't use either. I would much rather do it the hard (and IMO, much more fun) way.

I would prefer they didn't make either one stock.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Just Jim

[Diche Bach]

19 minutes ago, Just Jim said:

The problem here is some of us, myself included, started playing without MJ or KER, and I still don't use either. I would much rather do it the hard (and IMO, much more fun) way.

I would prefer they didn't make either one stock.

And that is where the "debate" or merely bird-for-tat expression of opinions becomes salient in a way that takes it beyond a mere discussion. If developers see that a particular "automating function" is popular and decide to make it an obligatory part of stock gameplay in an updated version, they run the risk of annoying, even alienating significant fractions of their user base.

Game setup option panes (like the one's in KSP right now) which allow the user to turn such things on/off (or on by degrees) are generally a good solution though.

So: they make KER or MJ stock, but also include a line entry in the game setup options pane to turn either of them on/off. As long as these additions to the code do not impact the game in any other way (which is more or less a reasonable expectation) then no one has any basis to complain, eh?

I don't particularly like the Microsoft "Aero" features; they eat RAM and do not particular enhance my user experience. But thankfully, Microsoft had the good sense to allow me to reset my OS so that the damn thing looks like a Windows 98 or XP interface if I want! 

[regex]

2 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

And that is where the "debate" or merely bird-for-tat expression of opinions becomes salient in a way that takes it beyond a mere discussion. If developers see that a particular "automating function" is popular and decide to make it an obligatory part of stock gameplay in an updated version, they run the risk of annoying, even alienating significant fractions of their user base.

How so? You don't have to use it; I can use MechJeb without touching any of its functionality beyond additional information quite easily because I enjoy the parts of the game that it automates.

FWIW I don't think either will be fully integrated into stock. We may eventually get a delta-V calculator, sure, but the pure information overload of those mods will never be in the game. Likewise, key automation features like numerical maneuver node editing, computing transfers, and launching rockets will never appear in the game because that goes against its base paradigm of information starvation and flying every mission.

[Red Iron Crown]

9 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

And that is where the "debate" or merely bird-for-tat expression of opinions becomes salient in a way that takes it beyond a mere discussion. If developers see that a particular "automating function" is popular and decide to make it an obligatory part of stock gameplay in an updated version, they run the risk of annoying, even alienating significant fractions of their user base.

I find it hard to imagine it being obligatory, any more than using maneuver nodes or SAS is obligatory now.

[RX2000]

1 hour ago, John Cochran said:

Yes, KSP is a GAME, not a job. However, with that said, different people find different things "fun". Designing rockets may be fun for some people. Planning overall structures to be built on remote body may also be fun. And some aspects of the game just aren't fun for some people. So why not skip past those parts that you consider drudgery? Can I land manually? Yep. Do I find that part of the game fun and interesting? Nope. I find it purely mechanical and boring. Why should I act like a robot when I have a robot available to do that task for me? There are a LOT of different aspects to KSP and different people will find different levels of "fun" with each aspect. Should they be forced to manually perform every aspect because that's part of the game? I say "no", so let them automate those aspects that they find annoying, or in other words "not fun".

 

I think we are saying the same thing?

[Just Jim]

26 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

So: they make KER or MJ stock, but also include a line entry in the game setup options pane to turn either of them on/off. As long as these additions to the code do not impact the game in any other way (which is more or less a reasonable expectation) then no one has any basis to complain, eh?

I would have no problems if they made it stock with an on/off button. 

[Diche Bach]

@regex and @Red Iron Crown:

Yes, I agree with you: it seems unlikely that things like MJ or KER will ever be included in stock in any substantive sense, and moreover, even if they were included in full, that would hardly comprise "obliging" players to use them. However, it is conceivable that the inclusion of a "controversial" feature from a mod can have a negative impact on a segment of the user community and thus my point that, "that" is where it becomes more of a substantive debate about "what the game should be" rather than simply "I play this way" . . . "Well I play this way" . . .

The designers of this game have generally done a great job of including features and functionality in ways that expand useability for the entire population of users instead of catering to some and alienating others.

In sum, while someone who does not like the idea of MJ or KER, etc. has some legitimate basis to express their desire for it not to be included in stock, in practice it seems that such concerns are baseless. The functionality is not likely to ever be included, and even if it were, it probably would mean zero obligation for anyone to use the functionality.

I am an example of this: I have MJ installed, and in all the months I played this summer with it installed, "used" it for probably a couple hours: basically just examining it to refresh my memory and try to ascertain if I still could remember how to use it efficiently . . . concluded 'no, this will take some time to relearn' and turned it off and never use it.

[regex]

1 minute ago, Diche Bach said:

In sum, while someone who does not like the idea of MJ or KER, etc. has some legitimate basis to express their desire for it not to be included in stock, in practice it seems that such concerns are baseless.

Utterly baseless, yes, unless you're concerned about scoring points by doing things manually because, with MechJeb in stock, there will be no way to tell if someone did those things without using automation tools. In effect, "cheating" will have become stock and there will be no way to verifiably "compare sizes".

[Red Iron Crown]

2 minutes ago, regex said:

Utterly baseless, yes, unless you're concerned about scoring points by doing things manually because, with MechJeb in stock, there will be no way to tell if someone did those things without using automation tools. In effect, "cheating" will have become stock and there will be no way to verifiably "compare sizes".

I don't know if I would go that far. There is some basis, as the opportunity cost for developing a feature is necessarily less dev time spent on other things that some players might consider higher priorities. The "cheating" argument is just as valid for all the debug menu features already in the game, IMO. 

Anyway, this is rather moot as I really, really don't see anything MJ-like being added to stock, ever. 

[regex]

2 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Anyway, this is rather moot as I really, really don't see anything MJ-like being added to stock, ever. 

Exactly. Why spend dev time solving those problems when there is a perfectly acceptable third-party solution and the tools don't really fit the main paradigms of the game?

[Wallygator]

I've always thought that MJ/KE use or not is definately not a zero sum game anchored around various characteristics of player fulfillment. 

But threads like these sure do try (again and again) to make it that way. 

I chuckle when recalling that repeated requests for mod updates have been summarily banned with a somber thought that some day in the future we will arrive at a moment in our joint forum history where repeated attempts to conjoin any mod with "cheating" might also suffer the same fate. 

Not sure I'm looking forward to that, but won't fight it. 

[MaxPeck]

4 minutes ago, regex said:

Exactly. Why spend dev time solving those problems when there is a perfectly acceptable third-party solution and the tools don't really fit the main paradigms of the game?

+1 for repeatedly using the word "paradigm" in a sentence.

[TimePeriod]

Isn't the definition of insanity, doing the same action over and over again and expect different results?

 

[foamyesque]

3 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

foamyesque,

 Your guesstimate is pretty close, but the Poodle is actually the 3rd lightest option.

#1: 2 Poodles. 62.105t, $9,000

#2 3 Aerospikes. 62.487t, $20,850

#3 7 Terriers. 62.838t, $12,030

#4 1 Vector. 65.140t, $27,750

#5 1 Skipper. 65.850t $12,500

 That's what I mean... unless you have a spreadsheet to check all the engines, you're never really sure if you've found the best option.

Best,
-Slashy

 

Oh, damn. I forgot they changed the Poodle thrust; I was still working on a 200kN and forgot to doublecheck on the wiki (though I did look up the mass). 2x 200kN would max out at 58t at your spec'd TWR, but 2x 250kN is more than ample.

 

Those mass numbers are high, though. You including other parts?

Edited October 19, 2016 by foamyesque

[Leafbaron]

1 minute ago, TimePeriod said:

Isn't the definition of insanity, doing the same action over and over again and expect different results?

 

yes but if I drop a pen from 1 foot above my desk an infinite amount of times there is a chance that one time out of those instances it will fall right through my desk. 

Edited October 19, 2016 by Leafbaron

[regex]

2 minutes ago, TimePeriod said:

Isn't the definition of insanity, doing the same action over and over again and expect different results?

One of them, yes. But I fail to see how that definition is in any way relevant to the discussion because if I do the same thing over and over again in KSP I would expect the same results. Different results would indicate a bug in the software.

[Wallygator]

15 minutes ago, MaxPeck said:

+1 for repeatedly using the word "paradigm" in a sentence.

Wait. It was "paradigms", and regex only used it once. 

I don't think your +1 reward applies. Using a plural once does not make it a multiple usage.

seriously though: I agree with @regex