[1.3.0] Kerbal Engineer Redux 1.1.3.0 (2017-05-28)

[Padishar]

KER doesn't affect the graphics, but for whatever reason installing Hot Rockets prevents KER from getting the correct info on the rockets. So it doesn't show dV or TWR etc.

The reason, if you're interested, is that HotRockets adds an extra ModuleEnginesFX module to the stock engines that defines the effects but has zero thrust. The old code in KER doesn't correctly handle engines with multiple engine modules. It first looks for the module for the Rapier engine and, if it is there, it tries to handle the two engine modules. Next it looks for any ModuleEnginesFX module. If it finds any then it gets the first one and uses it for the thrust/isp etc of the whole engine. If it doesn't find one then it looks for a ModuleEngine and if it finds any of those then it gets the first one and uses that for the engine.

When HotRockets adds a ModuleEnginesFX to an engine that has a ModuleEngine, then instead of KER finding the ModuleEngine (that has the correct thrust values) it instead finds the ModuleEnginesFX (which is just an effect generator) and uses zero values for the engine calculations.

Edit: Tested it out with the test version and it's working perfectly. Thank you

Glad to hear it is working for you. I've still got a few more tweaks to make to the code but I've been ill for the last week. Hopefully I'll be able to get back to it now and finish up the RealFuels support (and a few other things)...

[Respawn]

May I suggest a change the accuracy of the display value of the orbital period?

I've been messing around with rss and rt2 and when the orbit period is longer then a day

KER is only showing days as a decimal which is ok i guess but rounded to 3 significant figures, that's an error bar of about +/- 40 sec.

This might not be a problem when playing with the stock planets but with the larger planets and speeds with RSS it's very noticeable.

In the worst case scenario this inaccuracy could result in a orbital migration between 2 satellites of half an orbit in 554 days in my case.

So whenever I want a higher orbit accuracy than that I have to do the calculations myself.

5 significant figures would give an accuracy of slightly less than a second.

Or better yet, make it display the orbital period like the other time values showing dd:hh:mm:ss could this be possible?

[cybutek]

May I suggest a change the accuracy of the display value of the orbital period?

I've been messing around with rss and rt2 and when the orbit period is longer then a day

KER is only showing days as a decimal which is ok i guess but rounded to 3 significant figures, that's an error bar of about +/- 40 sec.

This might not be a problem when playing with the stock planets but with the larger planets and speeds with RSS it's very noticeable.

In the worst case scenario this inaccuracy could result in a orbital migration between 2 satellites of half an orbit in 554 days in my case.

So whenever I want a higher orbit accuracy than that I have to do the calculations myself.

5 significant figures would give an accuracy of slightly less than a second.

Or better yet, make it display the orbital period like the other time values showing dd:hh:mm:ss could this be possible?

How you describe what you want is fully implemented, but is formatted in its current way purely because of space and layout concerns (governed by how 0.6 does its layout). Using the 00:00:00:00 notation causes layout problems solvable only through clipping (chopping it down so you don't get all the information anyway) or having it span multiple lines (causes readout labels to be out of alignment with their values). All sorted in KER 1.0 though. It's pretty safe to assume that all problems relating to formatting or layout are fixed or can be extremely easily fixed in 1.0 due to it's much more robust and modular design. Right now I am just waiting on feedback from Padishar's alterations of the fuel simulation and it's stability. It will then be pulled directly into 0.6 and transferred into 1.0 for a release.

[BudgetHedgehog]

There's a 1.0?! Is that going to be based off the new dev code in the other thread?

[cybutek]

There's a 1.0?! Is that going to be based off the new dev code in the other thread?

KER 1.0 currently has nothing to do with what's in the other thread, as that thread is just a modification of the 0.6 code. The other thread is a place where Padishar's helping out with an altered simulation logic system based on 0.6. Although his work is being done on the 0.6 base, we have discussed the situation on making sure the simulation is modular and can be bolted directly into 1.0. Version 1.0 has been in development for a while now and is a complete re-write of Engineer from the ground up, and apart from a couple cosmetic similarities, it's completely different. As of yet, I have just been unwilling to do a release because there is no updated simulation logic due to time constraints on my part.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Oooh... rubs hands together gleefully.. that sounds rather exciting

[brusura]

Why there is a Relative Latitude and not a Relative Longitude for the target window? uhm

What I am really asking ... is there a way to show Latitude and Longitude for target?

Edited March 30, 2014 by brusura

[Specialist290]

Just tried this out with the new ARM pack. It seems to still work fine for the most part, but there are a few oddities with its interactions with the new parts -- the Flight Engineer doesn't update the in-flight vessel stats (TWR, delta-v, etc.) when the new engines are firing, for one.

[Padishar]

The updated test version in this thread works fine...

[Daze]

The updated test version in this thread works fine...

Thank you!

[malkuth]

Yes use the updated version in the thread above. If you don't you will have all kinds of Spontaneous disassembles in your game.. The old version Simulation is having issues with 23.5.

[Jarin]

The updated test version in this thread works fine...

This works great. Really should be added to the first post...

[cybutek]

This works great. Really should be added to the first post...

Consider it done

[luxyuz]

This is my number 1 add-on for KSP and I can't figure out if a rocket has the required TWR and DeltaV until its too late without it.

I'm really eager for an update.

[Superfluous J]

I have a (very simple) ship that won't display dV numbers. If I go to the VAB and create a new ship (just a pod with a SRB under it) that ship's data updates, but when I go back to my ship in flight it goes back to not updating. This is the first ship I've tested since upgrading to 0.23.5 with all my mods and whatnot. It's just an LV-N stuck to a fuel tank. Is there anything I can check/test/etc? I can live without the numbers, I'm more trying to help squash a potential bug.

I tested both DLLs (the defaults and the new testing ones), same results on both.

[Padishar]

Can you give screenshots, a craft file or the vessel from the persistence file?

[Superfluous J]

Padishar said:

Can you give screenshots, a craft file or the vessel from the persistence file?

I can do all 3, in fact

[defunct site link removed by moderator]

[hydropos]

Anyone else having issues with the new parts? Sometimes Engineer detects them and calculates ∆V, and others it doesn't seem to know they exist (save for mass). I had a ship that worked fine with Engineer the first time I launched, but when I "reverted to the VAB", none of the new parts were adding to ∆V. Other times, it will detect the new liquid engines, but not the boosters. I just re-dl'd and re-installed, and that didn't help.

[Padishar]

Anyone else having issues with the new parts? Sometimes Engineer detects them and calculates ∆V, and others it doesn't seem to know they exist (save for mass). I had a ship that worked fine with Engineer the first time I launched, but when I "reverted to the VAB", none of the new parts were adding to ∆V. Other times, it will detect the new liquid engines, but not the boosters. I just re-dl'd and re-installed, and that didn't help.

Are you using the test version linked to from the first post? That should work much better with the new parts.

[Padishar]

5thHorseman said:

I can do all 3, in fact

[defunct site link removed by moderator]

Your craft file still says 0.23.0. Have you updated to 0.23.5? The current test version is compiled against the 0.23.5 code so using it with earlier versions may not work.

I can't load your craft at the moment (the load dialog says "Contains locked or invalid parts") but I think I understand why it doesn't work so I should be able to make a duplicate craft. Basically, the simulation code in KER simulates the normal staging process so it tends to get confused if you manually activate and deactivate engines during flight. Also, it looks like there is an issue with decouplers not being ignored when they aren't in the staging (as well as an issue if a decoupler is the root part and is fired in stage 0).

Edit: I can create a similar vessel but 0.23.5 doesn't let me remove the decoupler from the staging and the only way to make the craft file match yours is to have the decoupler in stage 0 with the engine and chute. This would then make sense as you shouldn't have any engine still connected but it doesn't explain why the decoupler isn't showing in your screenshot.

This is a nonsensical staging arrangement. If you reorganise the staging into 0 = chute, 1 = decoupler, 2 = engine it would make much more sense and should work correctly...

[monstah]

How many of you guy use the KER parts, and how many use ModuleManager to just add it to all command pods?

Personally, I do the second. Hell, I don't even install the parts so as not to use up space on my VAB. Maybe i'm minority, but I suppose the plugin doesn't really need parts, just the module?

But then I have to say I find the modelling on the Flight Engineer really cute. Could be re-used as a scientific experiment, maybe?

Edited April 6, 2014 by monstah
spelling

[hydropos]

Are you using the test version linked to from the first post? That should work much better with the new parts.

I'm not. I'll try that. Thanks!

[Padishar]

Well, in my "main" install I only run KER, KAC, DPAI, Editor Extensions and Toolbar so I usually use the circuit board type build and flight engineer on everything. I only have the MM config to add build and flight to all command pods and probe cores in my realism overhaul install (that needs module manager for lots of stuff anyway) though I haven't got around to updating it to 0.23.5 yet due to realism overhaul issues with updated mods. I still tend to stick a build and flight engineer board on everything out of habit. I just wish I could get into the same habit with solar panels/RTGs... Hmmm, perhaps a mod that gives advice about your design would be good. It could display a window listing things that you've forgotten when you go to launch (e.g. if you haven't got at least one RTG or deployed solar panel, or if your staging looks obviously messed up, launch clamps on wrong stage etc) and give you the choice of continuing or cancelling the launch...

In my various development and test installs, to speed up the edit/recompile/test cycle, I tend to only have the absolute minimum of mods I need to do what I need to. Testing KER with full realism overhaul is painful as it takes KSP about 8 minutes to start up on the machine I'm currently using...

[Superfluous J]

Your craft file still says 0.23.0. Have you updated to 0.23.5? The current test version is compiled against the 0.23.5 code so using it with earlier versions may not work.

I built the ship in 0.23.0 and then upgraded. I haven't touched the craft file since launching it.

Basically, the simulation code in KER simulates the normal staging process so it tends to get confused if you manually activate and deactivate engines during flight. Also, it looks like there is an issue with decouplers not being ignored when they aren't in the staging (as well as an issue if a decoupler is the root part and is fired in stage 0).

Aha! I have tweakableeverything installed. I must have disabled the decoupling of that, though I have no idea why I would have. Maybe by mistake?

I re-enabled it and moved it to a later stage and bam, I can now again see that I have plenty of dV to get home.

Thanks for the help! Sorry for the false bug report

Edited April 6, 2014 by 5thHorseman

[Oinker]

I don't even install the parts. Saves memory, space in VAB, and drag/weight/symmetry. I add build engineer to all modules and probes. I don't use flight engineer because MechJeb provides the d-v info in the unity smoke theme that I use everywhere. I wish KER used smoke as well.