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

[Mister Spock]

I think it is a level 3 tracking station issue. I figured it was user errror. LOL!

Ah, I'm sure you're right! I have only level 2 of the tracking station. Thanks.

[funk]

I've recognized some weird terminal velocity values with nuFAR. They're going up and down , although the craft is always climbing, and seem to be a bit low until 10km.

[curiousepic]

I'd love to have vessel rotation/period information in Flight Engineer, especially now that we have Persistent Rotation and Saturatable Reaction Wheels.

[Vorg]

I have asked this a number of times, but no one seems to know. Maybe it's info that could be added to Engineer. Awhile back, they put more data on landing struts that should be useable to figure out how much mass a given gear can handle on a given body.

[Jockel]

Hey i don't know if anyone posted this report earlier, but since 1.0 Rapiers and all Jet engines uses their fuel source equally of the whole craft even these things aren't attached with fuel lines and because of that KER doesnt give the right amount of DeltaV out. It "thinks" these fuel sources aren't consumable, but the Rapier and the other Jet engines can reach it.

I just want to help to notice the error

Thank you for listening

PS: If the error was reported before i apologize

[Red Iron Crown]

Hey i don't know if anyone posted this report earlier, but since 1.0 Rapiers and all Jet engines uses their fuel source equally of the whole craft even these things aren't attached with fuel lines and because of that KER doesnt give the right amount of DeltaV out. It "thinks" these fuel sources aren't consumable, but the Rapier and the other Jet engines can reach it.

I just want to help to notice the error

Thank you for listening

PS: If the error was reported before i apologize

That only applies to liquid fuel, oxidizer still needs fuel lines. IME it calculates it correctly, taking all liquid fuel available into account but only the oxidizer that is properly fed.

[Caelib]

Is there some differences with this mod in terms of when the "part" is required to be attached to a craft or not to get the in-flight menus? In my "normal" career save I don't use the part, but I get the menus ... but in my Hard career I only get them if I attach the part. Is this by design or am I missing something?

[undercoveryankee]

Is there some differences with this mod in terms of when the "part" is required to be attached to a craft or not to get the in-flight menus? In my "normal" career save I don't use the part, but I get the menus ... but in my Hard career I only get them if I attach the part. Is this by design or am I missing something?

From the OP:

Note that by default KER runs using a career unlock system. This means that when in career mode it will require either an Engineer skilled Kerbal, an Engineer Chip/ER7500 part placed on the vessel or a level 3 tracking station to work in flight. Unless one of these three conditions is present, the KER icon will be disabled and greyed out in flight. This mode is completely optional though, and by clicking on "Settings" on the Kerbal Engineer Redux window in the editor, you may change its mode from "Career" to "Partless".

[Thanny]

KER isn't handling the case of opposing and disabled engines in the same stage correctly.

Consider this example, which is a Mun lander attached head-first to a transport ship.

With both engines on, KER shows all information (total DV, maneuver burn time, etc.) as if the engines were pointing in the same direction. With the lander engine off, current DV and Isp display as 0. The total thrust is then reported correctly. Maneuver burn times are still displayed as if both engines were enabled and pointing in the same direction.

Here's the vessel extracted from a save, and the full save. The '1' action group toggles the lander engine.

Dragging the disabled engine to a separate stage seems to work around the problem entirely.

[amorymeltzer]

Any chance for the ability to resize the HUDs, or at least shorten the words and spaces between them and their values? The HUDs are simple gorgeous but with my small screen I can't help but overlap on something else. Thanks for all the hard work on this bad boy!

[dervd123]

is there a way to have a value for closest approach distance and time to closest approach? I can't seem to find them if there is

[Padishar]

KER isn't handling the case of opposing and disabled engines in the same stage correctly.

Consider this example, which is a Mun lander attached head-first to a transport ship.

With both engines on, KER shows all information (total DV, maneuver burn time, etc.) as if the engines were pointing in the same direction. With the lander engine off, current DV and Isp display as 0. The total thrust is then reported correctly. Maneuver burn times are still displayed as if both engines were enabled and pointing in the same direction.

Here's the vessel extracted from a save, and the full save. The '1' action group toggles the lander engine.

Dragging the disabled engine to a separate stage seems to work around the problem entirely.

I will have to have a look at your ship when I get some time to see the details of the behaviour but, basically, it works by first simulating the burning of all fuel reachable by the currently active engines (when in flight) and then by running the staging sequence as it is set up. There is an option in the settings to take the direction the engines are pointed in into account but if you have a stage that activates both the engines then it will probably get confused.

[BudgetHedgehog]

How have I never noticed this adorable little keyboard before?

(Answer: texture compression and also using it partless would probably be why..)

[Scuwr]

So I seem to have found some sort of bug. I've been using your mod for a long time, but this is the first time I've seen this, and I've isolated it to this mod since this is the only mod I have installed and the problem is not reproducible when the mod is removed.

When a ship is in flight, the game seems to freeze every second or so for a small fraction of a second, as if there is a brief CPU overload and the game is trying to catch up. The problem is exacerbated when in physics time warp, both when in the atmosphere and in space. At 4x speed, the game plays out at real time speeds due to the constant lag.

This problem is reproducible on my computer and happens shortly after the launch of any spacecraft and then persists once I return to the space center or enter the VAB. I even isolated this to a CPU issue by playing the game with minimum graphical load (1/8 texture resolution, 0x anti-aliasing, etc.). As you can see from my computer specs below, it should be more than capable of running the game at the lowest settings and has run previous game versions (pre-1.0) smoothly at max graphical settings.

Computer Specs:

Windows 7

AMD FX 8350 @ 4.2 GHz

16GB DDR3 1866Hz

GTX 770

Is there anything I'm forgetting to do in setting up your mod? Is there anything you need from me? I've searched online and only found a forum post from about a year ago with someone having the same problem on a mac. Again, your mod has worked flawlessly in the past and has just now begun to act up with the most recent update.

Lastly, thanks for pushing the update so quickly!

Just checking in to say it's still broken, but since no one else is complaining about it, it must be something I'm doing wrong. Does anyone have any advice on what may be going on? This has never happened before with KER, but now it makes the game so laggy that it's un-playable with KER enabled. Once I've launched and recovered a vessel, every aspect of the game from the little kerbals running around in the VAB to clicking on parts, to rotating my camera cause lag issues.

[frencrs]

**Solved with clean install of KER**

Is anyone else seeing this in their log files occasionally?

Happens in the editor, the warnings are being throw once every few milliseconds i.e. [22:42:59.716], [22:42:59.725], [22:42:59.732], [22:42:59.741] so once it starts happening by the time I notice the log file can get up to like 800k lines.

[LOG 22:42:59.716] KerbalEngineer -> Object reference not set to an instance of an object
[LOG 22:42:59.716] KerbalEngineer ->   at KerbalEngineer.Extensions.PartExtensions.GetModuleMultiModeEngine (.Part part) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
  at KerbalEngineer.Extensions.PartExtensions.GetProtoModuleEngine (.Part part) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
  at KerbalEngineer.Editor.BuildOverlayPartInfo.SetEngineInfo () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
  at KerbalEngineer.Editor.BuildOverlayPartInfo.Update () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

I haven't figured out what is causing it specifically yet, I'll post if I can replicate it repeatedly.

Edited May 19, 2015 by frencrs

[ce4aser]

TWR is bugged, TWR = 1.29 , and start rocket engine low, not fly.

[frencrs]

TWR is bugged, TWR = 1.29 , and start rocket engine low, not fly.

TWR try not log, engine start power turned?

[Shpiler]

[bUG]

i don't know if it was sad before, but.. KER works completely wrong with R.A.P.I.E.R. engine. When i switch it's mode to closed-cycle, the delta-V display shows.. whatever, but not the truth. In space it shows actualy zero, think, due to the lack of intake air. Also, confirm incorrect behavior with different types of engines on the same stage.

Please, deal with it! My SSTOs are crying for help!

[amorymeltzer]

Don't know if this is possible, but could the air intake options (usage, etc.) only show up if there's something that can intake air on the ship? I like having some of 'em up for planes and the like, but it's a waste of space for a straight-up rocket.

[Red Iron Crown]

TWR is bugged, TWR = 1.29 , and start rocket engine low, not fly.

Are you perhaps reading the vacuum TWR and starting the rocket in atmosphere? Rocket engines will produce less thrust in atmosphere, sometimes significantly so.

[bUG]

i don't know if it was sad before, but.. KER works completely wrong with R.A.P.I.E.R. engine. When i switch it's mode to closed-cycle, the delta-V display shows.. whatever, but not the truth. In space it shows actualy zero, think, due to the lack of intake air. Also, confirm incorrect behavior with different types of engines on the same stage.

IME it reads RAPIERs in closed cycle mode correctly. What do you mean by "confirm incorrect behavior with different types of engines on the same stage"? I have gotten correct readings from combining multiple engine types.

[Shpiler]

IME it reads RAPIERs in closed cycle mode correctly. What do you mean by "confirm incorrect behavior with different types of engines on the same stage"? I have gotten correct readings from combining multiple engine types.

i mean that if i have disabled jet engines on the same stage with enabled rocket engines - it shows dV for jets

And for rapiers:

[cybersol]

And for rapiers:

http://storage1.static.itmages.com/i/15/0515/s_1431676915_7341814_6ce3658d87.png

I've also had KER say 0 dV remaining for rapiers in closed-cycle many times when I still have 500-1000 dV left. I think it has to do with starting your tanks with uneven amounts of LFO. I'm guess the code to account for the air-breathing engines drawing from all tanks, while the rockets drawing using the old fuel flow scheme is not fully worked out for rapiers in closed cycle when combined with uneven starting LFO percentages.

[Padishar]

i mean that if i have disabled jet engines on the same stage with enabled rocket engines - it shows dV for jets

And for rapiers:

http://storage1.static.itmages.com/i/15/0515/s_1431676915_7341814_6ce3658d87.png

Does that shuttle only have rapiers? Do you have a quicksave in that situation that you can upload somewhere? Any time you see odd deltaV calculations during flight then take a quicksave and check that it still goes wrong after loading the save and, if it does, then upload it here and I'll try to take a look.

Cybersol, it is quite possible that there is something wrong in the rapier handling. There were considerable changes in KSP 1.0 that required changes to how the simulation sets up the engines and it may not be doing everything quite right.

[Shpiler]

I'm not sure if you can just load my quicksave 'cause I'm using b9 procedural wings

[Red Iron Crown]

i mean that if i have disabled jet engines on the same stage with enabled rocket engines - it shows dV for jets

And for rapiers:

http://storage1.static.itmages.com/i/15/0515/s_1431676915_7341814_6ce3658d87.png

I've also had KER say 0 dV remaining for rapiers in closed-cycle many times when I still have 500-1000 dV left. I think it has to do with starting your tanks with uneven amounts of LFO. I'm guess the code to account for the air-breathing engines drawing from all tanks, while the rockets drawing using the old fuel flow scheme is not fully worked out for rapiers in closed cycle when combined with uneven starting LFO percentages.

If I'm not mistaken (and I might be as it's hard to tell from the pic), there's oxidizer stranded in the fuselage. RAPIERs will draw liquid fuel according to the same rules as monoprop, drawing from all tanks in a stage equally with no fuel lines necessary. Oxidizer, however, follows the traditional rocket fuel flow rules, draining tanks sequentially with fuel lines required. I suspect if fuel lines were added from the fuselage to the engine nacelles the counter would show the dV (or if the oxidizer was transferred to the nacelles manually).

As for disabled jets having their Isp used, I haven't tested for that, I'll give it a try later and report back.