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

[steveroof]

This is the only mod I use - thanks so much for working on it. I don't know how I would play without it.

[Joa7000]

So, any idea how to fix the SRB delta-v bug?

Any word on fixing the issue with SRBs not being calculated?

There seems only to be a problem with SRB's that are attached directly to decouplers (both radial and stack) without having any 'other' fuel in that child-assembly.

Placing fuel in the same stage as the SRB will calculate them into the TWR. It can even be done by placing a Oscar-B fuel-tank on top of the booster, as long as the child-assembly of the decoupler containing the SRB has some fuel. The boosters also get calculated when placed directly onto the root-part.

Hope this helps until the code gets fixed.

[Borklund]

Is this true for 1.0 as well as 0.6?

Avid user of Kerbal Engineer, hope the SRB issue gets sorted soon.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Borklund

[Climberfx]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that your plugin is affected by this notice: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/29552-Linux-Case-Senstive-Reminder

The plugin archive provides two directories: Parts/EngineerChip/Textures/ and Parts/EngineerChipFlight/Textures/ (in StudlyCaps) which are internally referred to as textures/ (lowercase). This causes problems for Linux and some OSX users (with case sensitivity enabled in HSF+) and the textures are never loaded.

As a temporary fix these users can create symlinks in the Part directories:

within both Parts/EngineerChip/ Parts/EngineerChipFlight/ do $ ln -s Textures textures

I use Mac here, and don't have a problem at all!

[Zhuikin]

Mechjeb had trouble with the delta-v calculations as well, and they got it fixed. I don't really know enough about the inner workings to fully understand the problem and solution, but it appears to be connected to the fuel cross-feed ability (or inability) of some parts. Apparently the way how it is handled has changed in 0.20, causing the issue. With the remark above by Joa7000 it seems, that the engineer might have the same problem (decouplers are not cross-feed capable me thinks).

Edited June 7, 2013 by Zhuikin

[Paul Kingtiger]

Yeah I can confirm the SRB issue. SRB's radially attached don't update DeltaV calculations.

[R3ality]

Hi!

I'd like to suggest making the chip-looking parts smaller to allow them to fit better on some of the components in the "Pods" category. Personally I really like putting it between the pod and the parachute (and yes you can do that)

This seems to be easily achievable by editing the following two files:

.\Cybutek\Engineer\Parts\EngineerChip\part.cfg

.\Cybutek\Engineer\Parts\EngineerChipFlight\part.cfg

Firstly reduce the scale of the model:

Add the following into the "// --- asset parameters ---" category. For example below the "alphaCutoff = 0" value like so:

// --- asset parameters ---

mesh = EngineerChip.DAE

scale = 1.0

texture = EngineerChipHighRes.png

specPower = 0.5

rimFalloff = 3

alphaCutoff = 0

rescaleFactor = 0.8

Then change the positioning to remove the gap between the chip and the component you are placing it on:

Modify the "node_attach" value in the "// --- node definitions ---" category like so:

// --- node definitions ---

// definition format is Position X, Position Y, Position Z, Up X, Up Y, Up Z

node_attach = 0.0, -0.04, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0

I made a small before/after preview available here:

EDIT: Also, looking around in the config files it appears that for the "Kerbal Engineering System & Flight Engineer" part the manufacturer is not defined

Edited June 9, 2013 by R3ality

[whatisthisidonteven]

Yeah it'd be really nice if an updated version could come out, I build most of my rockets using KW Rocketry so SRBs are a big part of it so it's annoying when their dV/TWR doesn't get calculated

[Actzoltan]

[bug] Too many docking ports cause lockup and crash when using engineer.

My craft is stock and designed to travel and land on different planets then return to kerbal doing so by using modular fuel tanks and landers to make an appropriate lander in orbit.

when i attach the standard engineer redux onto my orange tank to find out my deltav the client freezes and i am forced to restart KSP.

I tried removing all engines but 1 still the same thing happened.

[table=width: 700, class: outer_border, align: center]

[tr]

[td][/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

Here is the craft file

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-_wvk1PMfr9T0t1ajhaZ3RmLW8/edit?usp=sharing

[gerryrbd]

[bug] Too many docking ports cause lockup and crash when using engineer.

My craft is stock and designed to travel and land on different planets then return to kerbal doing so by using modular fuel tanks and landers to make an appropriate lander in orbit.

when i attach the standard engineer redux onto my orange tank to find out my deltav the client freezes and i am forced to restart KSP.

I tried removing all engines but 1 still the same thing happened.

Well considering the complexity of that ship its not strange that KERedux would freak out. In situations like these I build the payload first and check its weight, and then build the launcher separately with a comparable-weight part (mostly big tanks) in place of the more complex payload to check delta-v. Finally i join both payload and launcher using subassembly loader. For flight I have a couple flight-engineer-only probe cores to use in those situations. Hope this helps!

[nobody44]

Hello,

I use Flight Engineer everywhere I can, but the plugin has one weird bug:

Once I get into an escape trajectory, the Engineer plugin calculates a *LOT* of stuff and blocks the entire game. If I disable the vessel window inside the plugin, it works fine. I looked into the source code and I think I figured it out:

double s = seconds;
            int m = 0;
            int h = 0;
            int d = 0;
            int y = 0;

            while (s >= 60)
            {
                m++;
                s -= 60;
            }

            while (m >= 60)
            {
                h++;
                m -= 60;
            }

            while (h >= 24)
            {
                d++;
                h -= 24;
            }

            while (d >= 365)
            {
                y++;
                d -= 365;
            }

Those loops are really expensive. Use this:

int y = (int)(seconds / (24.0 * 60.0 * 60.0 * 365.0));
seconds = seconds % (24.0 * 60.0 * 60.0 * 365.0);
int d = (int)(seconds / (24.0 * 60.0 * 60.0));
seconds = seconds % (24.0 * 60.0 * 60.0);
int h = (int)(seconds / (60.0 * 60.0));
seconds = seconds % (60.0 * 60.0);
int m = (int)(seconds / (60.0));
seconds = seconds % (60.0);

And then the variables y, d, h, m and seconds as before. I didn't try to use it in your plugin, but it works fine in my plugin.

[ArthropodOfDoom]

Just a thought, but could you add a display line/column in both the build and flight engineers for maximum possible acceleration? The TWR ratio is handy for figuring some things out, but I would enjoy the option to see my maximum possible acceleration for optimum landing throttling. It would also be nice if you could put in current throttle acceleration in the flight engineer for the same reason.

[WhatsThisButtonDo]

Question: what is the difference in the regular chip and the flight version? If this is explained somewhere and I missed it please point me in the right direction.

R3ality thank you for the rescale information, there have been times when I wished the chip was smaller.

[cxg2827]

Question: what is the difference in the regular chip and the flight version? If this is explained somewhere and I missed it please point me in the right direction.

R3ality thank you for the rescale information, there have been times when I wished the chip was smaller.

regular chip just gives the data in the VAB/SPH. No display shown when in flight.

flight chip gives you the flight data when you launch

[WhatsThisButtonDo]

regular chip just gives the data in the VAB/SPH. No display shown when in flight.

flight chip gives you the flight data when you launch

Oh. Now it seems pretty obvious, the "Flight" in "EngineerChipFlight" is a big clue isn't it.

Edited June 15, 2013 by WhatsThisButtonDo

[whatisthisidonteven]

Just a thought, but could you add a display line/column in both the build and flight engineers for maximum possible acceleration? The TWR ratio is handy for figuring some things out, but I would enjoy the option to see my maximum possible acceleration for optimum landing throttling. It would also be nice if you could put in current throttle acceleration in the flight engineer for the same reason.

This would be really nice for when I want to do a super fuel efficient landing

[Syhrus]

Does anyone else get a crash when docking two large ships together while using a flight computer? It's only happening on my really big ships/stations, so it's not a huge issue for me yet.. annoying though, because I have to relaunch the offending ships...

EDIT: Fixed the problem by reinstalling the mod.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Syhrus
Fixed the issue

[John Nowak]

Does anyone else get a crash when docking two large ships together while using a flight computer?

I saw this happen once, but I was not able to reproduce it, so I'm not convinced Engineer was the problem. Might have been, though.

[gerryrbd]

Something that would be really awesome to have in the build-part of KER (and i think wouldnt be too difficult to implement) is assigning different stages a function - for example stage 1 to 3 get to LKO; stage 4 transfer to Mun; stage 5 get into stable orbit around the Mun - and that it compares the amount of Delta-V of those stages with the minimum required to perform those actions. That would make it invaluable by eliminating all that trial and error and guessing when building complex ships.

As a reference, I have calculated some "minimums" which i keep in notes - more or less:

>TO LKO

4800 M/S:

- 3400 LAUNCH UP

- 1400 CIRCULARIZE

80 KM to 120km circular orbit very little difference in d-v.

> then TO MUN:

eject 850 m/s

brake ~300m/s

correct? <100m/s

--- surface:

deorbit 200m/s

land >550m/s

Obviously people can do it more efficiently than i do! Thats generally a lot of work to calculate for each body, it would be nice to have it automated and ready in the VAB

[eoosting]

Can anyone tell me why my SRBs aren't showing up as adding to my deltav? The thrust and time seem to register correctly in the stage, but it shows only ----- for the deltav.

[Sir Nahme]

it hates you...

nah it does it for all of us right now I believe

[Snillum101]

Can anyone tell me why my SRBs aren't showing up as adding to my deltav? The thrust and time seem to register correctly in the stage, but it shows only ----- for the deltav.

I'm also having this problem. It seems to happen when I attach SRBs to decouplers. If I attach the SRB to the rocket directly the deltaV is added correctly.

[arq]

I love this mod and use it more than any other. A few features I'd be interested to see:

- Correct isp/thrust based on engine on/off state (turning an engine off does not register properly in Engineer). Also, jets do not report the correct thrust values (they vary by spin-up/down time and altitude). Is it possible to read these directly from the parts?

- Thrust/mass ratios for estimating burntimes or landing in vacuums (often much more useful than TWR). It sounds like it might be very difficult, but if you could implement a 'Custom Equation' field, where you could implement an expression in terms of other variables, that would be awesome (ie for calculating how much vertical distance it will take to arrest a fall) and could fix this too.

- Acceleration values to supplement velocity values (again useful for spaceplanes - could help for maintaining altitude, since you usually want to cruise at your max altitude to build up speed before going orbital). This might require taking a difference (maybe with some smoothing) over the velocity values, if it can't be computed directly.

Those were the big ones that came to mind - thanks for all your great work!

[salamanderrake]

Cant seem to get this to work on gentoo linux amd64, where is the correct installation location just in case that is whats wrong?

Yah it was installed wrong, the instructions and zip file folder structure is kinda confusing.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Aphox
Merged to remove double post

[John Nowak]

Another vote for thrust / mass ratio.

If that's too hard to work out, how about last acceleration under thrust?