EstebanLB Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Just now, dtoxic said: hmmm, ok just so we are on the same page, the setting you are referring is "Build Engineer Overlay" there are 3 settings "Visible" this toggles the overlay on the mouse and the bottom panel, then there is "Names Only" and "Click to open" none of these settings can remove just the Overlay when you hover with mouse over a part but leave the bottom panel Not that one, that just turns everything off. Gimme a second I'll show you wich one is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtoxic Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 1 minute ago, EstebanLB said: Not that one, that just turns everything off. Gimme a second I'll show you wich one is cool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EstebanLB Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 14 minutes ago, dtoxic said: cool Sorry, my bad. I thought we had that option. Right now we can only hide the additional info, the name of the part will still show on mouseover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtoxic Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 1 minute ago, EstebanLB said: Sorry, my bad. I thought we had that option. Right now we can only hide the additional info, the name of the part will still show on mouseover yeap, that's what i was thinking, anyway thx for checking! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Iron Crown Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 On 3/2/2017 at 5:16 PM, Drew Kerman said: So it doesn't work with fancy setups like asparagus staging or if you plan to pump liquid fuel around, but for a rocket with several discrete stages it works great and also leaves you with modular pieces you can assemble into various configurations through the use of sub-assemblies. KER does just fine with asparagus, in my experience. Pumping fuel around or running docking cycles will throw it for a loop though. Basically if you can run the ship through its staging with the spacebar only it will very likely give accurate results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsparkyc Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 (edited) On 3/30/2017 at 2:57 PM, Drew Kerman said: heads up, incoming bug report! It appears that the kerbalCrewMass setting in the physics globals file is also being applied to landing gear, of all things @PHYSICSGLOBALS { // http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/15451-the-mass-of-a-kerbal/ @kerbalCrewMass = 0.03125 } The mass of the gear changes according to the number of kerbals you have in a pod, if the gear is attached to a pod. Tested this under v1.2.2 with just Squad, MM, Kerbal Engineer and Loading Screen Manager installed. Was not a fun issue to track down, lol Edit: ok, actually now that I know what to look for it seems the extra kerbal mass is being applied to everything - it's just the landing gear was the most obvious descrepancy to me since they don't carry any fuel or modules that would affect their weight when I was looking into why my aircraft suddenly weighed so much But hey, thanks a bunch for accounting for kerbal mass properly in pods! Annoying the game itself does not do so in the editor. Just noticed this bug too (in the RealismOverhaul setup). I'm gunna open a squad bug. EDIT: http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/14679 Edited April 3, 2017 by rsparkyc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Kerman Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 (edited) 14 hours ago, rsparkyc said: I'm gunna open a squad bug. This isn't a Squad bug. The stock Engineer Report always shows the correct mass. If you remove all the kerbals from the ship you'll see KER matches the mass of the Engineer Report. The only bug on the Squad side is not showing the increased capsule mass when you add/remove kerbals while building in the editor, and I'm not 100% sure whether that's an oversight or a design decision Edited April 3, 2017 by Drew Kerman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsparkyc Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 2 hours ago, Drew Kerman said: This isn't a Squad bug. The stock Engineer Report always shows the correct mass. If you remove all the kerbals from the ship you'll see KER matches the mass of the Engineer Report. The only bug on the Squad side is not showing the increased capsule mass when you add/remove kerbals while building in the editor, and I'm not 100% sure whether that's an oversight or a design decision Ahh, you are right. It appears that mechjeb is plagued by the same bug then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDplay Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 YES! Finally found it. Good mod, just everything I need! I thank you for making this and I thank Matt Lowne (youtuber) for telling me about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jd284 Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 I finally tracked down a long-standing issue with KerbalEngineer locking up the game when a ground base is targeted with the rendezvous window open. Posted issue #126 about it. Somehow the intercept angle becomes infinity and this causes an infinite loop when trying to clamp it. I can offer to make a PR to fix it, but I'm not really sure which of the possible fixes would be best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Aziz Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 Kinda suggestion, because I couldn't find it, or I'm just blind - it could show closest current distance to target. In meters, of course. Default text in map mode isn't accurate enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maja Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, The Aziz said: Kinda suggestion, because I couldn't find it, or I'm just blind - it could show closest current distance to target. In meters, of course. Default text in map mode isn't accurate enough. It's one of readouts in the Rendezvous section. Edited April 16, 2017 by maja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Aziz Posted April 16, 2017 Share Posted April 16, 2017 32 minutes ago, maja said: It's one of readouts in the Rendevous section. Lol I'm blind, it's there. Nevermind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padishar Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 For anyone wishing to use KER with the KSP 1.2.9 pre-release, I have put together a build that seems to function reasonably well. This is built from the test129 branch on my GitHub. The only changes, so far, from 1.1.2.8 are to add the version suffixes. Download KER 1.1.3.0p from my DropBox (only for KSP 1.2.9 pre-release). I'll try to find a bit of time to catch up with what's been happening for the last couple of months and also try to contact @cybutek to find out if he is still going to be active. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenryRar Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 Have strange problem with RSS+RO and KER KER shows wrong mass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padishar Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 2 hours ago, GenryRar said: Have strange problem with RSS+RO and KER KER shows wrong mass Can you find the cfg file for that part and have a look at what it says the mass is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Aziz Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 On 16.04.2017 at 4:48 PM, The Aziz said: Lol I'm blind, it's there. Nevermind. On 16.04.2017 at 4:15 PM, maja said: It's one of readouts in the Rendezvous section. Nononono that's not what I meant (I'm fast). Now I found proper words, yay me. I wanted to know the closest approach. Like that one we see in map mode but in meters. ..Not to mention that map view is inconsistent. We see orbital distances in meters, but rendezvous data in kilometers. Pfeh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maja Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 54 minutes ago, The Aziz said: Nononono that's not what I meant (I'm fast). Now I found proper words, yay me. I wanted to know the closest approach. Like that one we see in map mode but in meters. ..Not to mention that map view is inconsistent. We see orbital distances in meters, but rendezvous data in kilometers. Pfeh. Yeah. Closest approach to target isn't there. If you mean distance to a target, that changes units when you are close enough, if I'm not mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenryRar Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 10 hours ago, Padishar said: Can you find the cfg file for that part and have a look at what it says the mass is? Spoiler +PART[liquidEngine2]:FIRST { @name = LR87LH2Vac } @PART[LR87LH2Vac]:FOR[RealismOverhaul] { !mesh = DEL MODEL { model = RealismOverhaul/Models/LR-91eng //rotation = 0 , 180 , 0 scale = 1.4, 1.4, 1.4 } %RSSROConfig = True %rescaleFactor = 1.0 %scale = 1.0 @node_stack_top = 0.0, 1.0101, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1 @node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -1.629, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1 %node_attach = 0.0, 1.0101, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1 @attachRules = 1,1,1,0,0 @mass = 0.74 %maxTemp = 500 %skinMaxTemp = 900 %stageOffset = 1 %childStageOffset = 1 %stagingIcon = LIQUID_ENGINE @title = LR87-LH2 Vacuum @manufacturer = Aerojet @description = Aerojet developed the LR87 engine (used for the Titan series) into a liquid hydrogen/oxygen engine for prospective USAF contracts in the 1958-1960 period, at the same time Aerojet was converting the LR87 to burn Aerozine and NTO. NASA selected the J-2 over the LR87-LH2, however, and it was canceled in 1961. This version represents a version of the engine with a larger nozzle optimized for vacuum use. @MODULE[ModuleEngines*] { @name = ModuleEnginesFX @maxThrust = 667 @minThrust = 667 @heatProduction = 175 %EngineType = LiquidFuel %ullage = True %pressureFed = False %ignitions = 1 IGNITOR_RESOURCE { name = ElectricCharge amount = 0.500 } IGNITOR_RESOURCE { name = LqdHydrogen amount = 0.7454 } IGNITOR_RESOURCE { name = LqdOxygen amount = 0.2545 } @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel] { @name = LqdHydrogen @ratio = 0.745 } @PROPELLANT[Oxidizer] { @name = LqdOxygen @ratio = 0.255 } @atmosphereCurve { @key,0 = 0 403 @key,1 = 1 350 } } @MODULE[ModuleGimbal] { @gimbalRange = 7.5 %useGimbalResponseSpeed = true // = 7.5 %gimbalResponseSpeed = 16 // = 100 } MODULE { name = ModuleEngineConfigs configuration = LR87-LH2-TitanC origMass = 0.74 modded = false // Note: TitanC config is as of published numbers on engine performance // for the Titan C application (simmed at 780psi, 12Ae/At). Speculative // alternates and upgrades simmed by doubling area ratio and (for the upgrades) // increasing efficiency and chamber pressure to later LR87 levels (5.7MPa). // Large increase in weight is from reignition equipment. CONFIG { name = LR87-LH2-TitanC minThrust = 667.0 maxThrust = 667.0 heatProduction = 175 PROPELLANT { name = LqdHydrogen ratio = 0.745 DrawGauge = True } PROPELLANT { name = LqdOxygen ratio = 0.255 } atmosphereCurve { key = 0 403 key = 1 350 } } CONFIG { name = LR87-LH2-Vacuum minThrust = 694.0 maxThrust = 694.0 heatProduction = 175 ignitions = 2 massMult = 1.14865 cost = 500 entryCost = 10000 // not paying the HL penalty techRequired = hydroloxTL3 PROPELLANT { name = LqdHydrogen ratio = 0.745 DrawGauge = True } PROPELLANT { name = LqdOxygen ratio = 0.255 } atmosphereCurve { key = 0 419 key = 1 312 } } CONFIG { name = LR87-LH2-SustainerUpgrade minThrust = 801 // 180 klbf maxThrust = 801 heatProduction = 175 massMult = 1.08109 ignitions = 2 cost = 1200 techRequired = hydroloxTL4 entryCost = 36000 entryCostSubtractors { LR87-LH2-VacuumUpgrade = 30000 } PROPELLANT { name = LqdHydrogen ratio = 0.745 DrawGauge = True } PROPELLANT { name = LqdOxygen ratio = 0.255 } atmosphereCurve { key = 0 409 key = 1 358 } } CONFIG { name = LR87-LH2-VacuumUpgrade minThrust = 832.0 maxThrust = 832.0 heatProduction = 175 massMult = 1.12163 ignitions = 3 PROPELLANT { name = LqdHydrogen ratio = 0.745 DrawGauge = True } PROPELLANT { name = LqdOxygen ratio = 0.255 } atmosphereCurve { key = 0 425 key = 1 323 } cost = 1200 techRequired = hydroloxTL4 entryCost = 36000 entryCostSubtractors { LR87-LH2-SustainerUpgrade = 30000 } } } !MODULE[ModuleAlternator]{} !RESOURCE[ElectricCharge]{} clusterMultiplier = 1 } @PART[LR87LH2Vac]:BEFORE[zTestFlight] { TESTFLIGHT { name = LR87-LH2-Vacuum ratedBurnTime = 360 ignitionReliabilityStart = 0.92 ignitionReliabilityEnd = 0.975 cycleReliabilityStart = 0.93 cycleReliabilityEnd = 0.98 ignitionDynPresFailMultiplier = 0.1 techTransfer = LR87-LH2-TitanC:50 clusterMultiplier = #$../clusterMultiplier$ } TESTFLIGHT { name = LR87-LH2-SustainerUpgrade ratedBurnTime = 480 ignitionReliabilityStart = 0.95 ignitionReliabilityEnd = 0.99 cycleReliabilityStart = 0.95 cycleReliabilityEnd = 0.995 techTransfer = LR87-LH2-TitanC:50 clusterMultiplier = #$../clusterMultiplier$ } TESTFLIGHT { name = LR87-LH2-VacuumUpgrade ratedBurnTime = 480 ignitionReliabilityStart = 0.95 ignitionReliabilityEnd = 0.99 cycleReliabilityStart = 0.96 cycleReliabilityEnd = 0.998 ignitionDynPresFailMultiplier = 0.1 techTransfer = LR87-LH2-Vacuum:50 clusterMultiplier = #$../clusterMultiplier$ } } As i understand, mass setted correctly (mass = 0.74) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maculator Posted April 21, 2017 Share Posted April 21, 2017 (edited) So I tried to apply the engineer to stock antennas to encourage me to use them more, but it didn't workout can anyone help? @PART[SurfAntenna,longAntenna,mediumDishAntenna,commDish,HighGainAntenna] { MODULE[FlightEngineerModule]{} } I tried it forth and back but I can't spot my mistake :S edit (fixed): @PART[SurfAntenna,longAntenna,mediumDishAntenna,commDish,HighGainAntenna] { MODULE { name = FlightEngineerModule } } Edited April 21, 2017 by maculator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenryRar Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 can someone explain - KER not compatible with RSS+RO? I have incorrect values of TWR and dV in flight. It looks like it calc values for NEXT stage, not current... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyKaptn Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 (edited) On 19.12.2016 at 1:19 PM, Padishar said: [WRN 21:23:56.204] KK: StaticDatabase.updateCache(): vPlayerPos is still v3.zero @Padishar Did you pinpoint the source of this issue? Tried to google this and all that came up was this old post. Getting spammed by this lately (scene change does help) Edited April 30, 2017 by SkyKaptn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anth Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 @Padishar 1.1.3.0 for 1.2.9.... OMG thank you!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padishar Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 On 30/04/2017 at 4:55 PM, SkyKaptn said: @Padishar Did you pinpoint the source of this issue? Tried to google this and all that came up was this old post. Getting spammed by this lately (scene change does help) I believe that's an error from Kerbal Konstructs (?) when KSP has got into some dodgy state in some way. I've not looked into it in any detail though as I don't have any reason to believe the problem is caused by KER, sorry... 22 hours ago, Anth12 said: @Padishar 1.1.3.0 for 1.2.9.... OMG thank you!! You're welcome... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anth Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 ok....maybe a bit of an overkill on the thank you...but, I cant play KSP without KER, no deltav readings makes me feel blind, thank you for continuing to support KER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.