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

[dracojames]

Great stuff, working with HotRockets installed now. Keep up the fantastic work.

[cybutek]

I have a problem with 1.0.8. In Rendezvous mode, regardless of the body selected as target almost everything displays as zero.

http://i.imgur.com/39fw5Qm.jpg

A quick switch back to 1.0.7, exactly same configuration, and everything works:

http://i.imgur.com/NGbqajt.jpg

I'm looking into this issue now and should have it sorted shortly.

[cybutek]

Version 1.0.8.1 is now available!

http://kerbal.curseforge.com/ksp-mods/222685-kerbal-engineer-redux

Fixed: Bug which caused rendezvous readouts to freeze the game or show all zeros.

[Yaar Podshipnik]

That was fast! Thanks cybutek!

[cybutek]

That was fast! Thanks cybutek!

Yup

Well, KER 1.0 is a public test release. So quick and constant updates should be expected as new features are implemented, with bits breaking and then getting fixed. I really should keep stressing the point that anyone using 1.0 should view themselves as an alpha tester on the project

I should mention that if you don't want to be at the cutting edge, there's always KER 0.6. Which is still the primary stable release... But if you can put up with updating (KSP-AVC and the integrated MiniAVC makes it really easy to know when there is one available) fairly often, 1.0 is well worth it.

Also keep the suggestions for features and changes coming in. If it's something you want and it's not already in, it's probably because it never crossed my mind.

[Red Iron Crown]

Also keep the suggestions for features and changes coming in. If it's something you want and it's not already in, it's probably because it never crossed my mind.

Thanks for this, I'm always a little hesitant to make suggestions for fear of sounding demanding or entitled.

Suggestion: Add total vessel cost to the VAB/SPH overlay in the bottom left corner.

[Zach9236]

I've just noticed a bug in the cost calculation for 1.0.8.1. Take a single part: a resource tank. Use tweakscale to increase the size, and reduce the resource in the tank. Then compare the price given by Kerbal Engineer and the price given by the game.

[dracojames]

Quick question/request: The TWR KER shows now is at your given altitude, correct? Would it be possible to get a surface TWR display as well?

Regardless of your answer, amazing mod. The vanilla game feels naked without it now that I use it.

[frencrs]

Already in 1.0 apart from the "smoke" style UI because that's Unity default and isn't stock. It actually requires more effort to make it look stock. That "smoke" style is in fact the lack of any styling at all.

So how do we take away the stock styling to get the Unity default?

[cybutek]

So how do we take away the stock styling to get the Unity default?

KER 1.0 is completely different to what it was back in December 2013. It was a skeleton and only had a few simple proof of concept features... Maybe 5% of the functionality and polish which is in 1.0.8.1. It did not have any stylistic features at all, so I'm going to reply with a more up to date message. It may become a little bit of a rant, sorry in advance.

The answer to your question would now be, "With a lot of code duplication and time that could be better spent on more important things." The main premise for not having the Unity default style has always been about looking stock, and integrating with the KSP theme. So it uses a style that although is more complex, also more suits the aesthetics of the game. This is not going to change, but I will add to the why there is currently no optional selection for the styles. It is because KER builds around that style, with sizing and positioning. Not having to design for two separate styles with two separate sizes and positions for everything makes it easier and quicker to develop design integrated and stylising features. It is not as simple as just selecting another style in the code. Or more to the point, it definitely isn't that simple anymore.

So far the only reason people have asked for the Unity default style is because of sizing. That is now solved considering you can adjust the size of everything, can edit and create your own displays, compact mode, whether to show the control bar on the Flight Engineer, as well as lot of other features. You can get a very tidy and sleek looking Engineer experience with just a few personal tweaks. Having to design just for one specific style gives greater flexibility and many more design oriented features; like some of the ones I just mentioned. Which many would never have been implemented if I had to work around the constraints of developing for two styles. When functionality is tightly coupled to the design, especially when development time is finite, the question to ask yourself is, "Do I want two designs, half the functionality. Or full functionality but only one design?"

A very simple answer in my opinion, as there is but one style that matches the KSP theme and the KER design philosophy. I'll also never sacrifice functionality for the many on a style for the few.

Just stressing why an option hasn't been implemented, and will not be for at least the short term future of KER... Oh and don't take my little rant personally. Everyone who managed to read through gets an internet cookie and a hug

Suggestion: Add total vessel cost to the VAB/SPH overlay in the bottom left corner.

Is there not a stock total vessel cost counter in the bottom left corner already? Or am I missing something?

Quick question/request: The TWR KER shows now is at your given altitude, correct? Would it be possible to get a surface TWR display as well?

The readout for TWR is at your given altitude, yes. But I totally forgot about implementing the TWR (Surface) readout... Expect it in the next release.

[Red Iron Crown]

Is there not a stock total vessel cost counter in the bottom left corner already? Or am I missing something?

Well now, that's embarrassing. Please disregard my redundant suggestion.

[cybutek]

Well now, that's embarrassing. Please disregard my redundant suggestion.

One of those moments, huh... We've all been there

[frencrs]

So far the only reason people have asked for the Unity default style is because of sizing.

Honestly I just like white text on black over yellow text on purple.

Maybe I'll try to hack the default colors of HighLogic for the entire game.

[cybutek]

Honestly I just like white text on black over yellow text on purple.

Maybe I'll try to hack the default colors of HighLogic for the entire game.

KER 1.x doesn't include any text style as of 1.0.8.1 that is yellow. Only white and green.

Although a big improvement to the build overlay is on its way which does include some yellow text

[Fenris]

Sorry if this question has been asked before (I admit ... I didn't read 137 pages to check), but is it possible to split the toolbar up into parts I can place where I want them instead of one long toolbar I have to scroll through?

Thanks,

[Red Iron Crown]

Sorry if this question has been asked before (I admit ... I didn't read 137 pages to check), but is it possible to split the toolbar up into parts I can place where I want them instead of one long toolbar I have to scroll through?

Thanks,

If you are using 1.0.x, press the "Float" button to separate a particular window from the main display, then you can reposition it to your liking. One of my favorite new features in 1.0.x.

[Fenris]

If you are using 1.0.x, press the "Float" button to separate a particular window from the main display, then you can reposition it to your liking. One of my favorite new features in 1.0.x.

I hadn't even seen that version I just downloaded the first one in the op (0.6.2.10).

Thank you!

[Boomerang]

So I tried out the v1 build on a save that I keep separate for testing new mods and I was really taken with how much nicer the interface is. And I see that the two old parts have been kept I assume to help with compatibility. So what persistence edits would be needed to adapt a save with v0.6 Engineer parts to work with v1?

[micha]

G'day,

First of all - great mod. It's been a must-have mod almost since my first day.

Secondly, I just tried out the v1 branch and have a couple of suggestions:

1) Allow the tool-tips to be turned off in the VAB. Perhaps by setting timeout to 0 so no need for a new UI widget.

2) Using the stock toolbar button hovers a settings screen, with which the main KER window can be toggled, as well as some other options set. The v0.6 branch used this button (or perhaps it was using Blizzy's toolbar?) to directly toggle the main KER window. I preferred the v0.6 behaviour (less clicking).

Apart from that it's looking great. I especially like the fact that the individual windows can be either docked or floating. All the screenshots I saw of v1 showed them floating, which is why I had not tried it earlier (I prefer docked).

[BudgetHedgehog]

Also, for 1.X, can we make the hide Engineer shortcut '\' key work in the editors please as well as flight? Thank you

[Red Iron Crown]

1) Allow the tool-tips to be turned off in the VAB. Perhaps by setting timeout to 0 so no need for a new UI widget.

Try turning off the overlay in the settings. The tooltips disappear, though you also lose the summary display in the lower left corner.

[TMS]

Also keep the suggestions for features and changes coming in. If it's something you want and it's not already in, it's probably because it never crossed my mind.

Not sure if this has been added to newer v1.x release (I'm two behind), but the ability to hide the toggle buttons for the four standard output windows would be good.

For example, if I go to the trouble of making custom windows, the 'orbital' and 'surface' windows often become obsolete as their information is contained in my custom windows, but their toggle buttons remain persistent, taking up screen space.

Would be good to have the option (in the toolbar drop down) to hide these toggle buttons.

Hope that makes sense?

[Paul Kingtiger]

Hi Cybutek I have a couple of feature requests.

First up, we seem to have lost the ability to see the DeltaV for the current stage only. I have have total, and all stages, but I like to have the total and the current stage, and this no longer seems possible?

Second, could we have a DeltaV expended since mark, with a button like the max geforce to reset the mark. It can be very useful when carry out maneuvers (like landing on the Mun) to know how much DeltaV you've used since you started the maneuver. This figure can then be used to compare theoretical vs actual when planning future missions.

Thanks again for a great mod.

[Padishar]

Second, could we have a DeltaV expended since mark, with a button like the max geforce to reset the mark. It can be very useful when carry out maneuvers (like landing on the Mun) to know how much DeltaV you've used since you started the maneuver. This figure can then be used to compare theoretical vs actual when planning future missions.

This isn't exactly simple to calculate (or even specify). It could simply add the difference between the deltaV total from the previous and latest runs of the simulation code but, while this would generally work fine in vacuum (with a bit of care about what happens when staging), this wouldn't give an accurate value when atmosphere is involved (you can easily build a vessel whose total deltaV actually increases during ascent). Using just the current stage values would be a bit better but it still wouldn't give a particularly accurate answer.

[Red Iron Crown]

This isn't exactly simple to calculate (or even specify). It could simply add the difference between the deltaV total from the previous and latest runs of the simulation code but, while this would generally work fine in vacuum (with a bit of care about what happens when staging), this wouldn't give an accurate value when atmosphere is involved (you can easily build a vessel whose total deltaV actually increases during ascent). Using just the current stage values would be a bit better but it still wouldn't give a particularly accurate answer.

MechJeb has "Delta-V Expended" as one of its displays, not sure how accurate it is, though. I'm no programmer, but it seems to me that using the mass flow rates and current Isp in each frame could give an accurate calculation of the dV expended in that frame. I'd imagine that there would be some performance overhead (one of the reasons I'm using MJ less and less).