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

[Grunf911]

Sorry if I did not see a response, but why was the Vessel bottom Pop-up removed (from the VAB or SPH) from 1.0.9.1 ?

I saw it in 1.0.9.0, but no longer after upgrade.

I will try again with 1.0.9.0 just to confirm it is not some other mod that disabled it

Edited October 1, 2014 by Grunf911

[cybutek]

Sorry if I did not see a response, but why was the Vessel bottom Pop-up removed (from the VAB or SPH) from 1.0.9.1 ?

I saw it in 1.0.9.0, but no longer after upgrade.

I will try again with 1.0.9.0 just to confirm it is not some other mod that disabled it

It shouldn't have been disabled. Try going into the settings and toggling the visibility of the overlay.

[Grunf911]

It shouldn't have been disabled. Try going into the settings and toggling the visibility of the overlay.

That's the thing. I do see the Resources one, but not the Vessel pane.

EDIT: Found the issue. Apparently ModAdmin is not a perfect tool after all.

- It ignored directory textures as well as something else, when it was supposed to add it.

I manually deleted directories Engineer and Kerbal Engineer and copied files, and it all worked like a charm.

Thx 4 support anyway

Edited October 1, 2014 by Grunf911

[therealcrow999]

Is there a way to disable KER in the stock tool bar and only have it in Blizzys Toolbar? I looked for some sort of settings but found none. I want to reduce the number of stock toolbar with the number of mods I have.

[Empiro]

So in this thread:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/95121-What-really-affects-the-total-delta-v-of-a-rocket/page2

I reported an issue about calculating multi-stage dV when you have seperatrons on your boosters.

In this shot:

I've reduced one of the pairs of boosters to 50% thrust and have the ones at 100% decouple first. It correctly shows that the dV for this set up and the burn time for each stage.

In this second shot:

I've placed a seperatron on the booster that will decouple first (note the window for the 50% thrust setting is for the booster attached to the other decoupler, not the one that is highlighted), but now the dV is doesn't take into account the fact that I will be decoupling the empty boosters at 30 seconds.

If I reduce the propellant in the seperatron to 0, then the numbers are correct again.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Empiro

[Padishar]

Excellent thanks. This is a bug in the simulation staging mechanism. Basically the simulation is not activating the next stage at the correct point because the sepratrons contain a type of fuel that is being burnt in the current stage. A similar issue can be seen with some of whackjob's ships that use large liquid fueled "sepratrons". The correct fix for this requires working out which fuel sources in a stage can actually be burnt during the stage which is quite easy for solid fuel but considerably more complex in the general case.

[Zalym]

Thank you for the quick .25 update!!

[cybutek]

Versions 1.0.9.2 is available!

Get it here!

Updated for KSP v0.25.0

Changed: Prettyfied Latitude and Longitude readouts.

Changed: ModuleLandingGear now uses the physical significance flag.

Changed: Updated MiniAVC to 1.0.2.4.

Known Bugs

Overlay vessel and resources displays get in the way of crew and action group screens.

Fixed .dll can be got from GitHub/Output if you find it extremely annoying.

Version 0.6.2.11 is now available!

Get it here!

Updated for KSP v0.25.0

Changed: ModuleLandingGear now uses the physical significance flag.

Edited October 7, 2014 by cybutek

[Balishag]

Just posting here to say a big thank you(!) to both of you guys for this plugin. It is the only one, I feel completely helpless without.

[cybutek]

Version 1.0.9.3 is now available!

Get it here!

Fixes a few issues that were in 1.0.9.2 and adds/changes a couple things.

Added: Title of the build engineer in compact mode now shows if you are using atmospheric data.

Added: New readout to the surface category:

- Vertical Acceleration

- Horizontal Acceleration

Changed: Atmospheric efficiency readout now shows as a percentage.

Changed: Atmospheric settings (pressure/velocity) in the editor condensed onto a single line.

Fixed: Bug where the overlays in the editor would stay open outside of parts screen.

[zeknife]

I haven't used the latest version so I don't know if this is changed, but is there a way to make the flight-scene engineer window not open by default? I always have to close it when I don't plan to use it, which is more often than not at launch.

[cybutek]

I haven't used the latest version so I don't know if this is changed, but is there a way to make the flight-scene engineer window not open by default? I always have to close it when I don't plan to use it, which is more often than not at launch.

It should stay the way you left it, but I'll look into it to see if it's a bug.

[Padishar]

I believe this does work as designed but the design is not what this user wants. If you generally fly with the window open except during launches (which seems a bit strange to me as the orbit and surface tabs are very useful during launch/ascent) then usually the window will be open when you return to KSC and hence it will be open when you next go to launch. You then close it, launch and reopen it when you get to orbit and then return to KSC again with it still open.

This was a big advantage of the part-based system as the window state could be saved in the part so it could be remembered per-vessel rather than as a global setting. Perhaps it could use a scenario module that maintains a list of per-vessel settings. It could even let you save multiple window layouts so you could easily switch a particular vessel between different settings, e.g. you may want a completely different window layout during launch of a rocket, during transfers and during landing. Then a global option for the settings of newly launched vessels (possibly different for VAB and SPH) would allow you to choose the window layout and whether the windows are shown...

[cybutek]

This was a big advantage of the part-based system as the window state could be saved in the part so it could be remembered per-vessel rather than as a global setting. Perhaps it could use a scenario module that maintains a list of per-vessel settings. It could even let you save multiple window layouts so you could easily switch a particular vessel between different settings, e.g. you may want a completely different window layout during launch of a rocket, during transfers and during landing. Then a global option for the settings of newly launched vessels (possibly different for VAB and SPH) would allow you to choose the window layout and whether the windows are shown...

I believe that this would be a very nice feature, and would definitely give the new control centre that is currently in the design phase a must have use. As such a system would be limited by the current user interface, or the very least become extremely messy and complicated to the point of frustration for the player. Sounds like a plan

[Jarin]

If you run KER in non-partless mode and you have old crafts that include them that you still want to load up, then yes, there's a point in them. A very blunt point, sure, but it's a point nonetheless. However, if you're starting fresh with new crafts or settings, then no, no point (unless you really like that tape drive, I guess).

Just curious why they have a weight and cost now. I was away from the game for a bit, so I'm not sure when those were added...

[cybutek]

Just curious why they have a weight and cost now. I was away from the game for a bit, so I'm not sure when those were added...

They've always had a cost and never had a weight. Even though it may say a weight in the VAB/SPH, this is just because the game requires it. They are set to be physically insignificant so they are not processed by the physics engine.

[Hyde911]

Hello,

I've got problem with Kerbal Engineer. Since the latest update during flight it shows two different values of available delta v during construction of spacecraft and flight. For example I constructed rocket with 4179 m/s of delta v. But once I got on launchpad it says I've got only 3626 m/s delta v left (without starting engine of course). And I'm pretty sure that first value is accurate.

[Padishar]

That is just the difference between vacuum deltaV and atmospheric deltaV and it is not new. In flight the calculations use the current atmospheric pressure but in the VAB it defaults to vacuum. You can change it in the VAB to use sea-level atmospheric pressure of the selected reference body instead and the numbers will be much closer (the in VAB numbers will be slightly worse than when on the pad as the pad is slightly higher than sea level which slightly improves the figures).

[Red Iron Crown]

Hello,

I've got problem with Kerbal Engineer. Since the latest update during flight it shows two different values of available delta v during construction of spacecraft and flight. For example I constructed rocket with 4179 m/s of delta v. But once I got on launchpad it says I've got only 3626 m/s delta v left (without starting engine of course). And I'm pretty sure that first value is accurate.

That sounds like the difference between atmospheric and vacuum values. Try pressing the "Atmosphere" button in the VAB and the values should align.

Edit: Ninja'd.

[Hyde911]

Thank you for your instant reply.

[immibis]

In the "Time to Apoapsis" and "Time to Periapsis" values (and probably other times as well), 1d means 24 hours - but in KSP days are 6 hours long.

[Superfluous J]

In the "Time to Apoapsis" and "Time to Periapsis" values (and probably other times as well), 1d means 24 hours - but in KSP days are 6 hours long.

You can set that in the settings. I don't know where it is in the gui (but it's there) but in the config.xml file it's:

    <bool name="ShowEarthTime">0</bool>

And because for me it's "0", it shows Kerbal time.

[Sky_walker]

Suggestion, if I may:

Add energy supply, demand, time remaining display.

Similarly to the one that exists for air intake.

Obviously it'll help balancing your energy (especially on a night side of the planet), but more importantly - it'll help balancing Xenon engines without counting everything manually

[PTNLemay]

Sorry if this was actually addressed in the first post, I read it quickly and wasn't really able to understand the distinction.

What's the difference between v0.6211 and v1.093? I got the impression that 1.0 was the less stable one, is this because it has more features crammed into it?

[Boomerang]

I'm sure this sort of reversion isn't the sort of thing you really want to see as a request, but would there be any chance of getting an option to display the older white text overlay in the lower left of the editors, rather than the newer boxes? They aren't bad-looking, but they seem to like to pop up whenever they like, or the one featuring dV/TWR/etc isn't there at all. And for someone who's stuck with a less than generous screen resolution, the boxes take up more room than I'd really like.