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

[ibanix]

I love this mod and consider it one of my "core" mods that must be available before I upgrade to a new version of KSP. So many thanks for creating/maintaining it.

One thing that I would find useful to have added is the current throttle setting expressed as a percentage. When I execute a manoeuvre I will take the displayed burn time of x seconds and begin my burn at t - x @ 50%, or t - 2x @ 25%, or t - 4x @ 12.5%, etc. As it is now, I have to perform the manoeuvre in IVA and get the percentage from a Raster Prop Monitor display, or eyeball the current thrust from the navball for craft with no IVA.

Is there any chance this value could be squeezed in to an upcoming version?

KER Settings -> Orbital -> Time To Manoeuvre Burn

Fire up at 100% when this reaches 0 s.

[Apophis]

Weird, I've run tests with quite a few different parts and don't see a difference. Can you upload the .craft file of one of those? Do you use any other mods?

I have made some tests and kerbal engineer is correct and engineer report is wrong.

I suspect is the mod that causes this is "interstellar fuel switch".

[Medicus]

Hello, I have used this wonderful mod for years with no problems.

However I am now encountering a bug where KE does not include fuel in radially-attached/side tanks in its delta-v calculations.

I can transfer fuel from these tanks and it will work, and node-attached tanks are no problem, but unless I run a fuel line between the tank and engine the extra delta-v is not added.

Is anyone else experiencing this bug?

[Padishar]

Hello, I have used this wonderful mod for years with no problems.

However I am now encountering a bug where KE does not include fuel in radially-attached/side tanks in its delta-v calculations.

I can transfer fuel from these tanks and it will work, and node-attached tanks are no problem, but unless I run a fuel line between the tank and engine the extra delta-v is not added.

Is anyone else experiencing this bug?

You will need to give a more detailed description of your problem, preferably including an example craft file and/or screenshots showing the KER window and exactly what you think is wrong. You also need to say what versions of KSP and KER you are using and what other mods you have installed.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Shot in the dark now, but I'm guessing KER is assuming you'll decouple the full fuel tanks at some point and, as the stock game doesn't (usually (depends on the engine)) drain fuel from radially attached tanks, they are, for all intents and purposes, dead weight. KER is calculating dV from the fuel available - if it's not allowed to flow (via node attachment or fuel pipe), it's neither factored in nor even available to the engine to use.

[Red Iron Crown]

I think OWK might be right, AFAIK the dV simulation only accounts for fuel that has a valid route to an engine, it doesn't take possible transfers into account.

[Medicus]

It happens with the tanks that are designed to be radially attached, like the radial monoprop tank.

[Padishar]

You are almost certainly misunderstanding something about the way that fuel flow works. The rules are quite simple but they are not intuitive. This thread has details about how it works (but note that since 1.0 stock jet engines, including the rapier in rocket mode, drain fuel using the stage_priority mechanism that monoprop and xenon use rather than the way normal rockets do).

If you still think there is a problem with KER then please see my previous reply about providing a craft file and/or screenshots etc.

[ebigunso]

It'd be awesome if KER could give me sidereal longitude readouts too, so I can finally stop eyeballing the contract's launch times. I assume this is not too hard?

[cpottinger]

cpottinger, if you use the engine's thrust limiter instead of the throttle KER will automatically recalculate burn time. Not 100% what you want but a workaround for some situations.

Thanks for the suggestion RIC, but you are right... it's not quite what I was looking for.

- - - Updated - - -

KER Settings -> Orbital -> Time To Manoeuvre Burn

Fire up at 100% when this reaches 0 s.

Also, thanks, but again, not what I was looking for. The reason your suggestion is not ideal is that when burning at 100% the burn times are shorter and thus more prone to create large errors when one attempts to cut the throttle.

By doubling, and quadrupling the burn time, one gains a two- or four-fold increase in accuracy in getting the burn to be just right. This is particularly true when setting up Hohmann transfers with very high eccentricities.

The ability to see the thrust percentage would allow me to octuple and even sexdecuple my burn accuracy.

[cybutek]

100% throttle with a 5% thrust limit is 5% of the maximum thrust of the engine. Which will give you a burn time 20x that of 100% throttle and no limiting. How is there even a problem here?

[cpottinger]

100% throttle with a 5% thrust limit is 5% of the maximum thrust of the engine. Which will give you a burn time 20x that of 100% throttle and no limiting. How is there even a problem here?

I didn't have a problem with Red Iron Crown's suggestion. I just said it wasn't quite what I was looking for (as in I would still like to see the thrust percentage). But it is a doable workaround.

My other response was to ibanix's suggestion of just burning at 100% according to KER's Time To Manoeuvre Burn display. That one doesn't work for me for the reason given above.

However, after re-reading, I am now realize that ibanix suggestion was an addition to Red Iron Crown's: limit the engine thrust and then use KER's burn time. That will work for me.

Thanks guys - sorry for any misunderstanding

Edited October 5, 2015 by cpottinger

[Red Iron Crown]

Does KER pick up the engine thrust limit and display a longer burn time?

It does, that's what I was trying to say. It recalculates based on the thrust limiter setting.

[NoSyMe]

Is it just me or does it not work to just Upgrade your Tracking Station to Level 3?

I upgraded it so I wouldn't need to install one of the KER Parts on every Vessel, but I can't use the KER Features when flying a vessel. This is 1.0.4 on Win7 in Career Mode.

[Padishar]

Is it just me or does it not work to just Upgrade your Tracking Station to Level 3?

I upgraded it so I wouldn't need to install one of the KER Parts on every Vessel, but I can't use the KER Features when flying a vessel. This is 1.0.4 on Win7 in Career Mode.

Are you using the latest version of KER? As far as I know this works correctly though I always set it to partless mode so it's always available.

[ibanix]

I upgraded it so I wouldn't need to install one of the KER Parts on every Vessel, but I can't use the KER Features when flying a vessel. This is 1.0.4 on Win7 in Career Mode.

For that, you want StockPlugins

[Red Iron Crown]

For that, you want StockPlugins

Redundant if all you want is KER, there is already a "partless" mode which adds it to all command pods and probe cores.

[ibanix]

Redundant if all you want is KER, there is already a "partless" mode which adds it to all command pods and probe cores.

Oh, I might have missed that, or it might have been added since I started using StockPlugins =)

[ebigunso]

It'd be awesome if KER could give me sidereal longitude readouts too, so I can finally stop eyeballing the contract's launch times. I assume this is not too hard?

bump since it's way back there now.

[Alshain]

Suggestion:

Add payload fraction option in VAB/SPH (Payload Fraction is Mass of Payload/Total Mass of Craft)

To do this you will have to add a button to allow the user to demark the payload. It can be assumed the payload has to be removed from the craft and there are only 3 ways to do this... Decoupler, Separator, and Docking Port.

So you would click the demark button and select one of those 3 items, but then you have to determine where the payload is.

For decouplers, the payload will always be the decoupling end, that is easy.

For separators, I would say it should move away from the root part, so the requirement for the user would be to ensure the root part is part of the lifter or plane, not the payload.

For Docking ports it will be like separators, but you have to determine if the root part is on the dockable side or the attachment side of the port so you know if the mass of the port itself should be included. I think this would work logically regardless of if the port was docked (2 ports) or coupled (1 port).

Edited October 8, 2015 by Alshain

[Red Iron Crown]

For separators, I would say it should move away from the root part, so the requirement for the user would be to ensure the root part is part of the lifter or plane, not the payload.

This part would cause trouble, having the root part somewhere other than the payload causes the delta-V simulation to give erroneous results (it will assume the payload is dead mass and jettison it before burning the stage before it).

[Alshain]

This part would cause trouble, having the root part somewhere other than the payload causes the delta-V simulation to give erroneous results (it will assume the payload is dead mass and jettison it before burning the stage before it).

Why wouldn't it just follow the staging order?

I suppose it could be done the opposite way (add up toward the root) but it would fail with planes.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Alshain

[Padishar]

Why wouldn't it just follow the staging order?

It does "just follow the staging order" but the problem is that each time a decoupler fires the vessel splits into two separate vessels and the code currently only supports calculating for a single vessel so it has to discard all but one of them and the most logical way that works in the most common situations is to keep the sub-vessel that contains the original vessel's root part. A separator makes the vessel split into three separate vessels. A stage with multiple decouplers/separators can basically split the vessel into an arbitrary number of sub-vessels, any number of which could still be controllable and/or consist of more than one remaining stage. It all gets complicated very quickly. Also, docking ports can't be decoupled in the staging sequence so the calculations can't make any decision about when during the mission they will be decoupled.

I suppose it could be done the opposite way (add up toward the root) but it would fail with planes.

Why would it fail with planes? You just have to make a part of the payload root and connect it to the plane using a decoupler and everything will calculate properly. It also has the benefit of the jet engines not drawing fuel from the payload until all the fuel from the plane has gone.

About the only way this could currently be done reasonably easily and in a general enough way would be to add the payload fraction to the build engineer and simply show the starting mass of the stage as a percentage of the total mass of the vessel. However, the payload fraction isn't exactly an important figure unless you are specifically trying to optimize for it, and there isn't a lot of spare room in the build engineer UI so it would probably need to be made optional if it is deemed worthwhile enough to add at all.

[Theysen]

Hey, maybe someone of you has the solution to my problem I came across. ( I searched for similar entries here but didn't find any)

When using KER in Realism Overhaul / RSS everything works fine in the VAB regarding staging listing with deltaV readout.

As soon as I hit launch a few seconds after the delta V of the current stage sets to 0 and KER only recognizes the remaining ones. Staging these also deletes the readout to 0.

In MechJeb there is kind of a "ghost" stage created with the correct TWR but 0 deltaV under the actual stage with the depleting delta V readout which I think KER then uses too to output the current stage.

This happens regardless of Launch Clamps or without.

Is there maybe an explanation for this? Is it due to procedural parts being used in combination with RO? (I don't get this bug in stock with Procedural Parts)

As this also happens to other info mods I think it might be based on some game mechanics though

Thanks in advance

[gonzo98x]

Hey, maybe someone of you has the solution to my problem I came across. ( I searched for similar entries here but didn't find any)

When using KER in Realism Overhaul / RSS everything works fine in the VAB regarding staging listing with deltaV readout.

As soon as I hit launch a few seconds after the delta V of the current stage sets to 0 and KER only recognizes the remaining ones. Staging these also deletes the readout to 0.

In MechJeb there is kind of a "ghost" stage created with the correct TWR but 0 deltaV under the actual stage with the depleting delta V readout which I think KER then uses too to output the current stage.

This happens regardless of Launch Clamps or without.

Is there maybe an explanation for this? Is it due to procedural parts being used in combination with RO? (I don't get this bug in stock with Procedural Parts)

As this also happens to other info mods I think it might be based on some game mechanics though

Thanks in advance

I dont have a solution for this but I can confirm it happens to me as well.

Here is a quick album of it.

The first pic is of my craft attached to the supports. No throttle and KER reads the delta V correctly.

The second pic I have started the engines and they are firing but the supports are still attached and KER is giving me correct data still.

The third pic is when I have released the clamps and now KER has gone to 0 for the delta V readout.

I am using a new install with KER v1.0.18.0

Javascript is disabled. View full album