Is MechJeb hate still a thing?

[Pthigrivi]

6 hours ago, Mrsupersonic8 said:

Spesos.

10 points for Ravenclaw. Sweet hezeus how did Squad call them "funds" instead of "Spesos"???

I'll absolutely admit from time to time I'm feeling lazy and hit "land at target" on routine mining missions cause Im cooking tofu in the other room and you gotta keep your eye on that to get that golden-brown. The other really invaluable thing MJ provides is trajectory factoring drag, which is indispensable for quality aerobraking. I also definitely appreciate it as a learning tool for new players who want to understand gravity turns, rendezvous, suicide burns and all sorts of things. 

All that said, please believe you can fly much better than MechJeb. Just try it! Learn to love quicksave. There's a lot of practice and finesse to it but you can absolutely save dV and money and even time (!) learning to fly these things yourself. There's a lot more personal drama as well, that genuine thrill precision landing on your own 10 fingers within 10m of your target. 

Edited October 25, 2018 by Pthigrivi

[releansol]

I nver would use it..so I don't can hate it :-)

[Pecan]

There is a tool that consists of optional and independent preset information displays, entirely configurable information displays, maneuver node setting and editing, some autopiloting.

Because *some* people *might* use autopiloting *instead* of learning there are some other people who condemn the entire tool and all it's uses and users.

Ask if they did/do/would use KER and laugh at them.

On 10/21/2018 at 9:00 PM, The Dunatian said:

Who needs mechjeb? I don't wish to sound boastful, but truthfully I am a better pilot than mechjeb. Flying manual is more challenging and more fun.

Here is an example of someone who doesn't know what MechJeb is.

[Atkara]

1 hour ago, Pecan said:

Because *some* people *might* use autopiloting *instead* of learning there are some other people who condemn the entire tool and all it's uses and users.

The thread itself starts with a post about MJ's autopilot -not the information feedback part. Don't be so quick to point at people.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Atkara

[Pecan]

1 minute ago, Atkara said:

The thread itself starts with a post about MJ's autopilot -not the information feedback part. Don't be so quick to point your finger at people.

The OP also mentions that they don't use the landing autopilot.  In other words, use is optional, it's not like MJ takes over and does everything for you as soon as it's installed.

In any case; do you know anyone who objects to people using MJ for anything other than it's autopilot functionality?
So - we're left with people who object to MJ because they don't know what else it offers apart from the autopilot modules or that the autopilot is optional.

Notice I'm pointing my finger at those that "condemn the entire tool and all it's uses and users", not the ones that object to an autopilot.
The people who think MJ=Autopilot and Autopilot=No manual option.
They fired first ;-0

[Mr. Peabody]

1 hour ago, Pecan said:

There is a tool that consists of optional and independent preset information displays, entirely configurable information displays, maneuver node setting and editing, some autopiloting.

Because *some* people *might* use autopiloting *instead* of learning there are some other people who condemn the entire tool and all it's uses and users.

Ask if they did/do/would use KER and laugh at them.

Here is an example of someone who doesn't know what MechJeb is.

Oh dear. He's trying to debate me. Perhaps we should pull up a fact check. 

1. I have, in fact used mech-jeb quite extensively in the past. I am well acquainted with how it works and what it does.

2. I no longer use mechjeb because I am a better pilot and because I find that it effectively destroys much of the fun of the game. Mechjeb doesn't hold a candle to the fun you can have flying with your fingertips.

[Pecan]

Just now, The Dunatian said:

Oh dear. He's trying to debate me. Perhaps we should pull up a fact check. 

1. I have, in fact used mech-jeb quite extensively in the past. I am well acquainted with how it works and what it does.

2. I no longer use mechjeb because I am a better pilot and because I find that it effectively destroys much of the fun of the game. Mechjeb doesn't hold a candle to the fun you can have flying with your fingertips.

And yet you still don't seem to realise that the *optional* autopilot modules in MJ are a very small part of what it does.

I wasn't debating you as there was nothing to debate.  If you'd like to debate then let's start with:

Did/do/would you use KER or another information mod?  Do you look-up transfer windows on the web or elsewhere?
Of course, if you prefer to calculate dV by hand, or not at all, and just play by trial and error that's fine too.  And fiddling with the maneuver nodes to get interplanetary intercepts and not knowing what your horizontal/vertical airspeed and groundspeed are and and and.

[Mr. Peabody]

15 minutes ago, Pecan said:

And yet you still don't seem to realise that the *optional* autopilot modules in MJ are a very small part of what it does.

I wasn't debating you as there was nothing to debate.  If you'd like to debate then let's start with:

Did/do/would you use KER or another information mod?  Do you look-up transfer windows on the web or elsewhere?
Of course, if you prefer to calculate dV by hand, or not at all, and just play by trial and error that's fine too.  And fiddling with the maneuver nodes to get interplanetary intercepts and not knowing what your horizontal/vertical airspeed and groundspeed are and and and.

In fact I do play without KER. I have looked up transfer windows on the internet though. I'm not picking a bone with the information part of the mod, I'm only saying that actually using the auto-pilot, the main component of the mod, detracts from the overall game experience.

[Kerbart]

17 minutes ago, Pecan said:

And yet you still don't seem to realise that the *optional* autopilot modules in MJ are a very small part of what it does.

Yes, that's a generalization. Shame shame shame. Another generalization is that people dislike "Mechjeb, the tool." To be honest, most "MJ Haters" couldn't care less if you use MJ as if it's KER - just to feed you with data, The hate comes from players unable to perform any task in the game by hand ranging from circularizing orbit and reducing inclination to 0° to rendez-vous, docking, and interplanetary transfers. So that's a generalization as well. I guess they cancel each other out.

Personally I think that players miss out on a lot of satisfaction the game has to offer if they don't master the things MJ automates. After that, if you can't stand docking or launching for the umptieth time... Do use MJ to learn how to do certain things (although it's not always the best example). But do practice without it until you've mastered it. After that, who cares? Or even before that. It's your money, play the game the way you want it. Just remember, before switching to an autopilot to automate "the boring stuff:"

Don't practice until you get it right;
Practice until you don't get it wrong.

 

[Atkara]

1 hour ago, Pecan said:

In any case; do you know anyone who objects to people using MJ for anything other than it's autopilot functionality?
So - we're left with people who object to MJ because they don't know what else it offers apart from the autopilot modules or that the autopilot is optional.

No I don't. And I don't believe there was a single post in this thread, talking about MJ in general -only it's autopilot segment.

[Kroslev Kerman]

i use mechjeb but i only use it to fly because idk to fly rockets but the rest i do mannualy(like doing manuever nodes to other planets and etc)and the mod i use is KAC(Kerbal alarm clock)for my transfer Windows

[ARS]

I used mechjeb when I had to do something "boring" and "tedious" like running a rover/ flying an aircraft to the destination/ ion engine burn for hours or "stale" and "repetitive" stuff like doing 15 launches for completing a single space station. Otherwise, if it's not the activity like I mentioned above, I prefer doing it myself

[Pecan]

13 hours ago, The Dunatian said:

In fact I do play without KER. I have looked up transfer windows on the internet though. I'm not picking a bone with the information part of the mod, I'm only saying that actually using the auto-pilot, the main component of the mod, detracts from the overall game experience.

Ok. gotcha.  Then we can agree.  Although I do use the autopilot for some of the repetitive things, KSP is a far better experience if/when you fly vehicles yourself.  I also don't doubt that you're a better pilot than MJ, it's pretty poor at some things.

(Mainly I use the launch autopilot, since I'm either launching an old vehicle for the nth time and it's just not interesting or I'm designing a new one and want/need to test multiple minor changes in a reliable manner - there I can't trust my own piloting to be consistent enough.  My general routine is design & test, if I can fly it it's good enough for me, if even MJ can fly it it's good enough to share).

[Pecan]

@Kerbart, @Atkara

Exactly and fine - by all means deplore the use of MJ's autopilot instead of learning (although, you know, there's no wrong way to have fun).  Let's remember that there's a lot more to it than that though - and in my opinion it bundles several other mods/web-sites into a single convenient package.  Be clear it's not MJ 'the tool' that you're objecting to ... and I'll shut up again.

[Not Sure]

Personally I used to use it for the repedetive task of launching rockets but there is a stand-alone mod that only launches rockets with a super efficient gravity turn, so I just use that and haven’t touched mechjeb in a long time.

The only times I do autonomous landings is when I write a very efficient kOS script myself.

[Atkara]

48 minutes ago, Pecan said:

Exactly and fine - by all means deplore the use of MJ's autopilot instead of learning (although, you know, there's no wrong way to have fun).  Let's remember that there's a lot more to it than that though - and in my opinion it bundles several other mods/web-sites into a single convenient package.  Be clear it's not MJ 'the tool' that you're objecting to ... and I'll shut up again.

I never objected to either MJ or it's autopilot. What I did say, is that it would've done a much better job in my hands, than what I've seen on youtube and that it docks in a way I haven't used in years.

Edited October 26, 2018 by Atkara

[Tyko]

1 hour ago, Not Sure said:

Personally I used to use it for the repedetive task of launching rockets but there is a stand-alone mod that only launches rockets with a super efficient gravity turn, so I just use that and haven’t touched mechjeb in a long time.

The only times I do autonomous landings is when I write a very efficient kOS script myself.

Yeah, Gravity Turn is the route I've gone too...Launches are the one thing that I'm comfortable automating because I've done thousands and thousands of them. It's still a technical challenge though because I manually input all the numbers and design the launch profile I want. Not quite kOS level of effort, but it's still my decisions that are defining the launch.

[Burning Kan]

Ive learnd a lot from MJ like beginn turn at 3-4km high,trottle to perfect speed in atmo and much more,also the infos are very helpful.dont can understand people can hate this feature

[Dunbaratu]

I don't have a problem with MJ itself or those who like to use it.  But I do get frustrated by one certain argument used by a subset of its fans.  They make the argument that not knowing how to do a thing yourself and just letting the autopilot handle it is the "same thing as" what real space programs did because real space programs "used autopilots" and "I'm using an autopilot, so it's the same thing".  In the real world, the autopilot software had to be painstakingly built by humans.  With MJ it's possible for your space program to go install a sentient computer that wrote its own autopilot software, apparently, since it works even in cases where your space program (you) doesn't understand how to do those tasks.  In the real world, writing the autopilot was just as much a HUMAN undertaking as building the rocket was.

Making the argument that "I already know this so I automate it for boredom reasons" makes perfect sense and is historically accurate.

Making the argument "I already know on paper how to do this, but in practice it requires faster calculation, and access to measurements, and better dexterity on the controls than a human can do so I tell software how do it in my stead" makes sense and is historically accurate.

Making the argument "I didn't know how to do this task so I have the autopilot do it." is also fine because there's no such thing as playing a single-player game "wrong".  It may not be historically accurate, but so what.  It's a game so have fun.

My only problem is when someone who says "I don't know how to do this so I have the autopilot do it" ALSO makes the claim that what they're doing is historically accurate because real world space programs used autopilots.  Real world space programs required that humans design those autopilots.  The knowledge of what the steps are and how they must be described in extreme detail had to come FIRST before the autopilot could possibly exist.  Claiming that bypassing the learning by using the autopilot is the same thing as what real space programs did is a big slap in the face to those who deserve credit for that hard work in real space programs.

[Randazzo]

'Tis but a farcical diversion.

[DerekL1963]

3 hours ago, Steven Mading said:

Making the argument that "I already know this so I automate it for boredom reasons" makes perfect sense and is historically accurate.

No it isn't.  Historically nobody automated flight controls "because they were bored".  That's a nonsensical argument.
 

3 hours ago, Steven Mading said:

The knowledge of what the steps are and how they must be described in extreme detail had to come FIRST before the autopilot could possibly exist.  Claiming that bypassing the learning by using the autopilot is the same thing as what real space programs did is a big slap in the face to those who deserve credit for that hard work in real space programs.

No, it's not a slap against anyone - except to people who claim "not have a problem" and then run on for multiple paragraphs explaining how they do have a problem and making nonsensical arguments justifying having a problem.  

[Dunbaratu]

3 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

No it isn't.  Historically nobody automated flight controls "because they were bored".  That's a nonsensical argument.
 

No, it's not a slap against anyone - except to people who claim "not have a problem" and then run on for multiple paragraphs explaining how they do have a problem and making nonsensical arguments justifying having a problem.  

Were you planning on citing these supposedly nonsensical arguments?  The only thing you cited as "nonsensical" was doing exactly the opposite of "justifying having a problem".   That was in the justification for what I do NOT have a problem with.  And yes, it was kind of nonsensical because I wasn't clear about which part was "historically accurate" about it.  (Hint, it wasn't the "bored" part that made that historically accurate, it was the timeline of the player knowledge coming first and the autopilot coming second, rather than having an autopilot doing tasks the player doesn't really understand.),  But anyway, I don't think you want to be shooting holes in the part where I was supporting using MJ.  That verbosity you're complaining about was there in defence against exactly this kind of strawman.  Your response proves that verbosity was necessary.

Edited October 27, 2018 by Steven Mading

[Pecan]

10 hours ago, Atkara said:

I never objected to either MJ or it's autopilot. What I did say, is that it would've done a much better job in my hands, than what I've seen on youtube and that it docks in a way I haven't used in years.

Now I have to use the docking autopilot to see what it does!  Haven't used that in years but it always used to drink monopropellant like mad.  I'd dock with about 3, MJ would use 100, that sort of thing.

[DerekL1963]

2 hours ago, Pecan said:

Now I have to use the docking autopilot to see what it does!  Haven't used that in years but it always used to drink monopropellant like mad.  I'd dock with about 3, MJ would use 100, that sort of thing.

In general, MJ uses a lot less mono than it used to...  But like any tool much also depends on how you use it.  If your ship is unbalanced, or you leave the actuation toggles set to allow RCS to be used for attitude control, or you have a really funky docking situation it can use a lot more than it should.  (Using SMART A.S.S. to set the docking axes parallel is a huge help.)

I docked a 100 ton ship today using less than (IIRC) twenty mono.  But I also used every trick in my toolbox to make it so.  MJ is a tool, and like any tool, experience and knowledge pays off.

[ZootinZack]

To be clearer, I think it's a good idea to do things manually and reliably without the use of MJ. When a new version rolls about I usually don't use MJ at all until I'm sure I can still do everything perfectly.

I'm also very much from the school of "crash 100 times and learn" instead of "learning from MechJeb" because sometimes that leaves us with a lack of curiosity, exploration and experimentation that, to me, are very "Kerbal". If I do something the wrong way 20 times, and I slowly figure it out, that's super interesting, whereas just imitating MJ can not only be dull, but also flat out wrong sometimes. It got me learning about a lot of space flight stuff that eluded me at first. I wouldn't recommend using MechJeb to a new player... But man, I personally don't care for plotting a Mun course for the 5000th time (I don't even think I'm exaggerating). Even in-game i have more interesting things to do.