Is MechJeb hate still a thing?

[Pds314]

8 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

What does this even mean?  And what's the problem with people not being able to do those things?

I mean, it's not a problem for everyone else. Ine literally had people ask for help because their autopilot of choice hasn't updated and they can't fly their craft manually.

[putnamto]

i have a hard time grasping things the first 100 or so times i do them so i used mechjeb for the longest time to help me with rendevous.

i just downloaded 1.5 and did my first kerbal rescue contract withought it though!! 

[magnemoe]

18 hours ago, Hydrothermalventclam said:

That depends on what experience one wants from the game.  The way you worded your statement is imposing your ideas on everyone.  Using the autopilot does not detract from the game experience, though it may detract from yours.  If someone enjoys the game more with the autopilot, it does not detract from their experience.  KSP is a great game because everyone can play it differently based on what they like to do. 

Reading through other people's responses, I see this same thing over and over from both sides of the debate.  People all over this thread are making generalizations about how people should play the game.  The end goal is to have fun.  No one should criticize the way someone else plays KSP.

Same, I can not play without dV readout, or rather I overbuild so much, landed an satellite used in the historic missions on the Mun so overbuild was it. 
I tend to use it a lot, later part of accents is an exception, also accent from airless bodies with an higher TWR craft. 
Going to Minmus I ask mechjeb for hohmann, ass 10-20 m/s and move the marker for intersept after 3-4 days. 
 

[Mr. Peabody]

19 hours ago, Hydrothermalventclam said:

That depends on what experience one wants from the game.  The way you worded your statement is imposing your ideas on everyone.

Ah, but there are those who have never played without auto-pilot. They should at least give flying manual a try. I'm not imposing on anyone. Just because I state that flying manual is generally more rewarding does not mean that I am forcing anyone to fly manual. I can say whatever I please, others don't have to listen. On another note, anyone who thinks that auto-pilot does not detract from the stock game experience is just ignorant of what the stock game experience really is. If they prefer flying with auto-pilot that is their choice, but they should at least give manual a chance.

I'm sure everyone will debate what I've just commented to hell, so I'm just going to agree to disagree. Further comments here would just be a waste of time.

[Nich]

MJ is cheating because it doesn't respect the probe core rules.  If your pilot/core is not high level enough to hold a node and you use MJ to do it you are cheating.

I saw NathienKell do a transfer to mercury using MJ to set up the cheapest ejection burn then complain that the capture burn was really expensive.  48 km/s with a 7 degree inclination change requires a ton of DV.  Fixing that inclination at earth would have been much much cheaper even if it required a 200-300 dv mid course adjustment.  This is shows that MJ does things well enough that people slug by but at the same time it can really cripple you.  I have always felt MJ also guzzles RCS fuel.  Anything MJ can do I can do with 1/100 the fuel.

All that a side yes I use MJ because it is my game and I play it how I want.  I also use the cheat menu

[DerekL1963]

1 hour ago, Nich said:

MJ is cheating because it doesn't respect the probe core rules.

You cannot cheat in a single player game.
 

1 hour ago, Nich said:

I saw NathienKell do a transfer to mercury using MJ to set up the cheapest ejection burn then complain that the capture burn was really expensive.  48 km/s with a 7 degree inclination change requires a ton of DV.  Fixing that inclination at earth would have been much much cheaper even if it required a 200-300 dv mid course adjustment.

Either that was several years ago, or NathanKell didn't know about or use the Advanced Transfer option.  (Which combines the ejection burn and the plane change burn into a single burn.)
 

1 hour ago, Nich said:

This is shows that MJ does things well enough that people slug by but at the same time it can really cripple you.

That shows that you have no idea what you're talking about, because you're unaware of the current capabilities of MJ.
 

1 hour ago, Nich said:

I have always felt MJ also guzzles RCS fuel.  Anything MJ can do I can do with 1/100 the fuel.

Here is MJ docking a vessel weighing nearly 90 tons - using only 46 units of monoprop.  (Also note that I deliberately put my foot in a bucket of cement by selecting a docking target 45 degrees off of my approach vector.)

When you can do that from the same starting conditions with only .46 units of monoprop, get back to me.
 

1 hour ago, Nich said:

All that a side yes I use MJ

 

If you use MJ, why are you so in the dark as to it's capabilities?

[Rocket In My Pocket]

11 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

Here is MJ docking a vessel weighing nearly 90 tons - using only 46 units of monoprop.  (Also note that I deliberately put my foot in a bucket of cement by selecting a docking target 45 degrees off of my approach vector.)

When you can do that from the same starting conditions with only .46 units of monoprop, get back to me.

I mean, I could do it with zero monoprop by using the main engine to be fair lol.

The craft is heavy, and the setup is intentionally bad; so I'd say 50ish units of MP is pretty fair, but it's not exceptional or anything.

1/100 is of course an exaggeration, however I'd wager I could  do it with less than 46 units.

[Nich]

@DerekL1963

Yes I could have docked to a port on the other side with probably 10-12 units and no reaction wheel.  I would love to know how you got your MJ to behave so nicely as mine blows fuel out the RCS continuously.  It would have used 10 times what yours did.  MJ has used up an entire mission worth of RCS fuel just trying to do a 180.  I was not exaggerating when I plan a lazy mission i pack 100x RCS fuel.  My starter RP-0 first orbit rocket packs about 600 hydrogen and I use anywhere from 100-500.  If I want MJ to do it I need 40,000-60,000

And yes the video I watched was 2 years old.  Not sure if advanced transfer existed.  But that is not the point, the point is because MJ does the transfer for him he did not understand the mechanics of the transfer.  If he knew how to use advanced transfer that still would not help him if he wanted to do a Kerbin -> Eve -> Eve -> Kerbin -> Jool transfer.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Nich

[Nich]

Also doesn't advanced transfer uses only 1 burn with no mid course correction?  Also it doesn't fix inclination but changes it so that you fly by the planet at AN/DN.  I would have to do the math but I believe the only time it really make sense to fix inclination at departure burn is for Mercury/Moho because 1) oberth at earth/kerbin is much larger making inclination adjustments much cheaper 2) velocity around the sun at earth/kerbin orbit is significantly slower making it much cheaper and 3) hydrolox engines can be used at earth more easily for more DV then hypergolic can be used at mercury.  For Earth/Kerbin to Venus/Eve oberith dominates and mid course corrections are less efficient.  For Mars/Duna it is more efficient to correct inclination at Mars/Duna but more oberth at Earth/Kerbin so it is kind of a wash.  For the rest of the planets it is way more efficient to correct inclinations at the destination and all but pluto have WAY more oberith

[DerekL1963]

1 hour ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

The craft is heavy, and the setup is intentionally bad; so I'd say 50ish units of MP is pretty fair, but it's not exceptional or anything.

1/100 is of course an exaggeration, however I'd wager I could  do it with less than 46 units.

I have no doubt you could better!  I posted the video mostly to silence the folks who think MJ drinks monoprop like a Mainsail drinks LFO.  It can and does if you don't know what you're doing... (But that's true of manual piloting as well.) 

Like all tools, it's really only as good as the person using the tool.  That's not the tool's fault.
 

53 minutes ago, Nich said:

I would love to know how you got your MJ to behave so nicely as mine blows fuel out the RCS continuously.

There are several tricks...  First, use RCS Build Aid to ensure your RCS is balanced around your CoM.  (I generally use Average CoM (average of full and empty CoM) to cover all bases.)  Next, turn off the RCS actuation toggles for yaw, pitch, and roll.  (It goes without saying you need enough SAS.)  MJ doesn't always respect the actuation toggles, but it does often enough to be worth the bother.  (I *think* that's been fixed...  This was filmed in 1.3.0, which is my latest fully populated install.)  Since this is a nuclear powered tanker with only LF onboard, I hedge my bets by using TAC Fuel Balancer to balance my tanks on approach.  (Which brings the CoM to the average CoM.)  Balancing a craft that uses LFO only is a bit tricksy, but not impossible.

Ah almost forgot, don't use too many RCS blocks.  The vehicle in video could probably get away with three if it were a unitary vehicle, but it needs two on the tug for when it's operating unloaded and then two on the cargo tank to balance those two.
 

1 hour ago, Nich said:

But that is not the point, the point is because MJ does the transfer for him he did not understand the mechanics of the transfer.  If he knew how to use advanced transfer that still would not help him if he wanted to do a Kerbin -> Eve -> Eve -> Kerbin -> Jool transfer.

Why he need to do a complex multi-planetary bank shot?  I mean, it's certainly worth bragging rights but it's not like you can't build a ship that will get to Jool without doing one.  Or, to put it another way, it's darn silly to look down on someone for not being able to do some purely arbitrary (and absurdly complicated) task.
 

13 minutes ago, Nich said:

Also doesn't advanced transfer uses only 1 burn with no mid course correction?  Also it doesn't fix inclination but changes it so that you fly by the planet at AN/DN.

Yes, it does use only one burn.  (Though I usually do a mid course correction, it very rarely exceeds 2m/s.)  And yes, it does fix inclination.  And no, it doesn't set a trajectory to pass at AN/DN.  Setting a trajectory at AN/DN is silly, because that's only rarely going to fall into a Hohmann transfer window.

What the advanced transfer function does is create a porkchop plot to locate the cheapest combination of inclination burn and Hohmann transfer burn.

[Nich]

Ha ha well now I am really confused lol.  I thought an advanced transfer and a holmen transfer were 2 different kind of transfers

Holman has AP/PE at arrival/departure and requires a plain change mid course (unless AP/PE are aligned with AN/DN)

Advance transfer will overshoot/undershoot AP/PE so that arrival/departure happens at AN/DN which will be before or after AP/PE

I used https://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ to learn ballistic transfers.  To be honest I have not used MJ for transfers I have just watched Nathienkell and TylerRaze (sorry about the miss spellings) I could be mistaken but I am pretty sure I have found cheaper transfers.  The tool also doesn't give me the ability to have free inclination change (I typically launch into the inclined orbit I would need to fix the Mercury inclination so my actual burn from LEO is all prograde.  I will have to play around with MJ and see for my self.

[kerbiloid]

Saving lives is not a cheating.

Edited November 3, 2018 by kerbiloid

[GrandProtectorDark]

On 11/2/2018 at 7:16 PM, DerekL1963 said:

You cannot cheat in a single player game.

I disagree with that.
Cheat codes in single player games have always been a thing
You very well can cheat by Making a 10000000isp vector engine or just turning on Infinite fuel(Which in one way or another is infinite health(I know that no-crash-damage is a separate thing)).
Using Mech-jeb itself isn't cheating however.
(It is if you participate in a challenge which forbids mechjeb but that isn't the point)


PS:Personally more enjoy flying everything manually but I don't look down on using mechjeb because It does get tedious from time to time for me as well.
 

[Atkara]

On 11/2/2018 at 8:16 PM, DerekL1963 said:

When you can do that from the same starting conditions with only .46 units of monoprop, get back to me.

Technically, he could. What's needed, is to thrust-limit these tasteless RCS blocks to 0.1, do everything at a 0.1 pace and let inertia work to his advantage on the yaw maneuver. 

You could do it too, although the starting conditions you've set, describe a situation past MJ's initial approach maneuver during which, it does burn a rather significant amount of monoprop. Significant because, compared with Lf/LfO, monoprop is the most precious commodity up there -unless you (not you specifically) used up all your fuel, setting up a 'here and now' rendezvous, which is... what it is.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Atkara

[Foxster]

I am  certain that a lot of people would have given up on KSP and/or not recommended it if not for Mechjeb. That would have meant a lot less people buying the game, less money for development and so a worse game for all players, even those who have no interest in MJ. 

KSP is just too hard/tedious for most of us without MJ. 

Edited November 4, 2018 by Foxster

[Atkara]

2 hours ago, Foxster said:

KSP is just too hard/tedious for most of us without MJ. 

Yeah, about that... it's not as easy as an experienced hands-on player can make it look like but on the other hand, it's not as hard as it seems. It's somewhere in the middle and it needs practice. Whether you put time in this, depends on what your goals are in the game.

 

[DerekL1963]

5 hours ago, Atkara said:

You could do it too, although the starting conditions you've set, describe a situation past MJ's initial approach maneuver during which, it does burn a rather significant amount of monoprop.

I'm trying to parse what you mean here...  And honestly it makes zero sense.  It seems that you believe I used a significant amount of monoprop prior to the start of the video, which is untrue.  (Go back and check for yourself, you can see the mono tanks are full at the start of the video.)  I reached the starting conditions entirely on LF (for the nuclear engines) using only MJ's Rendezvous Autopilot.

 

5 hours ago, Atkara said:

Significant because, compared with Lf/LfO, monoprop is the most precious commodity up there -unless you (not you specifically) used up all your fuel, setting up a 'here and now' rendezvous, which is... what it is.

I'm just shaking my head here...  You think the expenditure of a few hundred m/s in rendezvous fuel (less than 50 m/s IIRC for the final approach) used up "all my fuel"?  Again, I refer you to the video where my fuel quantities are plainly visible.

[Atkara]

4 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

I'm trying to parse what you mean here...  And honestly it makes zero sense.  It seems that you believe I used a significant amount of monoprop prior to the start of the video, which is untrue.  (Go back and check for yourself, you can see the mono tanks are full at the start of the video.)  I reached the starting conditions entirely on LF (for the nuclear engines) using only MJ's Rendezvous Autopilot.

I looked at the video before posting. I know the monoprop tanks were full and as far as I could see, the liquid fuel tanks were also full, which prompted my comment on that part.

6 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

I'm just shaking my head here...  You think the expenditure of a few hundred m/s in rendezvous fuel (less than 50 m/s IIRC for the final approach) used up "all my fuel"?  Again, I refer you to the video where my fuel quantities are plainly visible.

No, that was a hypothetical scenario which didn't have to do with you specifically. I believe I was clear on that, as I was also clear that it involved a 'here and now' rendezvous, where someone burns 400-500m/s to get a rendezvous on the same orbit, then burn the same amount to match velocities, leaving less fuel than monoprop, depending on the craft. I didn't say that's what YOU did.

[DerekL1963]

40 minutes ago, Atkara said:

I looked at the video before posting. I know the monoprop tanks were full and as far as I could see, the liquid fuel tanks were also full, which prompted my comment on that part.

The claim "I looked at the video before posting" and the claim "you burned a significant amount of monoprop to get to those starting conditions" are mutually incompatible statements.
 

43 minutes ago, Atkara said:

I believe I was clear on that

No, you aren't really being clear at all.

[Atkara]

30 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

The claim "I looked at the video before posting" and the claim "you burned a significant amount of monoprop to get to those starting conditions" are mutually incompatible statements.

No they're not -because you started the video at 45m. Given that as far as I could see, the Lf tanks were intact, I had every reason to believe you placed it there. It's possible I couldn't see well.

EDIT: Indeed I couldn't see well. DV Stats was covering the resource readouts.

Anyway, it seems docking autopilot doesn't come to a stop (or it does?) at say, 1000m before final approach. Good for it (if it indeed happens like that).

30 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

No, you aren't really being clear at all.

Which part of "not you specifically" did you miss?

Edited November 4, 2018 by Atkara

[DerekL1963]

4 hours ago, Atkara said:

No they're not -because you started the video at 45m. Given that as far as I could see, the Lf tanks were intact, I had every reason to believe you placed it there. It's possible I couldn't see well.

If you didn't know, you could have asked.  Or you could have read my very first reply to you (about 5 hours ago), in which I explained how I reached the starting conditions.
 

4 hours ago, Atkara said:

Anyway, it seems docking autopilot doesn't come to a stop (or it does?) at say, 1000m before final approach. Good for it (if it indeed happens like that).

I reached the starting conditions depicted in the video (50 meters between the vehicles) using nothing but the rendezvous autopilot.  At 1km out, IIRC the active vehicle was tail first to the target and counting down to the final braking maneuver.

Then the video begins, then I engage the docking autopilot about thirty seconds into the video.

I can capture the rendezvous procedure if you're interested.

[Atkara]

1 minute ago, DerekL1963 said:

I can capture the rendezvous procedure if you're interested.

No, not necessary. I wouldn't ask you to do something like that, either way.

[LaydeeDem]

Only skimmed through the thread, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents as someone who's been playing since 2011:

 

When it first came out I used to be really elitist about Mechjeb use. I considered it "cheating" and a "crutch". But through the years I've come to change my opinion:

 

There's literally nothing wrong with using Mechjeb. To say otherwise is just gatekeeping which is never productive. I really don't see a point in discouraging certain playstyles. It's your game. Play how you like! No one should be able to take that away from you or think less of you because of that.

[Atkara]

14 hours ago, Nutt007 said:

When it first came out I used to be really elitist about Mechjeb use.

Heh... nowadays you're branded an elitist, just by not using the thing. And don't dare to even imply you don't need it. Sometimes I wonder who really hates whom 

[Hotel26]

As a software engineer, I have the greatest respect for the accomplishment of engineering that MechJeb represents and a great deal of gratitude to Sarbian for performing this astounding feat.

MechJeb is arguably the most sophisticated mod ever written for KSP [not wanting to touch off another thread], but it is undoubtedly a Very Sophisticated Opus.  There are those certainly who may feel they can do a better job hands-on at certain tasks MJ performs.  I do not dispute them, of course.  To all of us I do say, could you design, implement and deliver a better mod than MechJeb?  In real life.  Not could you, but would you -- make this large an undertaking?

I was once told that the mark of a great engineer was the tenacity to finish and deliver.  The effort to do so, particularly just for the love of the task, is incredibly difficult.

I have nothing but the greatest respect and admiration for Sarbian and for MechJeb.  It has undeniably made a massive contribution to the KSP community.

At one time, MechJeb was, for me, my best teacher.  Thank you, Sarbian, and thank you, MechJeb.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Hotel26