[WIN/MAC/LINUX] KSP Trajectory Optimization Tool v1.6.10 [Major LVD Improvements!]

[drhay53]

1 minute ago, Three_Pounds said:

I'm using 1.5.8. That might be the reason. You should be able to reproduce this by yourself though.

Well it's just not working. I do the following, starting from the file I sent you:

1) Change initial state: ecc=0.005, arg. peri=354.507, true anom=0

2) change coast to TEI, True Anomaly = 0, opt bounds -2.5 to 2.5

3) change DV maneuver: radial=0, uncheck opt, normal=0, prograde=1010, bounds 1000 to 1300

Then I run the optimization and I end without an Eve encounter, even after several runs. Nothing is up against a bound. I'm stumped.

How do I get v1.5.8? 

 

[ThreePounds]

3 minutes ago, drhay53 said:

How do I get v1.5.8? 

From this post. I'm using the pre release but haven't run into bugs and it fixes some issues that I had related to the MA so give it a try.

If it still doesn't work, upload the file again and I'll have another look. But the way you describe it is the exact way I did it so I have no clue what's different.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Three_Pounds

[drhay53]

6 minutes ago, Three_Pounds said:

From this post. I'm using the pre release but haven't run into bugs and it fixes some issues that I had related to the MA so give it a try.

If it still doesn't work, upload the file again and I'll have another look. But the way you describe it is the exact way I did it so I have no clue what's different.

I downloaded v1.5.8, did the exact steps listed above to my file, and now I'm getting the Eve encounter properly. This is certainly worrisome to me.

[Hoid]

Hello, so I've been trying to arrange some gravity assists to go to jool in the least delta v possible. I tried Kerbin-Eve-Kerbin-Jool and Kerbin-Eve-Kerbin-Kerbin-Jool in the "Multi flyby sequencer", but the results I've been getting are quite expensive in delta v (~5 km/s) which I find strange...

Am I doing something wrong? 

So this is the data I got after 25 runs, (I'm not sure how to use it though):

Spoiler

Hyperbolic Departure & Flyby Orbits
---------------------------------------------
Hyperbolic Departure Orbit from Kerbin
---------------------------------------------
Semi-major Axis =               -108.006 km
Eccentricity =                  7.481138718
Inclination =                   0.749 deg
Right Ascension of AN =         189.028 deg
Argument of Periapse =          179.985 deg
---------------------
Out. Hyp. Vel. Unit Vect X =    -0.287256324
Out. Hyp. Vel. Unit Vect Y =    0.957766108
Out. Hyp. Vel. Unit Vect Z =    -0.012957137
Out. Hyp. Vel. Magnitude =      5.718240262 km/s
---------------------------------------------
Inbound Hyperbolic Flyby Orbit to Eve
---------------------------------------------
Semi-major Axis =               -731.801 km
Eccentricity =                  2.8172
Inclination =                   172.233 deg
Right Ascension of AN =         7.098 deg
Argument of Periapse =          183.061 deg
Periapse Radius =               1329.831 km
---------------------------------------------
Outbound Hyperbolic Flyby Orbit from Eve
---------------------------------------------
Semi-major Axis =               -731.801 km
Eccentricity =                  2.8172
Inclination =                   172.233 deg
Right Ascension of AN =         7.098 deg
Argument of Periapse =          183.061 deg
Periapse Radius =               1329.831 km
---------------------------------------------
Inbound Hyperbolic Flyby Orbit to Kerbin
---------------------------------------------
Semi-major Axis =               -140.551 km
Eccentricity =                  9.7933
Inclination =                   3.917 deg
Right Ascension of AN =         284.578 deg
Argument of Periapse =          84.139 deg
Periapse Radius =               1235.910 km
---------------------------------------------
Outbound Hyperbolic Flyby Orbit from Kerbin
---------------------------------------------
Semi-major Axis =               -140.551 km
Eccentricity =                  9.7933
Inclination =                   3.917 deg
Right Ascension of AN =         284.578 deg
Argument of Periapse =          84.139 deg
Periapse Radius =               1235.910 km
---------------------------------------------
Inbound Hyperbolic Flyby Orbit to Kerbin
---------------------------------------------
Semi-major Axis =               -140.551 km
Eccentricity =                  5.7669
Inclination =                   0.514 deg
Right Ascension of AN =         300.561 deg
Argument of Periapse =          99.986 deg
Periapse Radius =               670.000 km
---------------------------------------------
Outbound Hyperbolic Flyby Orbit from Kerbin
---------------------------------------------
Semi-major Axis =               -90.331 km
Eccentricity =                  8.4172
Inclination =                   0.514 deg
Right Ascension of AN =         300.561 deg
Argument of Periapse =          99.986 deg
Periapse Radius =               670.000 km
---------------------------------------------
Inbound Hyperbolic Orbit to Jool
---------------------------------------------
Hyperbolic Excess Vel. =        1.994 km/s

Sun-Centric Transfer Orbits
---------------------------------------------
Phase 1 Transfer Orbit (Kerbin -> Eve)
---------------------------------------------
Semi-major Axis =             33142991.942 km
Eccentricity =                  0.706247582
Inclination =                   0.414 deg
Right Ascension of AN =         276.872 deg
Argument of Periapse =          108.275 deg
Period =                    35014020.2169 sec
Departure True Anomaly =        71.725 deg
Arrival True Anomaly =          0.591 deg
---------------------------------------------
Phase 2 Transfer Orbit (Eve -> Kerbin)
---------------------------------------------
Semi-major Axis =             21475479.767 km
Eccentricity =                  0.564045947
Inclination =                   0.414 deg
Right Ascension of AN =         276.879 deg
Argument of Periapse =          82.183 deg
Period =                    18262857.2104 sec
Departure True Anomaly =        26.676 deg
Arrival True Anomaly =          277.817 deg
---------------------------------------------
Phase 3 Transfer Orbit (Kerbin -> Kerbin)
---------------------------------------------
Semi-major Axis =             15940399.904 km
Eccentricity =                  0.515542361
Inclination =                   0.000 deg
Right Ascension of AN =         0.000 deg
Argument of Periapse =          22.569 deg
Period =                    11678934.6975 sec
Departure True Anomaly =        254.309 deg
Arrival True Anomaly =          105.691 deg
---------------------------------------------
Phase 4 Transfer Orbit (Kerbin -> Jool)
---------------------------------------------
Semi-major Axis =             40814007.587 km
Eccentricity =                  0.769376941
Inclination =                   0.090 deg
Right Ascension of AN =         308.260 deg
Argument of Periapse =          106.974 deg
Period =                    47848493.9358 sec
Departure True Anomaly =        73.026 deg
Arrival True Anomaly =          180.559 deg
---------------------------------------------
Kerbin Departure Date = 
               Year 19, Day 330 02:34:50.967
                      (172744490.967 sec UT)
Eve Arrival Date = 
               Year 23, Day 197 04:10:09.798
                      (206683809.798 sec UT)
Kerbin Arrival Date = 
               Year 25, Day 117 05:35:48.895
                      (223364148.895 sec UT)
Kerbin Arrival Date = 
               Year 26, Day 368 01:15:34.726
                      (237971734.726 sec UT)
Jool Arrival Date = 
               Year 29, Day 165 05:00:51.239
                      (261205251.239 sec UT)
---------------------------------------------
Total Mission Duration = 
              9 Years, 261 Days 02:26:00.272

DV Maneuver Information
---------------------------------------------
Burn Information to Depart Kerbin
---------------------------------------------
Total Delta-V =                 4.295 km/s
Prograde Delta-V =              4294.598 m/s
Orbit Normal Delta-V =          -85.521 m/s
Radial Delta-V =                1.504 m/s
---------------------
Burn True Anomaly =             9.028 deg
---------------------------------------------
Burn Information to Depart Eve
---------------------------------------------
Total Delta-V =                 0.000 km/s
Prograde Delta-V =              0.001 m/s
Orbit Normal Delta-V =          0.000 m/s
Radial Delta-V =                0.000 m/s
---------------------
Burn True Anomaly =             0.000 deg
---------------------------------------------
Burn Information to Depart Kerbin
---------------------------------------------
Total Delta-V =                 0.000 km/s
Prograde Delta-V =              -0.000 m/s
Orbit Normal Delta-V =          -0.000 m/s
Radial Delta-V =                0.000 m/s
---------------------
Burn True Anomaly =             0.000 deg
---------------------------------------------
Burn Information to Depart Kerbin
---------------------------------------------
Total Delta-V =                 1.073 km/s
Prograde Delta-V =              1073.117 m/s
Orbit Normal Delta-V =          -0.000 m/s
Radial Delta-V =                -0.000 m/s
---------------------
Burn True Anomaly =             0.000 deg
---------------------------------------------
Total Mission Delta-V =         5.369 km/s
 

Finally, is there a tutorial specifically for flybys that I should read on? clearly I'm doing something wrong here...

Thanks in advance.

[drhay53]

So, in practice, how do people actually get things accurate enough in KSP to execute a mission you've planned? Like, can someone walk through the actual execution of a mission with MechJeb? 

Do you use the real orbit you're in, and re-run things in MA? Do you compute mid-course corrections on the fly? In trying to execute my first mission, it seems nearly impossible to get things accurate enough in-game.

Edit: FWIW, here's my own experience. This is for a Kerbin-Eve-Duna gravity assist

1) Try to reach initial orbit from MA in KSP. Use MechJeb for inclination and longitude of ascending node. Burn radially to shift argument of periapse. 

2) Once the orbit is as close as I can get it, import the orbit into MA. Re-run the optimizer with the 'real' orbit, but only for satisfying the constraints at Eve. 

3) Upload the maneuver to KSP

4) Execute it with MJ; small corrections are needed when burn finishes (note to self; use RCS on future missions for extremely fine-tunable maneuvers). 

5) The gravity assist wasn't quite as powerful as the one I had in MA; apoapsis fell a little short of Duna. Used Mechjeb to set up a "fine-tune closest approach" burn, which was about the same size as the burn I had calculated with MA. 

All-in-all, I was fairly pleased with the mission. Although, if I needed to use Duna for another assist, I'm not sure how I would get everything accurate enough. I guess it would look something like importing whatever 'real' transfer orbit I got in KSP into MA, and then optimizing a mid-course burn to get the correct flyby orbit from MFMS. However, I don't feel like I could plan out a super-long chain of assists with MA and then execute them accurately enough without this procedure. 

Edited September 24, 2017 by drhay53

[Drew Kerman]

@Three_Pounds or anyone else, do you guys also experience stolen focus while running the MFMS with more than 1 run set? As in, you click on another window and immediately focus goes back to the Genetic Algorithm. I somehow got it to not do this at one point yesterday but now it seems to only want to do this again and given this feature has been around for a while with no one reporting it I'm wondering if it's something with my machine...

[ThreePounds]

11 hours ago, drhay53 said:

So, in practice, how do people actually get things accurate enough in KSP to execute a mission you've planned? Like, can someone walk through the actual execution of a mission with MechJeb? 

I like the way you did it. It's actually pretty close to what I do. I usually have two MA files. One for the mission planning and one for the actually execution of the mission that I update to the current vessel state. It can be a bit tedious to run the optimizer after I have reached a major mission mile stone or after a manoeuvre  (sometimes several times) but doing so ensures that I am still on the correct course for complex trajectories.

 

8 minutes ago, Drew Kerman said:

@Three_Pounds or anyone else, do you guys also experience stolen focus while running the MFMS with more than 1 run set? As in, you click on another window and immediately focus goes back to the Genetic Algorithm. I somehow got it to not do this at one point yesterday but now it seems to only want to do this again and given this feature has been around for a while with no one reporting it I'm wondering if it's something with my machine...

I have never seen that issue. The window keeps updating causing the icon in the task bar to turn to the highlight colour and flash every time it does so but since it updates so quickly it's more like a steady highlight colour. It doesn't steal focus though and doesn't come to the foreground so I can continue writing this post for example while I run a MFMS job just to test this for you.

I'm using Windows 10 Professional.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Three_Pounds

[Drew Kerman]

2 minutes ago, Three_Pounds said:

I have never seen that issue. The window keeps updating causing the icon in the task bar to turn to the highlight colour and flash every time it does so but since it updates so quickly it's more like a steady highlight colour. It doesn't steal focus though and doesn't come to the foreground so I can continue writing this post for example while I run an MFMS just to test this for you.

I'm using Windows 10 Professional.

yea OK I'm on Win10 Pro as well. Might be something to do with my multiple monitors. I'll keep poking at it thx

Edited September 24, 2017 by Drew Kerman

[ThreePounds]

1 minute ago, Drew Kerman said:

yea OK I'm on Win10 Pro as well. Might be something to do with my multiple monitors. I'll keep poking at it thx

That's a pity because my second monitor died a few weeks ago and it's already on the landfill otherwise I could have tested this for you.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Three_Pounds

[Drew Kerman]

On 9/23/2017 at 5:47 AM, Drew Kerman said:

Came across an error during on of my runs. Log file.

Ok @Arrowstar I actually managed to stumble across a reproducible scenario for this error

1. Open KSPTOT and MFMS
2. Set launch window open to Year 3 Day 1
3. Set launch window close to Year 4 Day 1
4. Set Number of Runs to 50
5. Set course for Kerbin->Duna-Eve->Jool
6. Set Time Bounds for Kerbin->Duna to 38 Min/154 Max days
7. Set Time Bounds for Duna->Eve to 28 Min/112 Max days
8. Set Time Bounds for Eve->Jool to 107 Min/428 Max days
9. Start it up, and it should tank at Run #34

If no one else can reproduce, maybe try it with this bodies file. I got it to crash out on Run #34 three times in a row before posting this.

[Arrowstar]

22 hours ago, Drew Kerman said:

Ok @Arrowstar I actually managed to stumble across a reproducible scenario for this error

1. Open KSPTOT and MFMS
2. Set launch window open to Year 3 Day 1
3. Set launch window close to Year 4 Day 1
4. Set Number of Runs to 50
5. Set course for Kerbin->Duna-Eve->Jool
6. Set Time Bounds for Kerbin->Duna to 38 Min/154 Max days
7. Set Time Bounds for Duna->Eve to 28 Min/112 Max days
8. Set Time Bounds for Eve->Jool to 107 Min/428 Max days
9. Start it up, and it should tank at Run #34

If no one else can reproduce, maybe try it with this bodies file. I got it to crash out on Run #34 three times in a row before posting this.

Thanks for the steps, I'm trying them now.

Someone above asked about the application taking focus while the Optimizer runs.  I can look into it, but it may not be possible because it's internal MATLAB behavior.  I'll see though.

[Drew Kerman]

9 minutes ago, Arrowstar said:

Someone above asked about the application taking focus while the Optimizer runs

That was me again. Lowdown is that I got it not to steal focus at one point and I have no idea how. @Three_Pounds says it doesn't do it for him under the same OS, no one else reported how it behaves on their system. I haven't really looked into it much further myself, I just let it run when I'm not around or when I'm doing stuff like web browsing where clicking, scrolling & watching videos are still possible. The fact that I can pause it when I want to actually type & stuff is very nice.

I think tho maybe I should re-install KSPTOT and/or Matlab because I've also noticed that my options for the porkchop plotter and burn departure are not saving when I exit the application. Should they be saving? If they should be saving and mine are not that may indicate I have some sort of install issue that could affect the focus-stealing.

Also speaking of the Compute Departure Options, if I set it to 100 the MFMS still only goes around 50 times when calculating departure burns after running. Shouldn't it also use this setting?

Edited September 27, 2017 by Drew Kerman

[Arrowstar]

27 minutes ago, Drew Kerman said:

That was me again. Lowdown is that I got it not to steal focus at one point and I have no idea how. @Three_Pounds says it doesn't do it for him under the same OS, no one else reported how it behaves on their system. I haven't really looked into it much further myself, I just let it run when I'm not around or when I'm doing stuff like web browsing where clicking, scrolling & watching videos are still possible. The fact that I can pause it when I want to actually type & stuff is very nice.

I got an error like this.  Is this what you see in your log?

Error using atan2
Inputs must be real.

Error in computeHyperOrbitFromMultiFlybyParams (line 46)
    hTheta = atan2(eccHat(3,:),thHat(3,:));

Error in multiFlybyObjFunc (line 139)
    [hSMAIn, hEccIn, hIncIn, hRAANIn, hArgIn, ~, ~, rp] = computeHyperOrbitFromMultiFlybyParams(smaIn, eIn, hHat, sHat, true);

Error in multiFlybyExec>@(x)multiFlybyObjFunc(x,numRevsArr,bodiesInfo,celBodyData) (line 50)
    fitnessfcn = @(x) multiFlybyObjFunc(x, numRevsArr,bodiesInfo,celBodyData);

Error in createAnonymousFcn>@(x)fcn(x,FcnArgs{:}) (line 11)
fcn_handle = @(x) fcn(x,FcnArgs{:});

 

[Drew Kerman]

1 minute ago, Arrowstar said:

I got an error like this.  Is this what you see in your log?

Bingo. Also I did link a log file of my own with that error in the post that you originally quoted Here it is again if you want to compare.

[Drew Kerman]

@Arrowstar I added stuff to my reply to you here in case you didn't see the edits

Also have a mission file for you to look at, I'm getting a weird result for a function value coast. Repro steps:

1. Add Coast to Pe state
2. Switch Pe coast to UT coast and back off the time to 16h 55m (same day, seconds)
3. Add function coast with 70 as the function value for altitude (so I just enter 70 and leave everything else alone)
4. Advance the script up to the last event
5. You should see the trajectory go through the planet and come out the other side at 70km rather than coast to 70km heading towards the planet

I've done this before a couple of times and it worked fine - no idea why this time it's waiting to find the value on the outbound side. I tried playing with Ref. Celestial Body, optimizer settings for the coast state (69min/71max) and set the number of state logs per coast to 5000

[Arrowstar]

@Drew Kerman: Okay, I think I found the bug.  There was an... issue (not sure I'd call it a bug directly) with some code in the Lambert solver that was producing complex numbers with a zero imaginary part  (so, for example, 4 + 0i) for some reason that I don't understand.  It only happened on rare occasions.  These complex numbers propagated until they hit something that couldn't handle them and then the code exploded as we saw.  I have hopefully fixed the issue.

I'm going to look into the window focus issue and your mission file weirdness tomorrow hopefully.  I might even have a new build to try out by then!

[Drew Kerman]

9 hours ago, Arrowstar said:

I'm going to look into the window focus issue and your mission file weirdness tomorrow hopefully.

Sounds great but I got another one for you too - mission file

1. Set SOI transition revs to 100
2. Coast to next SOI
3. Coast to Periapsis
4. Observe no trajectory shown for Kerbin orbit, it just goes straight out to the sun Pe

Wonder if it really is just barely nicking Kerbin's SOI

[Arrowstar]

I've resolved the issue with the MFMS code stealing focus, I believe.  Hurrah!  It was an easy matter of just side-stepping some internal MATLAB logic (more or less) and then keeping the figure window around to be re-written to instead of open/closed each time the GA stops and starts.

On 9/27/2017 at 12:18 PM, Drew Kerman said:

@Arrowstar I added stuff to my reply to you here in case you didn't see the edits

Also have a mission file for you to look at, I'm getting a weird result for a function value coast. Repro steps:

1. Add Coast to Pe state
2. Switch Pe coast to UT coast and back off the time to 16h 55m (same day, seconds)
3. Add function coast with 70 as the function value for altitude (so I just enter 70 and leave everything else alone)
4. Advance the script up to the last event
5. You should see the trajectory go through the planet and come out the other side at 70km rather than coast to 70km heading towards the planet

I've done this before a couple of times and it worked fine - no idea why this time it's waiting to find the value on the outbound side. I tried playing with Ref. Celestial Body, optimizer settings for the coast state (69min/71max) and set the number of state logs per coast to 5000

The "go to function" code uses an algorithm to find the "zeros" (roots) of the function that correspond  to the desired value.  Here's a plot of the absolute value of your altitude over time (minus 70 km).  Note the two points at which the plot is zero.  Because of the two distinct zero points, it's a toss up as to which root the code will find.  This is the problem, though it's not a bug, it's a property of the numerics. 

To mitigate this, use the "maximum propagation time" input in the coast dialog and set it to something  before the second root, say 500 seconds.  You should get the result you want.

I'm still looking at the last item you shared.  I'll hopefully have a new build out tonight.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Arrowstar

[Drew Kerman]

2 hours ago, Arrowstar said:

To mitigate this, use the "maximum propagation time" input in the coast dialog and set it to something  before the second root, say 500 seconds

Argh shoulda thought of that Makes sense what you said about the problem being numerics

[Arrowstar]

Okay, here's a new pre-release for KSPTOT v.1.5.8.  This resolves the issue with the MFMS complex number bug described above, should prevent MFMS from stealing focus while running multiple runs, and implements a new, experimental algorithm to help resolve the Mission Architect SoI transition issue noted by @Drew Kerman.

I would ask everyone who uses KSPTOT regularly to please give Mission Architect a try over the next few days and see how that works, particularly A) with finding SoI transitions and B) optimization performance.  I did a bunch of testing myself yesterday and everything seems to work now, but the more eyes on this the better.

Finally, a quick announcement looking towards the future.  It's been 2 years since I've updated the MATLAB Compiler Runtime and I think that, with the next version (probably 1.6.0), I'll begin looking into moving to MATLAB R2017b.  If anyone has any comments or concerns about this, please let me know ASAP.  Thanks!

[Drew Kerman]

4 hours ago, Arrowstar said:

If anyone has any comments or concerns about this, please let me know ASAP

I have no idea what this would entail since I don't use Matlab outside of KSPTOT so unfortunately can't provide any feedback here. But if you're on the fence still when it comes time to make a decision and list some improvements and possible issues that will come as a result of the update I can at least give my opinion as to whether it would be worth the effort

Also question about the MFMS - I'm currently running 50 sequences on each planetary combo I'm trying to look for as nice a result as possible. After I run through a myriad of planet combinations I was planning to pick like 2-3 of the best routes and run each through like 500 sequences to really bring out any potential gold nuggets. Would that just be overkill?

I will let you know if I come across any more issues with the latest pre-release. Thanks for that!!

[Arrowstar]

20 minutes ago, Drew Kerman said:

Also question about the MFMS - I'm currently running 50 sequences on each planetary combo I'm trying to look for as nice a result as possible. After I run through a myriad of planet combinations I was planning to pick like 2-3 of the best routes and run each through like 500 sequences to really bring out any potential gold nuggets. Would that just be overkill?

That sounds great.  Just be sure to set aside a night or two for running all those sessions!

And yes, if you see anything with MA and SoI transitions, please let me know.  I need to actually get this pre-release out as an official release at some point.

[Drew Kerman]

10 hours ago, Arrowstar said:

And yes, if you see anything with MA and SoI transitions, please let me know.

will be using these regularly over the coming days so if anything pops up I'll continue to report

Regarding the MFMS & general options tho there are a few things I think you may have missed from my earlier posts:

• KSPTOT isn't saving my Edit->Options settings from session to session. Is it supposed to?
• I also have to reload my bodies.ini file over the default every time I start the application - I thought I remembered it saving and loading the last-used file on startup
• Should the MFMS use the Compute Departure Options when calculating the departure burns? Currently it always uses 50 iterations regardless of the setting

I ran the planet combos that were giving me the errors before and they all completed. Nice!

Unfortunately the Genetic Algorithm still constantly steals window focus on my machine. Must be something about my OS apps that are running in the taskbar or whatever. I don't know. I got it not to do it once but I have no idea how or why. I'm not going to make a big fuss over it however since my PC is nice and fast so I'm churning out 50-run sets in under an hour, 1-2hrs at the outside and I can let it run in the background when I'm doing stuff like watching videos & clicking around the web, away from my PC or sleeping. Then I can pause it if I need to type stuff like this, and I'd not like it running while doing anything else anyways since it would just put extra strain on the CPU. I very much appreciate that you tried to fix it tho and wouldn't bother spending time chasing it down unless other ppl report the same problem.

[Arrowstar]

3 hours ago, Drew Kerman said:

will be using these regularly over the coming days so if anything pops up I'll continue to report

Thanks!

Quote

• KSPTOT isn't saving my Edit->Options settings from session to session. Is it supposed to?

No, but it easily could.  Would you like it to?

Quote

• I also have to reload my bodies.ini file over the default every time I start the application - I thought I remembered it saving and loading the last-used file on startup

It should... but I just tested it and it doesn't.  Looks like a bug.  I'll fix it!  Thanks for the report.

Quote

• Should the MFMS use the Compute Departure Options when calculating the departure burns? Currently it always uses 50 iterations regardless of the setting

It doesn't but it could.  Do you think it should?  (That it, is that the intuitive response the user expects?)

Quote

Unfortunately the Genetic Algorithm still constantly steals window focus on my machine. Must be something about my OS apps that are running in the taskbar or whatever. I don't know. I got it not to do it once but I have no idea how or why. I'm not going to make a big fuss over it however since my PC is nice and fast so I'm churning out 50-run sets in under an hour, 1-2hrs at the outside and I can let it run in the background when I'm doing stuff like watching videos & clicking around the web, away from my PC or sleeping. Then I can pause it if I need to type stuff like this, and I'd not like it running while doing anything else anyways since it would just put extra strain on the CPU. I very much appreciate that you tried to fix it tho and wouldn't bother spending time chasing it down unless other ppl report the same problem.

I'm at a loss to be honest.  It definitely works for me, I made sure to test it before I uploaded the new executable.  Could you maybe post a video or GIF somewhere that shows the behavior?  I'd like to see what you're seeing.

[Drew Kerman]

3 hours ago, Arrowstar said:

No, but it easily could.  Would you like it to?

If it's easily done then yes, I would.

3 hours ago, Arrowstar said:

It doesn't but it could.  Do you think it should? 

Well it's what I expected anyways Can't speak for anyone else but yea that did seem to be the exact same thing as what it was doing during the porkchop plotter. If you think that an increase of this number will have a beneficial effect on the MFMS results then I definitely would like to have it run more times there as well.