Test of continuing KER developments [0.24.2]

[Padishar]

After a busy last couple of weeks at work I have finally managed to spend some time working on KER again and I have finally implemented atmospheric thrust correction for Real Fuels. There is an issue with the VES tab showing the uncorrected (vacuum) thrust when you first go to the launch pad but it corrects once you fire the first stage. I'll fix this if possible but it may require a change in Real Fuels.

I have updated the zip linked in the first post...

[ThesaurusRex]

Doesn't show up at all. The parts are there but I don't get anything else. What do I do?

Using the Steam version if that helps any.

*EDIT* used KSP Mod Admin, fixed the problem. But how do I read the delta-v charts? E.g "2,680 / 6,342 m/s". What do the numbers on either side mean?

Edited April 26, 2014 by ThesaurusRex

[Padishar]

But how do I read the delta-v charts? E.g "2,680 / 6,342 m/s". What do the numbers on either side mean?

The first number is the deltaV of the stage and the other is the total deltaV of all the stages up to and including this one...

[Padishar]

NathanKell helpfully pointed me in the right direction to fix the Real Fuels correction when you first go to launch. I have updated the zip linked in the first post to include this fix.

[Zalym]

This fixed it! Thanks a lot for the work you've done.

I couldn't figure out why KER was freezing up in the VAB and during flight after this last update. I was not looking forward to changing to a different mod for this functionality (that really should be incorporated into the base-game anyway).

Resuming flight operations. Thanks again!

[regex]

Some feature requests:

The ability to define a set of stages or parts as "payload" for another set of stages or parts.

The ability to define a part as a "stager" (docking ports, for instance).

The ability to set the "root part" for calculations without having to install Select Root or similar.

Thanks for all the hard work you've put into this so far.

[How2FoldSoup]

I just installed it and the new calculations are fantastic! I checked against my own math by hand and it was spot on and much quicker than the old calculations.

I did get a big with the KER icon in the toolbar flickering whenever the ker info is displayed in the vab. This only happened the first time I loaded up a craft I had been previously working on. Upon reloading the craft, other craft, and going into the SPH I could not reproduce the flickering.

Thank you for such an awesome tool!

Soup

[Padishar]

I did get a big with the KER icon in the toolbar flickering whenever the ker info is displayed in the vab. This only happened the first time I loaded up a craft I had been previously working on. Upon reloading the craft, other craft, and going into the SPH I could not reproduce the flickering.

The flickering appears to depend on the order the game decides to initialise the mods. I have fixed the issue and should be releasing the fix in the next hour or so...

Edit: Ok, make that 20 minutes. I have just updated the link in the first post with a fix for the flickering toolbar button issue.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Padishar

[TheShandyMan]

Some feature requests:

The ability to define a set of stages or parts as "payload" for another set of stages or parts.

+1 on that; although I usually build my payload first; and then use a subassembly launcher I've pre-tested with NRAP. Basically I've made a set of lifters; each rated to a certain payload capacity that can lift to at least a 100k orbit.

The ability to define a part as a "stager" (docking ports, for instance).

The ability to set the "root part" for calculations without having to install Select Root or similar.

These two I don't understand but I might want if I did

Thanks for all the hard work you've put into this so far.

Another +1 to that; I've been using KER almost since I got KSP; and hate it whenever a game update breaks things and I have to wait for a fix :-D

The only thing I can think of on a "wish list" type thing; is in the VAB I would prefer things were more vertical; opposed to horizontal. I tend to build rockets that are typically taller than they are wide; so sometimes KER gets in the way; or I'll go to click on KER and miss and hit a very finicky symetrical part and never get it back in the right place. I think if things were laid out more how they are in flight it wouldn't be as bad.

[Baythan]

The only thing I can think of on a "wish list" type thing; is in the VAB I would prefer things were more vertical; opposed to horizontal. I tend to build rockets that are typically taller than they are wide; so sometimes KER gets in the way; or I'll go to click on KER and miss and hit a very finicky symetrical part and never get it back in the right place. I think if things were laid out more how they are in flight it wouldn't be as bad.

I'm assuming you mean that it would be nice if the KER UI was more vertical in the VAB like it is when actually flying, and I agree. I'd actually really like it if the KER window was more customizable and you could separate the different sections and/or resize it. This would make it seem more like MechJeb, but without the autopilot and I can understand not wanting to appear to be mimicking someone elses work. I stopped using Mechjeb mostly because I DON'T want an autopilot option at all, I just want Delta-V calculations and orbital info on the same screen where I'm flying and staging.

[Padishar]

The ability to define a set of stages or parts as "payload" for another set of stages or parts.

It will require someone with much greater knowledge of Unity/KSP modding to implement any kind of advanced UI extension. The best I've conceived of so far would need both some advanced UI to define a "mission plan" and significant changes to the simulation code to run that plan. I think this is considerably beyond the scope of KER but it could be done as a separate mod that uses the KER simulation code.

The ability to define a part as a "stager" (docking ports, for instance).

I've also thought about how to allow the user some control over the simulated staging, which sounds like it should be considerably easier, but I've not managed to work out any way of doing this in a nice way. Perhaps by implementing a dummy decoupler module and patching it into the various parts you want to be able to "stage". The simulation code would then be able to detect this and treat it as a decoupler despite it not actually being one. Again, I don't know enough about Unity/KSP modding to say if this is possible or how difficult it would be.

The ability to set the "root part" for calculations without having to install Select Root or similar.

You can't use a different root part for the calculations than the vessel actually uses or the calculations will not be accurate. If you mean you want to actually change the root part of the ship then you may as well just use one of the existing mods (assuming they've been updated to work with the changes in 0.23.5).

Thanks for all the hard work you've put into this so far.

You're welcome...

[Padishar]

I'm assuming you mean that it would be nice if the KER UI was more vertical in the VAB like it is when actually flying, and I agree. I'd actually really like it if the KER window was more customizable and you could separate the different sections and/or resize it. This would make it seem more like MechJeb, but without the autopilot and I can understand not wanting to appear to be mimicking someone elses work. I stopped using Mechjeb mostly because I DON'T want an autopilot option at all, I just want Delta-V calculations and orbital info on the same screen where I'm flying and staging.

Unfortunately, there is (or can be) just too much information to lay out in a narrow vertical arrangement. How would you show the stats of this vessel?

Javascript is disabled. View full album

The "Compact" button shrinks the window down to just deltaV and TWR columns which makes it considerably smaller (2nd pic). Those are by far the most useful columns though it might be "nice" if it were a "Custom" button instead and allowed you to configure which columns are shown like the flight engineer does for the rows. I'm not certain what Cybutek is doing with the UI in v1.0 but I think this should be done in that version rather than this one (if it isn't already).

[Paul Kingtiger]

I've been getting some strange results when using the Procedural fairings interstage decoupler. I've checked the results against MecJeb (which doesn't have the same problem). I'll write up some proper information and steps to reproduce tonight and post here.

[TK421d]

ive noticed the procedural thing too. i get extra stages and blanked out calcs. but only when i attach the covers.

i've just been adding counterweights to get my numbers, and switching them out for the covers before launch

[Padishar]

I've been getting some strange results when using the Procedural fairings interstage decoupler. I've checked the results against MecJeb (which doesn't have the same problem). I'll write up some proper information and steps to reproduce tonight and post here.

One thing I do notice is that it doesn't appear to have been updated for 0.23.5 yet. This is probably related to the cause as the way struts work has changed and I had to modify KER to stop struts transferring fuel during the simulation. I suspect this fix has caused the problem (and another issue with nosecones containing fuel) so I will check to see if I can detect struts differently so that certain parts don't get ignored.

It would be a great help if you could post an example craft file (preferably just stock and the mod in question) and a screenshot of the KER window (with show all stages selected if in VAB) and a description of what you think is wrong (if it isn't really obvious from the screenshot).

[How2FoldSoup]

The flickering appears to depend on the order the game decides to initialise the mods. I have fixed the issue and should be releasing the fix in the next hour or so...

Edit: Ok, make that 20 minutes. I have just updated the link in the first post with a fix for the flickering toolbar button issue.

Thank you!

And thank you for all the time spent on this fantastic mod! Like many others I don't want to use mechjeb due to the autopilot and I just want information. Plus I like the UI style more than MJ it feels more Kerbal ^^ Keep up the great work and thank you again!

[regex]

You can't use a different root part for the calculations than the vessel actually uses or the calculations will not be accurate. If you mean you want to actually change the root part of the ship then you may as well just use one of the existing mods (assuming they've been updated to work with the changes in 0.23.5).

The idea behind this is when building, say, an orbital tug I might actually save the tug as a vessel and then bring in a payload as a subassembly, rather than the other way around. That means that the root part will be somewhere in the middle of the craft. IIRC, Engineer doesn't calculate "up" the stages, only "down". I'll check again but I seem to have run into that once or twice recently.

[Paul Kingtiger]

It would be a great help if you could post an example craft file (preferably just stock and the mod in question) and a screenshot of the KER window (with show all stages selected if in VAB) and a description of what you think is wrong (if it isn't really obvious from the screenshot).

Having sat down and looked at it analytically I think that either the issue has been fixed or I was interpreting the data wrong. I've included the screen shots and craft file anyway so it can be double checked, but I think we're ok.

The only other thing that is different is that I normally use KW Rocketry, so I'll try the same style of craft with that installed, to double check.

The craft is a simple Apollo style set-up with a CSM and LM.

http://1drv.ms/1lYwCbd

[Baythan]

I suppose i should have remembered that this thread is about the Delta-V simulation code and NOT about the entire KER mod in general, so my previous post was in the wrong place. Sorry about that.

Padishar, we really appreciate the work you are putting in make KER work for what we really want, which is that D-V info. Thank you, and great job!

[Castun]

So are the delta-V calculations unable to take into account a Procedural interstage fairing base in between an engine and tank with crossfeed enabled? I think that's my problem here, it's not showing me the correct delta-V. It's showing my stage 0 delta V which would be for the docked lander. Here are a couple pictures. Apologies, but I'm running forced IVA mode so wasn't able to get an external view with KER info panel open at same time.

[Padishar]

So are the delta-V calculations unable to take into account a Procedural interstage fairing base in between an engine and tank with crossfeed enabled? I think that's my problem here, it's not showing me the correct delta-V. It's showing my stage 0 delta V which would be for the docked lander. Here are a couple pictures. Apologies, but I'm running forced IVA mode so wasn't able to get an external view with KER info panel open at same time.

http://i.imgur.com/VsOxTG5.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/yHK0w9T.jpg

I don't think this is a problem with the fairing as such. The problem is more that KER simulates the normal staging process and also doesn't currently take into account which engines are active at the start. The staging of your vessel is really messed up. Stage 3 appears to be activating an engine but decoupling it at the same time so that stage has 0 dV. Stage 2 is just a decoupler so there are still no active engines and hence no dV. The same is true for stage 1 just having a chute, no active engines and no dV. Stage 0 does activate an engine and I assume the decoupler that is also fired doesn't detach it from the craft so it does calculate the dV.

To get a sensible readout from KER as it currently works, you will need to modify the staging so that it makes logical sense but it will still not be able to correctly simulate a stage that splits the vessel into two, still working, vessels (or rather, it won't be able to simulate both of the resulting vessels).

[Castun]

Thanks to your advice, I fixed the problem, but...

The decoupler shown in the current stage is the floating node belonging to that interstage fairing adapter. When I decouple the node, since the adapter is still attached to the craft, the decouple staging icon isn't deleted like it would be for a normal decoupler. It gets left in the same stage as the currently active engine which confuses KER. I moved it back out and it fixed the calculation. It just means anytime you have a staging setup like this you have to take care to move that icon back out of the current stage afterwards.

[Padishar]

Thanks to your advice, I fixed the problem, but...

The decoupler shown in the current stage is the floating node belonging to that interstage fairing adapter. When I decouple the node, since the adapter is still attached to the craft, the decouple staging icon isn't deleted like it would be for a normal decoupler. It gets left in the same stage as the currently active engine which confuses KER. I moved it back out and it fixed the calculation. It just means anytime you have a staging setup like this you have to take care to move that icon back out of the current stage afterwards.

I think this should be fixed by a change I did yesterday evening that makes it ignore decouplers that have already been fired. I have made quite a few other tweaks and fixes but didn't get around to updating the DLL zip in the first post. I will try to update the zip later this evening but if you are desperate you should be able to download the two updated DLLs from the github repository. Make sure you are looking at the simulate branch, navigate into Output\Engineer and download the Engineer.dll and EngineerToolbar.dll.

[CaptainKipard]

Sorry if this has been mentioned before but I think the DV calculation should update based on active engines only.

Other than that I'm not having any issues.

[Padishar]

Sorry if this has been mentioned before but I think the DV calculation should update based on active engines only.

Other than that I'm not having any issues.

Thanks for the report. For the active engine thing, please see issue #10 on github.