pap1723

[WIP] [1.2.2] Career Evolution Contract Pack - BETA Release v0.3 Updated 3-27-2017

84 posts in this topic

6 hours ago, pap1723 said:

Ahhhhhhhh, @/stations does not exist. I worked with some other code and used a different name to declare the stations. I will fix that as well.

Great!

So, when will the next update be available?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, pap1723 said:

Ahhhhhhhh, @/stations does not exist. I worked with some other code and used a different name to declare the stations. I will fix that as well.

Really?  then what is this:

    DATA
    {
        type = List<Vessel>
        requiredValue = false
        stations = AllVessels().Where(v => v.VesselType() == Station)
        title = Find the stations
    }
	
	// Find a body that we have returned from that does not have a space station
    DATA
    {
        type = CelestialBody
        requiredValue = true
        uniquenessCheck = CONTRACT_ACTIVE
        targetBody1 = ReturnedFromBodies().Where(body => @/stations.Where(v => v.CelestialBody() == body).Count() == 0).SelectUnique()
		title = Must have returned from a Celestial Body, but not have any stations deployed.
    }

This is in the 10-SpaceStations.cfg file, looks like stations IS defined, in the Data section.  I'll freely admit it is generating an error, but I have no idea why.

Edited by linuxgurugamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TawynT said:

I was working on the "Landing on the Mun with Extended Stay" contract today. I sent a small lander with a rover that had a command seat to the Mun and visited all the sites with the rover (and a kerbal).

Upon leaving the rover and getting back into the lander I noticed that I lost the contract progress for visiting the sites. Switching back to the rover showed the progress as completed again (but not on the lander I was planning to return with, even though it had the kerbal that visited the sites in it).

Since one of the requirements to complete it is to return home safely, it appears you can only complete it by visiting all sites with exact vessel that you're going to return with (and kerbals alone don't count).

Was just wondering if this is intended or just a limitation in the way contracts are tracked.

@TawynT This is a slight limitation in the contract system, but more in the way the contract was constructed. I have changed the layout and order of the contract and going forward, this should not be an issue. There is a mission that is almost exactly the same for Minmus and I have fixed that one as well.

6 hours ago, tater said:

I did a Mun impact mission, and combined it with another mission by including 2 probes, one was aimed at the mun, the other then orbited.

Everything seemed OK, but it balked on the new craft part, even though it was indeed a new craft. I launched the next thing I had, and the existence of a new craft on the pad satisfied it.

@tater Sot he way that the contracts are tracked can sometimes cause funny issues where contracts are considered complete, even when they did not actually happen. To overcome this, I had required New Vessels to be launched. However, in practice it is not working out the way it should be. I have removed the requirement for a New Vessel to be launched for the unmanned missions on the Mun and Minmus.

1 hour ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Really?  then what is this:


    DATA
    {
        type = List<Vessel>
        requiredValue = false
        stations = AllVessels().Where(v => v.VesselType() == Station)
        title = Find the stations
    }
	
	// Find a body that we have returned from that does not have a space station
    DATA
    {
        type = CelestialBody
        requiredValue = true
        uniquenessCheck = CONTRACT_ACTIVE
        targetBody1 = ReturnedFromBodies().Where(body => @/stations.Where(v => v.CelestialBody() == body).Count() == 0).SelectUnique()
		title = Must have returned from a Celestial Body, but not have any stations deployed.
    }

This is in the 10-SpaceStations.cfg file, looks like stations IS defined, in the Data section.  I'll freely admit it is generating an error, but I have no idea why.

@linuxgurugamer I believe that the error is caused by the field being listed as requiredValue = true

I have changed it to false, I believe it will fix the error, but I don't like that the contract is looking for those parameters every couple of minutes anyway.I know that @nightingale has been pretty much away for a while, but I think the contract should look at the REQUIREMENTS first. If they are not met, no need to look at the DATA fields. Now, the issue with that is that some REQUIREMENTS require some of the information pulled from the DATA fields. I do not know if there is a good way to fix that problem.

 

New version should be up shortly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NEW VERSION IS UP! Version 0.3 BETA

https://github.com/pap1723/IntelligentProgression/releases/tag/0.3

DELETE the previous version of this. However, your contracts should still work with your current career save and it should remember what has been completed. Just to be sure, make a quick backup of your save file.

  • Changed missions to Mun and Minmus that required New Vessels. Only the original flyby and the rover missions require New Vessels to be launched.
  • Fixed the Landing & Stay Missions for the Mun and Minmus not tracking the accomplishments despite the player visiting the waypoints.
  • Corrected a typo on the Space Station contracts.
  • Reorganized the folder structure to allow for proper and easier installation

 

I have not had time (and won't for a while) to test the mission changes, but I have tested to make sure that KSP is not throwing any errors and it looks clean. Thank you all for the continued support and feedback! Hopefully this will be the last Beta version before a true release. Well that might not be true, I need some graphics work done to make a logo for a company that offers these contracts, and that is something that I am NOT good at.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mun Exploration set of missions is titled "Moon Exploration," whereas Minmus is "Minmus Exploration."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tater said:

The Mun Exploration set of missions is titled "Moon Exploration," whereas Minmus is "Minmus Exploration."

That is due to the fact that I cannot dynamically name the full set of Missions. It is designed to be used with Real Solar System as well so I went with Moon Exploration because even the Mun is a moon. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of graphic did you have in mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, pap1723 said:

I have changed it to false, I believe it will fix the error, but I don't like that the contract is looking for those parameters every couple of minutes anyway.I know that @nightingale has been pretty much away for a while, but I think the contract should look at the REQUIREMENTS first. If they are not met, no need to look at the DATA fields. Now, the issue with that is that some REQUIREMENTS require some of the information pulled from the DATA fields. I do not know if there is a good way to fix that problem.

It used to be much worse, it really used to hit the performance of the system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to test the rendezvous and docking contracts. I managed to select a few at once for the same flight(s). I think perhaps the order I landed the craft in screwed it up, but it again said I did not launch a new vessel, even though obviously 1 was in flight, then I built and launched another---though one of the craft may have been existing already in orbit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now