Jump to content

Morphisor

Members
  • Posts

    342
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Morphisor

  1. Yeah I just confirmed myself that the mission loads fine under regular playing conditions, so I'm afraid you've got some kind of conflict going on. If you're lucky the ksp.log may provide some hints, look for exceptions and warnings.
  2. No, reputation shouldn't affect this. You might try fast forwarding a bit or just going through other screens on the KSC for a while, it may just be CC not generating the new contract right away, for some reason. Otherwise it's likely to be an issue with a data node not solving, though I can't see any issues for now.
  3. I'd to request an adjustment to the current application of the 'simple experiments' included, being the Simple temperature scan and simple barometer scan. The mod provides distinct definitions for these, making them entirely separate from the 'original' versions of these experiments. They are however only used on one part, the MicroSatWedge. Problem is, ingame there is absolutely no way to distinguish the experiments on this part from the regular versions, since the visible text (such as action name) is all 100% identical to the regular version. This mainly becomes a problem when contracts request a certain experiment to be done, because there's no way a regular player will be able to find this experiment. When I looked into it myself the only thing I could find in fact was a reddit thread about this exact problem, with no definitive solution. So given the very limited usage I'd request this experiment definition to be discontinued; or otherwise be made much more obviously distinct.
  4. So I finally had a few more days of inspiration recently and it pushed me to add what I consider to be the final essentials for this contract pack. I also completed the BDB science/compatibility pass. With all that, after several years of languishing, it is FINALLY time to send this dear pack off to what may quite well be considered the definitive version: ---- **Version 1.0.0 - Many improvements and additions to (Soviet) early missions, making them vastly more interesting - all credits for this go to Wolffy-AU! - Added Nimbus missions. - Added Mariner missions 5-10. - Added Pioneer missions 7-13. - Added Venera missions 4-16. - Added Viking missions. - Added Mars missions 2-7. - Added Helios missions. - Confirmed functionality on KSP 1.12.x. - Updated part requirements and science parameters for Tantares and BDB updates since last release. - Some small fixes and balancing, editing. --- You may be interested to know the full version of the pack (Stock and RSS versions) has just short of 800 missions to enjoy, with the pocket edition now coming in at 370. There's of course a boatload of missions left that didn't make the cut, but there's only so much time and energy one can spend on this. So for me, consider this to be it. nput and pull requests are always welcome, and will of course continue to provide support to maintain functionality.
  5. So, it suddenly dawned on me that I completely forgot to actually release the draft changes. Totally slipped my mind. Oops. Anyway, it's here now for those who didn't already grab the GitHub repo since I made the changes. -- Version 1.2.1: - Improved Local Observation flight subject selection logic to hopefully avoid requesting impossible experiments - Changed max simultaneous contracts to 7, matching the number of available contract types.
  6. The Github master branch should be fully up to date with the latest Tantares and Bluedog releases, do let me know if there's anything I missed in there - but last I checked all contracts loaded well. I still have to work through the science parts of the Apollo contracts, but other than that all compatibility stuff has been done, too (working from CAPFlyer's reports). This includes the OGO missions. I haven't set the prestige values since, at least as far as I'm aware, no tangible benefit to doing so - the credit and reputation rewards are already set separately. The way I see it, anyone playing this pack should already be plenty aware of the significance of most of the missions included, or otherwise be encouraged by the descriptions to read up more for themselves! I guess what I'm also saying is, I don't feel it'd be worth my time go through them all to change it, given the above reasoning. But someone would like to do so and submit a pull request, that'd be fine! For the US missions, all the initial branching off of various programs begins at the Explorer program. Once that gets started, anyhow. Corona-54 comes directly from there since it really is more of a science mission than a recon one, which had a different objective compared to the other Corona missions.
  7. Thanks for checking, that helps build confidence in my intended fix! It's a matter of which filter expressions to include and in which order, to try to avoid incompatible situations. It's quite finnicky but I think it can be done. That wouldn't work I'm afraid, different part of the logic. In any case, I've uploaded what I hope to be a fixed version of the contract on the GitHub master branch. https://github.com/Morphisor244/Research-Advancement-Division In my own test build I couldn't get a problematic experiment request to come up, but I'd appreciate some further testing by other users before I officially push this as an update. I promise to make it official before the end of the week if there's no issues reported.
  8. Yes that is intended behaviour. The contract for multiple biomes iterates on the selected experiments to improve variation in situations requested. I'm just wondering if experiments like temperature scan show up in impossible situations in that contract, too. Because my suspicion is they don't.
  9. I might have an idea for a fix at this point; can you and/or @Phelan (or anyone else for that matter) say if the same issue occurs with the atmospheric investigation contract? That is intended for the same situations after all - but reasons I cannot recall has a slightly different selection setup.
  10. I was not aware of Lua being intended as synchronous at all. Probably the easiest way to adjust for this is to change Rhode's rotation period, which can be done within the rescale config file. Add the parameter dayLengthMultiplier (default value is 1) to the part of the config specifically for Kerbin (which is Rhode) and calculate what value would match Lua's orbit. Obviously this will have the main effect of slowing down Rhode's days as well.
  11. Thanks, looks as I'd expect it to. You can confirm as well that when running the experiment the checkbox doesn't get filled?
  12. The contract shouldn't be requesting a specific situation when it isn't available (at least that I know of), since biome (#1) and situation (#2) are the very first filters it uses to select experiments. Do you have a screenshot and/or save file with such a contract active or offered? Also, if you got X science in there, could you check in its database ingame, which situations it shows as being applicable for temperature scan and crew report (the experiments giving you issue, in any case). I'd like to try to rule out the experiment's own situationMask value here, i.e. what the game provides as available situations for any experiment.
  13. I'm not sure there's anything to be done about that, if I'm understanding you correctly. The contract already filters experiments on the situation level (meaning checking what is available specifically for flying high, in this case). Do you have an example of a contract giving you trouble in this way? And what specifically about it is an issue?
  14. Just to be sure, the GitHub version had removed the moon target body requirement already, since it could lead to possible errors such as reported with Pioneer 1 and 2 above.
  15. So the most basic issues have now been fixed on the Github repo, get your update there if you need it. I fixed Pioneer (both 2 and 3 were affected in stock version), Skylab, Gemini VI-A (stock only, for some reason it hadn't been changed with the rest, all of which had been set up correctly already months ago - didn't throw an error however so I missed that) and Pegasus. All contracts should now work again. I'll look into the different experiments being asked as well, will remove the ones that don't come with the parts sets that represent the actual craft to make it simpler and obvious what to use. Will take a bit of time to get that sorted though.
  16. Which situations an experiment can be run in, is defined on the side of the parts pack (experiment definitions file). If you want to adjust any contracts to give only certain situations, you have to manually edit the contract files yourself to limit the situations it will generate. Refer to the Contract configurator wiki for how-to.
  17. I'm aware of the issues and will try to look into applying fixes and updates to match the recently official BDB releases. Soontm
  18. It's seems odd to me you're getting this many double requests, though I'm aware it does happen occasionally. More importantly though, did you delete the biomedata file with this contract already active in your game? Because that would be my first guess as to what could cause this issue. To be sure, could you run another contract that was entirely newly generated after you deleted the biome data? If it happens again, there's something darker going on.
  19. I'll look into this on the end of Pioneer-2, I could see a possible cause there. The alternative cause is that you are in fact trying to recover Pioneer-1 when instead that craft should end up destroyed as per the mission objectives. I could see contract configurator throwing the error at that point, since the craft that needs to complete the objective stops existing before its completion.
  20. Well bust, I could've sworn that worked. Oh well I'll just break out unnecessary target body bit.
  21. Did you test it in action? The contract should complete as soon as any sub-orbital situation is achieved, since the body is not specified for the reachstate parameter. You're right about IMP-C, the perigee value provided by the NASA catalog seems unlikely, especially given their own pre-launch analysis here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19650007660. The only other values I can find for the supposed orbit are on Astronautics and Gunther's space page, but there's no sources to corroborate these values (229 x 261206 km; https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/explorer_imp-a.htm). Still, that makes more sense for a Delta-C to achieve, so I'll apply these values instead. As for the experiments, each experiment has a number of parts that potentially suit the requirements, but these have seen quite a few changes in BDB since I designed the mission. I may have to re-evaluate this, but that'd take some time. There's no real fix for experiments being hard to identify on my end, since what is visualized in the interface is not the experiment definition and can vary per part. For now I'd suggest using the OSO photometer, Nimbus or Mariner 2 have microwave spectrometry parts. Explorer 29 date is indeed faulty, thanks.
  22. Thanks for spotting that, I'll fix it so Soyuz-5 requires going up with 3 crew like it should.
  23. Looks like a bad install I'm afraid. Try to reinstall from the latest release to doublecheck, Apollo is in there already.
  24. There's a few focused extensions beyond that already, mainly in the dev branch. I still have to get around to finishing what I've got in the works, but don't expect there to be much more to come. It's a lot of work and I've too many other things on my mind.
×
×
  • Create New...