Whitecat106

[1.1.3] Contract Pack: Historic Missions [V2.3.0] 23/07/2016 - Display Updates and Mars exploration!

How should the pack be separated? (In addition to the Full Pack)  

223 members have voted

  1. 1. How would you like the pack divided?

    • Agency Based
      54
    • Chronologically Based
      65
    • Country Based
      56
    • Era Based (1945-1975, 1976-1996, 1997 - 2017)
      89


Recommended Posts

Having problems with the R-2A mission: I seem to be able to get either the "above 150,000m" check or the "sub-orbital" check, but not both at the same time. I'm thinking that the solution is a deceleration burn from orbit above 150,000m and when it becomes sub-orbital I'll get both checks, but this is not made clear in the description. It's also not clear what "return home" means - whether I'm expected to recover the vehicle at ksc or just land it someplace and recover it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kfsone said:

Having problems with the R-2A mission: I seem to be able to get either the "above 150,000m" check or the "sub-orbital" check, but not both at the same time. I'm thinking that the solution is a deceleration burn from orbit above 150,000m and when it becomes sub-orbital I'll get both checks, but this is not made clear in the description. It's also not clear what "return home" means - whether I'm expected to recover the vehicle at ksc or just land it someplace and recover it.

 

Nope. It went from "Sub-orbital trajectory" on the way up to "Above 150,000m" when I got into orbit and then, when I decelerated, dropped back to "Sub-orbital trajectory" and then back to just "Destination: Kerbin".

Edited by kfsone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, kfsone said:

Nope. It went from "Sub-orbital trajectory" on the way up to "Above 150,000m" when I got into orbit and then, when I decelerated, dropped back to "Sub-orbital trajectory" and then back to just "Destination: Kerbin".

It's a known issue discussed on the previous page (the contract needs to be fixed, right now it needs both an apoapsis and periapsis above 150km, which is definitely no longer sub-orbital.  The two parameters are conflicting, making this contract impossible to complete as is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, nightingale said:

It's a known issue discussed on the previous page (the contract needs to be fixed, right now it needs both an apoapsis and periapsis above 150km, which is definitely no longer sub-orbital.  The two parameters are conflicting, making this contract impossible to complete as is.

Bleah, I was lazy and tried to use the search to see if it was mentioned. Sorry!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 12/3/2015, 7:17:22, gerishnakov said:

I wrote the Vanguard missions with use of a tech tree such as SETI, wherein the first solar panels are unlocked relatively early. Also, you aren't meant to be able to complete the Vanguard missions as soon as they come up. You should get Vanguard and Sputnik missions being offered at more or less the same time, and this is meant to parallel the real history of the space race; the Americans could have beaten the Soviets, if they had gone with the Explorer missions first instead of Vanguard, which is why in game when you complete Sputnik-1 the contract for Explorer-1 becomes available, as the Americans rushed to launch any kind of satellite of their own.

Interesting, and I like it. If I understand the intent correctly, you would get to see/feel the options to be the first to orbit a satellite. And your choices impact your kerbal version of the history. For instance, contracts that all become available at basically the same time are Sputnik, Vanguard, and Explorer. Depending on what the game presents you, and what you choose to accept, will impact the historic recreation. You might choose, like the Americans did, to go for a Vanguard mission...and then find yourself lacking a solar panel (as you would with other tech trees, not that I don't like SETI Tech Tree and others of it's type, they're nice and stock is kinda broken imo). If instead the player chooses a Sputnik or Explorer mission to focus on first, it either matches history or changes it for your game. With this mindset the Vanguard contract should indeed be offered to the player before they have the tech required, such that the player can make that choice to focus on a more complex satellite first despite the increased "cost" of solar panels.

I still think this means you also want Explorer-1 to have its contract dependency be V-2N20 (instead of Sputnik-1) along with the change you earlier suggested fix of R-2A depending on R-1V (instead of V-2N20). Just my opinion.

Thanks again, that I'm even thinking about this is a joy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2015 at 2:28 PM, Whitecat106 said:

I have been very busy lately but I now have a few days off to work on this mod, if someone could please post a list of all the current issues with 1.6.1 I will fix and upload a 1.6.2 patch by the end of the day!

I haven't progressed far but a summary of the fixes/tweaks I've made to my own game are listed here (using \RegularVersion\Full Pack\):

  • (most important) Contract R-2A needs it's Orbit parameter changed to a ReachState parameter
  • (less important) Contract R-2A needs it's CompleteContract requirement changed from V-2N20 to R-1V
  • (optional) Contract Explorer-1 could have its CompleteContract requirement changed from Sputnik-1 to V-2N20 (see my discussion with gerishnakov)
  • (optional) Contract Explorer-6 could have its redundant CompleteContract requirement for Vanguard-1 removed since it also has a CompleteContract requirement for Vanguard-5 (which in turn depends on 4, 3, 2, and 1). edit: I misread this requirement
  • Screenshot of R-2A.cfg diff: http://screencast.com/t/Xwu26FBz8OWy (my version on the right)
  • Screenshot of Explorer-1.cfg diff: http://screencast.com/t/uKmknIgs1pf (my version on the right)
  • Screenshot of Explorer-6.cfg diff: http://screencast.com/t/nt6rMk3O8CU (my version on the right) 

That's all I had actually changed in my game thus far. But I did also make a couple observations that could be looked at:

  1. The R-2A mission has a whole second half to the description in the config that doesn't show up in game in case you didn't already know. Remove line breaks in the config?
  2. The R-1V mission confused me regarding the crewed or uncrewed requirement for the mission. This is because the first thing under "Objectives" is (a note): "Launch the first mammal into space and return it safely to Kerbin." Is a Kerbal a mammal? Is it required to have one on board? Reading further, the combination of languard regarding "returning samples" and the requirements saying something like, "Crew: Unmanned: Complete: Unmanned: Incomplete" just looked buggy and I wasn't confident on what was the right thing to do. I would suggest moving the "note" to the historic briefing/description so I don't have to wonder if a Kerbal is a mammal that needs to be included in my R-1V mission. See observation 3 regarding Crew requirements.
  3. Any idea why all of the Historic Missions I've seen thus far have two "Unmanned: " labels/requirements? Maybe it's a contract configurator thing but other contracts I have don't show it that way." Perhaps this is because the HasCrew parameter uses both minCrew and maxCrew properties? If possible, a better clarification of the Crewed/Uncrewed requirement would've helped me when I first started.
  4. It is easy to get confused about what solar panel is required for meeting the Vanguard-1 requirement because the module name is DeployableSolarPanel, which causes players to assume they need a SolarPanel that has a Deploy option/animation. Perhaps text somewhere in the mission could clarify that any SolarPanel will do, including a Fixed Panel such as OX-STAT Panel? I doubt hiding the Module name is an option but that would be ideal.

 

Edited by Black-Talon
Added screenshots of .cfg diffs - edit2: strikeout of my mistake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings -

 

Firstly - I wanted to say that I have been really enjoying these.  I might not fully understand how one does KSP Contract mods, but I know that this one did require lots of research and the KSP understanding on how to translate historical into ksp-ish.

Secondly - I am just getting the the Apollo missions and I thought I would pass some high level feedback?

1.) The order in which the contracts are now being 'handed' out are in chronological order, but they span from '61 to '75.  I am doing Gemini missions with later Soyuz missions and was curious if there was a way to tighten the gap?

2.) I There are a couple of mission Soyuz/Gemini where I had to 'dock' and "do something for [x] amount of time, then land.  These might be broke, as I would do that, get the green check marks, but the moment I either undock or change my orbit, the check marks go away and don't reset after I land.  So, I don't have the exact specific ones and not sure how hard it is audit these either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am back with a show stopper:

I had Launch Soyuz 18 and dock with Salyut 4
Apollo 1
Launch Salyut 7
Surveyor 7

No other missions are being made available.

Edited by gamerscircle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 choices:  One, I think someone above supplied the updated .cfg information for that mission, so you can [if you are comfortable with editing the file] update it and complete it.  Or you can use the Debug menu to "complete" it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just started using this on a new career.

I think the description of the first CCCP contract (Soviets launching a captured V2) is confusing:

"Launch the R-V1 rocket and return samples back home."

"Unmanned".

I thought. "How on earth am I supposed to do a sample return mission without crew?  Sample return requires crew in stock."

I had to go read the contract's config file to realize "return samples" didn't mean it was a "sample return" mission, and you just have to get some surviving piece of the rocket after landing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time to add SpaceX recover first stage without chutes at KSC contract!!

Edited by bpiltz
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a problem, i finished all contracts from Pre 60's pack and i wait for contracts from other mission packs to show up. So i wait for an entire year and none of Vostok or Mercury missions show up.

I am not happy of this beacuse half of my stock contracts had expired, and oh Bob is crying ;.;  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone,

Its been a while again, I'm sorry about that - more super stressful irl stuff going on! 

But I have afew minutes now to do some fixing.

Repaired in Version 1.6.2:

- Temporary fix for missions not showing up: Raised reputation rewards and reduced prestige of contracts to allow for all to show up.

- Fix of Pre1960's missions.

- *Note* - RSS version not currently updated.

 

Any further issues will be dealt with in version 1.7.0 upon release of KSP 1.1. This will include:

- RSS update

- Reputation fixes

- General contract cleanup

- More 'What if' missions: Big Gemini, Mir-2, Buran planned flights, Space Station Freedom, Moonbase concepts, Columbus Station, Apollo 18 - 20, Skylab-5, and STS-144.

- Updated current missions: Recent ISS expeditions, and Space X.

 

Hopefully I will have more time for this soon, what I really need is someone who can bugtest throughout the early and middle pack and send me a list of the issues! If youre interested send me a message! :)

 

 Whitecat106 :)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Whitecat106Sorry to hear life has you busy busy. I've continued to really enjoy this pack.

I think worth noting, the fixes discussed with @gerishnakov about Contract R-2A needing it's Orbit parameter changed to ReachState along with the dependency on V-2N20 instead of R-1V don't seem to be in the new 1.6.2 version (noted in many places but my consolidation post of issues/experiences is here and I selfishly think it's worth a read :wink:). When either of you can get to these in the next version I think it would be worth it as it was a tough start to an otherwise awesome set of contracts!

Stay well gents. Life first! To The Mun second. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Black-Talon said:

@Whitecat106Sorry to hear life has you busy busy. I've continued to really enjoy this pack.

I think worth noting, the fixes discussed with @gerishnakov about Contract R-2A needing it's Orbit parameter changed to ReachState along with the dependency on V-2N20 instead of R-1V don't seem to be in the new 1.6.2 version (noted in many places but my consolidation post of issues/experiences is here and I selfishly think it's worth a read :wink:). When either of you can get to these in the next version I think it would be worth it as it was a tough start to an otherwise awesome set of contracts!

Stay well gents. Life first! To The Mun second. 

Hello there!

Thank you! :) I had not seen your previous post listing the issues but thank you for your work finding the bugs! I will be updating to 1.6.3 momentarily to fix as much as I can quickly!

Hopefully I can find more time soon, by the time 1.1 comes out things should have settled down for me a bit!

 

1.6.3 Changes:

Fixed R-2A, dependencies for Explorer missions and corrected the description issue.

 

Current 1.7.0 planned changes:

- Clean up of mission descriptions and requirements in Mission Control Center.

- RSS update.

- Clear up confusion in solar panel requirements

- Reputation fixes

- More 'What if' missions: Big Gemini, Mir-2, Buran planned flights, Space Station Freedom, Moonbase concepts, Columbus Station, Apollo 18 - 20, Skylab-5, and STS-144.

- Updated current missions: Recent ISS expeditions, and Space X.

 

Regards,

Whitecat106 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this in versions 1.6.2 and 1.6.3:

Apollo-I.cfg contains line:

prestige = triv

Shouldn't that be

prestige = Trivial

?

Surveyor-7.cfg description:

lunar sample Trivially different from

should be

lunar sample significantly different from

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jimmbal said:

Found this in versions 1.6.2 and 1.6.3:

Apollo-I.cfg contains line:


prestige = triv

Shouldn't that be


prestige = Trivial

?

Surveyor-7.cfg description:


lunar sample Trivially different from

should be


lunar sample significantly different from

 

Oh no :confused: This is a result of me trying to change the reputation issues where contracts were not being spawned, I am not currently in a position to test this myself, but on startup in the debug menu at the main title screen how many contracts does Contract Configurator say are loaded? any red squiggly lines or is this just a description issue in the contracts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the error you are looking for?

[Exception]: ArgumentException: The requested value 'triv' was not found.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings,

Kudos to this MOD ! Though I will have to filter out half the parts due to memory ...

Cmdr Zeta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Whitecat106 said:

Oh no :confused: This is a result of me trying to change the reputation issues where contracts were not being spawned, I am not currently in a position to test this myself, but on startup in the debug menu at the main title screen how many contracts does Contract Configurator say are loaded? any red squiggly lines or is this just a description issue in the contracts?

There were not a ton of problems created from the quick switch from Significant to Trivial (I did a diff between 1.6.1 and 1.6.2 and went over all the changes). The one I noticed was the Surveyor-7.cfg description that contained the word "trivially" and was mistakenly changed to "significantly" as noted by Jimmbal. But to answer your question about the number of contracts loaded, I show only a few yellow contracts due to Warnings about "SpawnPassengersFactory: The passengerName and gender attributes are obsolete since Contract Configurator 1.9.0." I'm afraid I don't have a perfect count as I have other packs loaded. I'll do a quick bit of debugging while updating to 1.6.3 and report back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.6.3 - 475 out of 476 Contracts Loaded

Known bugs:

  1. Apollo-I.cfg has "prestige = triv" and needs to be "prestige = Trivial" (credit to Jimmbal)
  2. Surveyor-7.cfg has a minor description issue where "lunar sample Trivially different from" should be "lunar sample significantly different from" (credit to Jimmbal)
  3. STS-9, STS-41-G, STS-51-G, STS-51-L, STS-61-A, STS-61-C, STS-95 have a warning of unknown significance with their SpawnPassenger Behaviour: "[Warning] The passengerName and gender attributes are obsolete since Contract Configurator 1.9.0, use kerbal instead."
  4. Debug Warning: "Contract group 'FotonMission' contains no contract types of child groups" (but this isn't new)

Seems like a good release to me out of the nearly 500 contracts!

On 1/4/2016 at 1:13 PM, Whitecat106 said:

what I really need is someone who can bugtest throughout the early and middle pack and send me a list of the issues!

@Whitecat106I can happily do the type of stuff I'm doing in the thread (diffing the new releases and offering code review, playing at my own rate and digging in deep enough to report the issue effectively) but not much more. I wouldn't call that thorough but if it's any help at all don't hesitate to ping me with a pre-release to review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cdr_Zeta said:

Kudos to this MOD ! Though I will have to filter out half the parts due to memory ...

Just in case you're missing out on these contracts due to a misunderstanding I thought you might like to know that it doesn't require or install any parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.