[WIP] Contractpack: Dawn of the Space Age (aka: KSP Campaign)

[theonegalen]

This looks pretty great. I need to clear hard drive space so I can have another KSP install with this campaign installed!

[KSP_Jack]

22 hours ago, inigma said:

KSP_Jack, I wanted to know what you think about GAP's progression map:

https://bubbl.us/?h=934b/5fc8d0/37aoS1/A8mNuU&r=954713304

I noticed your Eagle and Falcon missions match nicely with GAP's KAB and SSI missions. Perhaps we should entertain adding requirements to check for each other's packs or maybe even a possible pack merge? I could run a check to detect if your pack is installed, and disable the the GAP KAB and GAP SSI speed missions, and allow for other contracts in my pack to work off of your Eagle and Falcon contracts. 

That would be the more complicated route to ensure compatibility and balance between our packs. The better way, and only if you'd be up to considering it, would be to simply code your AGIS starting contract to check for GAP's KAB-2000m and SSI-Mach4 completion. If you could split out your Falcon and Eagle contracts into a unique group that GAP could then disable upon detection, this would work overall. That, or you could simply drop your Eagle and Falcon contracts altogether. Thoughts?

I really like your icons though. If anything, I could simply absorb your Falcon contracts as part of GAP. Anything's possible. I just want to know how best you'd like to approach compatibility and game balance when a player installs both our packs.

@inigma I follow your missionpack already some time and I think its great and you are far more ahead then my current pack. There are not so many airplane missionspacks and it is one of the underrated parts of the game anyway. I took a look at your progression map and I looks impressive!  I see that your SSI speed missions run al the way up to mach-6, do you expect to do this with a conventional plane that is rocket powered? My Falcon missions run up to mach-4 and even that is very challenging due to heat and friction (mostly resulting in overheating and destruction). Only way to avoid this is to fly so high you are basically a rocket with useless wings. For my Missionpack this is not a real problem because it is mainly rocket based, the Eagle and Falcon missions are more in the pack because it makes historical sense and as a preparation for the Spaceshuttle program later. But maybe for your pack it divers.

Im honored that you are already interested in the Falcon and Eagle missions, especially because they are still rough designs. I agree that a combination of our packs (when my pack is more complete) could work very well and supplement each other. I think the basic idea of preperation missions, prototype testing, increasing challenges is present in both mission packs where one is more airplane/atmospheric based the other more rocket/space based. But then it make more sense if i use your speed and altitude missions I think.

If you like the icons, you are free to use them for your pack or make new ones based on the concept. It is not something that I thought of myself, basically I copied the retro flag of KSP with a new design.

[KSP_Jack]

23 hours ago, legoclone09 said:

Also maybe by looking at some other mods you can make it disable the stock contracts so that does not have to be done manually, I can do it for you if you want.

@legoclone09 I think you can do it with the current contract configurator without  big problems, but at this point I dont want to force it in the pack. Maybe later if its more balanced and completer.

23 hours ago, legoclone09 said:

Also maybe by looking at some other mods you can make it disable the stock contracts so that does not have to be done manually, I can do it for you if you want. Also for Dawn 1, maybe remove the requirement to crash in the water because with the Engineering Tech Tree I can't get my Flea + Stayputnik+chute up to altitude, but great work otherwise! I'll try something else and I'll report back if it is possible.

I just confirmed it is impossible to get to 15km in the ETT first node, but launchpad science to get LFO can happen.2

Engineering Tech Tree is more challenging then Seti indeed, beside the rocket parts, plane parts are also tougher to acquire. I think the idea of crashing in the sea makes it a fun part of the challenge, it is also a big part of the real life challenge when launching rockets. But i agree is hard when launching a rocket without available flaps, SAS or construction part to put it tilted. I used the engineering Tech Tree a lot and normally use something like this (makes it up to 50km):

The antenna make sure a slight tilt toward the sea is made, the lower flea explodes when the upper is ignited. A chute is not necessary in this mission but can also be used to slightly tilt the rocket.

Edited January 13, 2016 by KSP_Jack

[inigma]

11 minutes ago, KSP_Jack said:

@inigma I follow your missionpack already some time and I think its great and you are far more ahead then my current pack. There are not so many airplane missionspacks and it is one of the underrated parts of the game anyway. I took a look at your progression map and I looks impressive!  I see that your SSI speed missions run al the way up to mach-6, do you expect to do this with a conventional plane that is rocket powered? My Falcon missions run up to mach-4 and even that is very challenging due to heat and friction (mostly resulting in overheating and destruction). Only way to avoid this is to fly so high you are basically a rocket with useless wings. For my Missionpack this is not a real problem because it is mainly rocket based, the Eagle and Falcon missions are more in the pack because it makes historical sense and as a preparation for the Spaceshuttle program later. But maybe for your pack it divers.

Im honored that you are already interested in the Falcon and Eagle missions, especially because they are still rough designs. I agree that a combination of our packs (when my pack is more complete) could work very well and supplement each other. I think the basic idea of preperation missions, prototype testing, increasing challenges is present in both mission packs where one is more airplane/atmospheric based the other more rocket/space based. But then it make more sense if i use your speed and altitude missions I think.

If you like the icons, you are free to use them for your pack or make new ones based on the concept. It is not something that I thought of myself, basically I copied the retro flag of KSP with a new design.

I'll see what I can do to make our packs compatible on my end. Thanks for letting me use Eagle and Falcon.

[legoclone09]

@KSP_Jack I tried doing something very similar, but the upper Flea blew up when doing that! I'll try a few more times just to be sure.

Edited January 13, 2016 by legoclone09

[Bob810]

I have a problem with a mission , land the probe safely in the oceans don't work.

[legoclone09]

@KSP_Jack What happened to this? I hope it didn't die since I love it.

[Hypercore]

damn, the concept is there but this sure got abandoned

 

[Stone Blue]

14 hours ago, Hypercore said:

damn, the concept is there but this sure got abandoned

Huh... Seems I dont have an old copy of this... Unsual, since i hoard , uh... collect and archive, just about every version, of every mod ever made... (i have ~300GB of unique mod .zips saved)

So, thanx for bringing this to my attention, so I can add it to the *Collection*

Now, contract packs for CC, are just a set of config files, and should be pretty robust, survivng thru all but the most major CC or KSP updates...

Wondering if anyone has actually tried this out in recent versions of KSP? ie 1.7.3 - 1.10.1?

[Hypercore]

28 minutes ago, Stone Blue said:

Wondering if anyone has actually tried this out in recent versions of KSP? ie 1.7.3 - 1.10.1?

Probably not, but I'll try it. I totally would have played it if it was further into its development. Looks like the author moved on to other things. Best case scenario now is that either he comes back or someone maintain this

 

[Hypercore]

On 11/16/2020 at 9:53 AM, Hypercore said:

Probably not, but I'll try it. I totally would have played it if it was further into its development. Looks like the author moved on to other things. Best case scenario now is that either he comes back or someone maintain this

 

It works! Totally fine on 1.10, now just for someone to maintain this...

[hemeac]

@Hypercore, have sent KSP_Jack a message.  If I hear back, happy to maintain, but as I don't see any license information, I will err on the side of caution and assume it is an ARR license.

[Hypercore]

On 11/19/2020 at 3:52 PM, hemeac said:

@Hypercore, have sent KSP_Jack a message.  If I hear back, happy to maintain, but as I don't see any license information, I will err on the side of caution and assume it is an ARR license.

Thank you for doing this! Hope it goes well!

[baldamundo]

Roadmap looks fantastic. How much of it ever got finished? Are there any other up-to-date contract packs with a similar structure? Been struggling to find anything that feels adequate