Claw

Oh, for sure. It's actually refreshing to be able to discuss this stuffs directly anyway. This is an interesting concept too, although I'm not sure how I feel about it yet. Although it's another if-then branch that strays away from what I think is the core piece. "New" vessel still feels like a way to force "commit a unique craft to this contract." To which the duration thing you propose actually enforces a commitment, but also doesn't hamstring the player to "launch a new vessel." I would definitely support a steady payout with this system, vice having to wait till the very end to cash the whole contract. That way if something happens (and the craft drifts out of orbit or mistakes are made.....), it doesn't completely disrupt all of the work and waiting. But contract slots are also exceedingly precious, especially in the early game. Cheers, ~Claw

I don't think this is a strutting problem. I see you have mods installed. Could you provide a list? Sometimes they conflict, resulting in zero joint strength. Cheers, ~Claw

Also, unlocking the regular sized docking port node will open up station and base contracts. You might also need to do a landing on another body to trigger them, but I'm not sure about that. Unlocking more of the science bits (thermometer, sci jr, etc...) also "seems" like it causes more satellite contracts to show up, but that may or may not be true. It does, however, diversify the contracts a little (as pointed out above) which is also nice. Cheers, -Claw

Should be fixed now, thanks for the point out. Sorry! Cheers, ~Claw

Okay. I can get on board with abstraction in a game. That's fair enough. I suppose I would ask to not take one of my examples to an extreme just to disprove it. I can take plenty of examples to an extreme, if the only goal is to disprove it. But getting beyond that, I would say that launching multiple satellites per rocket occurs. I also understand that this is a bit different than "having satellites on orbit." So if you're going to make some gaming modifications, that's why I ask that you don't make the "launch a new vessel" overly restrictive. I would argue that it's equally as "unrealistic" to force a singular launch for every contract. The existing system already allows for this sort of "multi satellite contract per launch" which is a perfectly "realistic" scenario. Also, I think the other game mechanic "satellite must include thermometer" type requirements do a better job in limiting this sort of thing. And that mechanic fits in a lot better with "You can't get their doohickey on your satellite that's already on the way." But there is plenty of opportunity in real life to assign new meaning/mission to a satellite or probe. If we're abstracting things away, why can't someone come along and say "here's some money to do XYZ with that probe of yours that's already enroute."? Or "your probe fulfilled it's primary mission, but now I'd like to fund you to reassign it to this task." That happens. Not every satellite launched is locked into it's mission forever. I don't believe Voyager was built with the intent on measuring the extent of the Heliosphere, yet here we are, and it's still getting funding. Well if we are going to go that route, then the KSP answer would be to completely hand over ownership to the "Company," which is what (I think) most of us say is a horrible idea from a gameplay standpoint. If my career game contracts are basically "you're Space X, I'm hiring you to put satellite XYZ into orbit ABC"... Space X/NASA/Boeing/WhateverContractorLaunchedIt is not going to have anything to do with it after that. They aren't going to track it, or move it, or arbitrarily use it to "Remote Tech" some piece of data for another contractor's other grand adventures. (At least not without more money. ) So I should had over that satellite. The "Company B would be very upset if you used their property for Company A" is one of the problems we've been discussing (such as fulfilling two contracts by relocating the same satellite). And I think that issue is only tangentially addressed by forcing "launch a new vessel." That is why I asked, "What is the spirit and intent of this requirement?" It still doesn't feel like "launch a new rocket for every contract" to me so much as "fulfill my contract requirements with a dedicated satellite." It's subtle, but different. That was also my argument for having the player tag a specific vessel (call it a probe core's PID if you want, specifics don't matter for our discussion) as the vessel designated to fulfill that specific contact. To me, that's more fun from a gameplay perspective because I can choose how I want to fulfill those contracts and it requires positive action on my part (just like the Test Part X contracts). If you make gameplay too linear, then it becomes repetitive (which some people call grindy, but I don't mean to imply that much negative connotation). I want flexibility in my options, rather than "open Staple Vessel XYZ, hit the go button, match orbit." And the GUI doesn't need to be complex. Just adding a symbol to the name could suffice, or put red text in the contract window when controlling a spent vessel (again, I think specifics for this are unimportant for this discussion). The "Explore XXX" contracts are a good example of this. They could be extremely grindy if the first task was "establish orbit with a probe core." It would essentially be the same thing: "open Staple Vessel XYZ, hit the go button, match orbit." But they don't say that. They just say "Establish orbit." So now I get to decide not only how I want to do that, but what with. I can send a probe, kerbaled pod, or just go straight there and build a space station. I can even divert a craft if I want. That craft might never have been meant to go to Minmus, or maybe it was only supposed to fly-by, but who cares? It's a video game. No way in heck would something like that happen in real life, but I get to change my mind all the time in KSP. Yes, you can probably refute these specific examples, but if we are talking about abstraction and pulling in reality, please also consider how things might be in the future. I'm not sure if Henry Ford ever imagined a time when there would be so many cars, that you could literally walk onto a street corner and get into one and go wherever you wanted in the city, even if you didn't own a car. Yet today we call them Taxi Cabs. Nobody needs to specifically build a taxi cab just to be there for them at the corner curb, yet there it is. It's abstracted away in our daily lives to the point where we don't even think about how it got there. Air travel is the same way. This was not always so... Perhaps it will be that way some day for satellites, space housing, or something similar. However, I also understand what you are saying, that contracts definitely need some sort of restrictions on them or they also become meaningless. So I suppose that I'm also asking if you go with the "absolutely must launch a brand new vessel" for those contracts, make sure there is some level of flexibility in there for users to choose more than one path. And I mean decisions beyond "Do I launch this with a staple rocket, or use my space plane." Or even consider that maybe some or even most contracts could specify "build and launch a new vehicle," but maybe drop that requirement for some contracts on occasion, just to keep it different. (Please note, that with all that said, I do not mean to imply that I dislike the satellite contracts...Or any of the new contracts. I think they are a great idea and fun, and I'm not trying to bag on them.) Cheers, ~Claw

Version 0.1.7d is out. I'm pretty excited about this one... I've rebuilt and re-released SymmetryActionFix. I was getting tired of the bandaid fixes and fixed it on a more fundamental level. SymmetryActionFix properly handles Copying Symmetric Action groups for mirrored parts that have been removed and replaced (as it did before). However, it also prevents the Action Groups from presenting multiple entries now. Additionally, SymmetryActionFix also fixes some editor bugs in regard to symmetry-in-symmetry (aka recursive symmetry or nested symmetry), making it a bit easier to build symmetric structures. It still needs a little work, but I'm pretty excited about this (see pics below). Cheers, ~Claw

No worries, I'm glad he's all fixed up! Welcome to the forums! Cheers, ~Claw

The overall mission approach looks perfectly acceptable, with the exception that's been pointed out: The requirement for it to be launched in a single launch. I know that's a pretty stringent requirement for an aggressive Eve mission such as yours, but I would also say that you might be able to get away with a lighter rover and some other mission considerations. If anyone does make a rover, you might want to consider making it sturdy enough to handle 4x timewarp on Kerbin. That might make it strong enough to handle some time warp on Eve....? Additionally, in case there is any confusion, there is no requirement for your bits and pieces to land together at your target together. Only that they are launched together. Also, in regard to stock ion gliders on Eve, there is was a challenge a few months ago to build a stock Eve SSTO which ended up focusing on Ion gliders. It was deemed impossible, but you might be able to get some building tips from that challenge if you choose this route. Oh yeah, I once did the polar challenge. Took 12 hours of game time to reach Kerbin's North Pole from KSC, not counting all the F5/F9 shenanigans... Cheers, ~Claw

No sweat, glad it's sorted out. Cheers, ~Claw

Well, okay. I think the crux of this whole thread is getting buried under a bunch of what-if-then-else trains of thought. So rather than refuting or discussing the new points, I'm going to circle back around the the nexus of the whole discussion... So, to me the whole point of this contract requirement reads as.... build and launch a new ship. I don't know if I have been fully articulating my point, so maybe it's more important to fully understand the "spirit and intent" of this contract requirement. So....Is the intent of the "build and launch a new vessel..." requirement to - Launch a new vessel? or - Dedicate a given vessel to the completion of that contract? I've always believed that the intent was to dedicate a vessel to the completion of the contract, but maybe I am wrong in this. "Build and launch a new vessel" seemed like a minimum way to sort of force the player to build a vessel dedicated to completing that contract, but it has weird side effects. For example, in my career game... - I accepted the "Explore Mun" contract. - I built and launched a probe to go establish orbit, and beam back some science. - I liked the probe, so I sent a twin copy to Minmus, since it takes longer to get there. - Enroute to Minmus, a "put a satellite in a specific orbit around Minmus" contract shows up. Now, I already have a probe on the way to Minmus to establish orbit and beam back some science. The problem... The "Minmus Specific Orbit" contract has a "Launch a new satellite" requirement. But I already launched a satellite that can do exactly what the contract wants me to do. Except you're telling me I can't use it because it was already launched. So, with that example in mind, I ask again... What is the "spirit and intent" of the "Launch a new vessel" requirement? - Launch a new vessel? or - Dedicate a given vessel to the completion of that contract? As I said before, I personally believe the point is to dedicate a craft to the completion of that contract. If it's too confusing to use something like a "Right-Click->Fulfill-Contract" kind of button, then fair enough. But then I might have to change my stance a bit and say: Arsonide, please do NOT make the "launch a new vessel" portion of the contract more restrictive. If it's going to be a passive system that doesn't require my input, I'd rather it not be overly restrictive, so that it's easier to manipulate later to suit my "gameplay" style. Then we can use Sal's advice and "refrain from abusing it." Cheers, ~Claw

This was a stock bug a couple versions back, but has since been fixed. I think there is a mod that can still trigger it, but I don't recall which off hand. So even though ypu think it's not helpful, can you still provide a list of mods? When this bug was in stock, the only way to fix it was to exit the game, at least to the main menu if I recall, but might need to exit all the way. I'm not sure about the mod induced version. Also, in stock, it was caused by clicking through the staging list to exit the VAB. Cheers, -Claw

I agree with this on multiple levels. However, what about logging and tracking the vessel ID in the contract once it's complete? This would prevent a player from using that vessel to fulfill other contracts without rendering the vessel useless or removing control. It also nullifies the need to have a "launch a new craft" requirement, which is also easily circumvented anyway. I will confess that I've mostly been looking at this from the satellite contract perspective, and it possibly overly complicates station/base contracts. I've actually not done enough fiddling with station/base contracts enough to offer how this ID tagging system could/should be adopted. Perhaps I need to do more "testing" in my own career save. I think a similar system would work, depending on how much you want to force the player to "make a new station/base" vs. expanding the existing one. Cheers, ~Claw

For installation, that's all you need to do. You can confirm that it's being loaded by KSP by opening the file KSP_Data\output_log.txt (assuming windows) and searching for this line Non platform assembly: C:\Games\KSP_win_0.90.0.705_Dev\GameData\StockBugFixModules\KerbalDebrisFix.dll (this message is harmless) My fix usually wakes them up if you switch vessels nearby (using ] or [ ). If you load directly to the kerbal and do nothing else, it probably won't wake him up. If that's not working for you, try waking him up with this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75586-Master-Thread-Unresponsive-Kerbals-in-EVA Cheers, ~Claw

Possibly, but without creating multiple unique systems, this might run into the existing problem with test contracts. You can basically steal free use of a part (such as a turbojet engine) before you're able to get it in the tech tree. So long as you don't complete the contract, you can abuse access to the part. This system still doesn't stop me from being able to move an existing satellite to fulfill a new contract, unless there are a lot of unique parts. And I'm not a fan of unique parts because it chips away at precious memory space for things that have limited accessibility. You can get similar functionality by tagging the ship's unique ID when the player gets the ship into the appropriate place (be it a satellite, station, or base) says "this is my vessel." The game already knows if the ship meets requirements, and is in the right spot. It's just a matter of holding onto the ID somewhere so that the ID cannot be used again. So rather than a unique part, it's a unique identifier. Very true! Although I also like to avoid overly restricting gameplay because of real world choices. We could indeed build a bunch of "just in case we need them" satellites if we wanted too, given a big enough budget. And perhaps the GPS constellation is an example of that. Not only are there extras in space, but there's a warehouse of them waiting to be launched. Yeah, orbital stations are a bit trickier. Do you want to force the player to build an entirely new station? Or is it okay to expand an existing one? I suppose this is where tater's idea comes into play, where some contracts naturally follow on to previous ones (and as you also stated). I actually haven't done many station/base contracts, so I'm not sure how they currently build. I wholeheartedly agree with this. In my mind, if people are role playing their game, it's less jarring for me to delete my vessel if I want to consider it "turned over" than it is to delete it from a player who would rather keep it. Cheer, ~Claw

That's no easy feat! That works too, and I suppose you could never build any sort of satellite "freighter." I use the term "freighter" loosely, but could really be anything including a station with extra satellites or an on-orbit space plane, whatever... I still have preference for positive player action, because it makes the player feel more in charge. I've had this thought too, but it opens up a whole new route of career mode which is different than what exists. I wasn't going to open that can of worms, but since you did... It would certainly require a redirection though. A game like this would be much more driven by a semi-set run of a scenario where a Industry would basically "build up" through some sort of space venture requests. The only thing that concerns me with such a thing is it definitely lends the game to more of a "Space X" flavor, in that I'm a company for hire. Rather than the more Sandboxy "freestyle" that it has now. Although the career mode seems like it's leaning that way, Squad still seems like they want to retain the open feeling, rather than funneling the gameplay experience in a particular direction. Even the "set" contracts are rather vague in their requirements. "Explore Mun" isn't very directive on how it needs to be done, just get there and retrieve some science. Of course, this idea by itself is a pretty big topic, and definitely has a lot of merit. The grindy minimalistic stations were a concern of mine if the player's work were simply deleted from the game. I feel that would be a disincentive to build anything beyond the absolute minimum, since design, function, and roleplay are completely nullified. Any "goodness" or time spent on my creations is relatively wasted since it simply fizzles out of existence. I would prefer your above suggestion, where I turn it over to some other entity and possibly get contracted later to do additional work.

Sorry Vexx, but you actually want him to be listed as Unowned and Available. That keeps him fired, but not showing up on the roster anywhere. Two things, one of them definitely wrong... For Camrod, try also setting his idx = -1 (instead of idx = 0) since right now it's saying he's on an active flight, when he isn't. I don't quite think that's your problem though... You're still missing someone from your roster, and it's a guy you rescued. ==> kerbalName = Tommund Kerman... There's another guy with a very similar name "Tombro Kerman" that might be throwing you off. So you need to add a crew roster section for "Tommund Kerman" per the instructions in the OP, or he'll definitely break your save. Cheers, ~Claw

No, that is exactly the opposite of what you want to do. If you delete the roster, your game will likely be even more broken. If you want to delete things, you're better off removing any contracts or ProgressTracking that you find that which references a kerbal. As TriggerAu suggests, posting a copy of your save can help. Cheers, ~Claw

It took me many months to convince the appropriate people that something was actually wrong. This bug was introduced in v0.24.2 when attempting to fix a bug with stack decouplers in v0.24.1. I think in the case of this bug, it became a lesser of two evils between broken stack (that didn't work at all) or broken radial decouplers. Ironically stack decouplers are actually broken too. It's just that it is much less noticable because it doesn't result in catastrophic failure like the radial decouplers. Cheers, -Claw

Can you be more specific? What kind of trouble, at what altitude, and when doing what? Personally I don't use that one much. Cheers, -Claw

As AlexinTokyo pointed out, radial decouplers are bugged. So no, you aren't going crazy. Any of the above suggestions can work, depending on your preferred route. There is also some tweaking you can do inside the .cfg file that helps a bit. If you want to try that, I can give you details. If you want to do the design/sepratron route, it's good to know this tip-in effect gets much worse as you approach 750 m/s. At 700-750 m/s, it can be bad enough that the decouplers can rip themselves off. Above 750 m/s, the game changes a bit and decouplers behave less bad. So if you are going to separate decouplers, it's best to be lower in speed, or faster than 750 m/s (mixed with the sepratron suggestions above). I might be a bit biased, but my add on fix will make the decouplers act as they did pre-v0.24.2. So if you aren't opposed to add-ons and this bug is causing problems, I recommend giving it a try. Cheers, -Claw

I'm still a bit torn on this one. To some extent, it certainly simplifies a lot of problems and keeps LKO in the tracking station from becoming cluttered (though some people like that). On the other hand, I think it would also stifle design. If the player knows their station is going to evaporate completely, there isn't much motivation to put a lot of design into it. Or to build anything onto it beyond the barest minumum. And I don't mean this to say that the player needs motivation to build a station. But I am saying that care should be taken to avoid negative motivators. To keep with the station contract example, a player could use the contract to fund their plans for a refueling or science station. If the player has desire or need for a refueling outpost, the contract is a nice complement to that goal. But if the station is going to disappear, the station built to fulfil the contract becomes a throw away. In fact, it's a disincentive to have anything other than the required parts, since it's entirely lost and the player can't even expand on it later if desired. I do see virtue to the idea of completely turning over craft to fulfill contracts (especially satellites). But I also think, from a gameplay standpoint, that it has potential negative side effects. My biggest concern being that it would make contracts feel more grindy, since craft would start to feel throw away and because of the negative incentive for design. Not sure if that makes sense... Cheers, -Claw

Achievement board updated! It's getting late here and I'm tired, so please let me know if I made a mistake or missed anyone / anything. You guys are putting up some really awesome craft. Keep up the great work! Cheers, ~Claw

My suggestion is set up so that you aren't able to reuse a satellite for more than one contract. So yes, that would eliminate this: Personally, I don't think you should be able to do this, because you were contracted to put a satellite into an orbit, presumably because the company that contracted you to put it there has some designated use. If you're allowed to just move it right off the bat, the satellite they just paid for isn't very useful. On the other hand, my suggestion supports (and maybe encourages?) this: Or even your later example of having a (as I call it) satellite freighter. Each satellite that fulfills a contract is then tied to that contract. My suggestion isn't to tie it to a launch vehicle, but rather a vessel designated by the player. Rather than the game assuming a particular craft and tagging it as "used." (See my explanation below, tied to Supernovy's comment.) So you separate one of the satellites, and tag it for contract completion (and not the mothership). I don't think either method is "cheaty." Also, I'm trying to not inject too much reality. But I am trying to look at it from two standpoints (put on your gameplayer hat). - If I'm the "company" that's issuing the "satellite in XXX orbit" contract, I'm paying for the Kerbal Space Program (the player) to put a satellite there for me to use. As the payer of a contract, I would be pretty upset if the satellite I just paid for was taken from me to use for some other company's contract. This is effectively what the player is allowed to do, by hopping a satellite from contract to contract. - As a video game player, I also don't want the game to assume things for me (like tagging a space station "used" in LKO when it's meant for the Mun). While this does violate the "launch a new satellite" part of the contract, I think it actually addresses the spirit and philosophy in a more fundamental way. It ensures that you've actually dedicated a satellite/station/base to the completion of a contract, whether it was launched after the contract was accepted or before. I also fully agree that I wouldn't want a system that's overly restrictive, or forces a "single contract per launch" scenario for all cases. My suggestion is that these two things go together. You Right-Click->Fulfill-Contract to complete. That requires positive player input saying "This is my designated satellite/station/base." The ID should also be stored to ensure that satellite isn't later moved to insta-complete another contract. So the ID piece ensures the satellite/station/base is only used for one contract. The Right-Click->Fulfill-Contract ensures the game doesn't tag a satellite/station/base as "used" when I intend it for something else. Cheers, ~Claw

Thermometers are slightly glitched. Aqua is right in that not all instruments work everywhere. The thermometer intentionally doesn't collect any science in "high orbit." Unfortunately, once you try to do that, the option disappears until you save/load or switch vessels and come back. Cheers, ~Claw

This squares perfectly with the rules. Only the science needs to return, I specified nothing else in that regard. Rovers, airplanes, rockets, boats, and all that are fair game for transportation. Well, I'm okay with attempting to build "helicopter" type devices. I would ask that entries try to avoid using control surfaces to build stock propellers because then it gets into disputes about "infiniglide" abuse. Rule 2 does prohibit abuse of physics and bugs. I think reaction powered propellers are okay, infiniglide powered blades are not. Also, there are some more awesome looking entries here. I will be updating the board later tonight when I can give each a proper look. Keep up the awesome rockets! Cheers, ~Claw