Yemo

I m not at the pc containing the ksp install at the moment. As far as I remember, the model rework requires the latest infernal robotics plugin version, this one: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/116064 Not sure about KSPAPIextensions, since I have not used mods with it for quite some time. KSP-AVC is not required, but helps a lot for keeping track of updates. Will continue with the bug search tomorrow. As this seems to be above my level of understanding (I just used the contract configurator wiki to build the contracts), I recommend moving the issue over to the ContractConfigurator thread, where all the CC bugs are bundled and nightingale can take a look. He asked for the logs of the problem, since I m not at the gaming pc at the moment, I plan to upload them tomorrow to the CC thread. I did not see a single SETI folder in your GameData folder screenshots? With all SETI mods for 1.0.2 installed, they should be between ScienceAlert and SmokeScreen in your GameData: ScienceAlert SETIcontracts SETIctt SETIgreenhouse SmokeScreen

That might be the same issue as it is currently reported in the SETI thread. @nightingale: _Zee provided his GameData folder and a savegame with instructions to recreate the performance problem with some SETIcontracts on the latest page of the SETI thread. Any help is greatly appreciated, as I m not too familiar with this myself.

Ok, I was able to recreate the problem following your instructions. I still have no idea what the problem is, but I will try to find out. @nightingale: Any ideas from your side? I thought I followed the wiki instructions. So far I tried using VesselParameter and differentiated parameter names. @_Zee: While the problem occurs without MagicSmokeIndustries and NearFuturePropulsion, I noticed a warning considering the KSPAPIextension.dll being out of date. You might want to consider updating the dll at those 2 locations. Also consider using the Infernal Robotics Plugin and Model Rework. And I also noticed KSP-AVC is not installed? Will need a screenshot of your GameData folder for support.

Hm, then it might be the situation parameter. Ok, if you upload your gamedata I will test with a mirrored install. Thank you very much for your effort!

Is anyone willing to make such a .dll which sets the kerbal experience to 5 stars in career mode? With 1.0.x it also influences the science lab, which is impossible to rebalance to more realistic terms given the current cfg moddability.

I just could not reproduce this problem. I ve gone through the contracts, but did not find anything they did differently than the other contracts before them. There was a new version of ContractConfigurator released today. Maybe it fixed the problem for you? If the problem persists, could you please check whether it also occurs for the MinmusSunFlyby contract (title "Minmus & Kerbol!")? That would be an indication that something could be wrong with one of those parameters: PARAMETER { name = CollectScience type = CollectScience targetBody = Minmus rewardScience = 1 rewardReputation = 2.0 rewardFunds = 10000.0 situation = InSpaceLow recoveryMethod = RecoverOrTransmit }

Actually I took down one of my mods for another game when the dev/publisher (matrix games) started to openly scam customers (and continues to do so). That option is more important to me than the advantages of a more permissive license. At least for my main mod(s).

As a modder (and human/adult) I reserve the right to choose the reasons for my effort/work myself.

Hey, I m interested in setting the Kerbals experience to maximum from the start for realism/immersion (since I do not understand why I have to send a Kerbal to the Mun for him/her to be able to repair rover wheels...). Since you had to take a look at the kerbal system for naming, I was wondering if you have any insights how to do that or even a .dll which already deals with the experience? Thank you very much!

Hey, I want to return the old mobile processing lab functionality for my mod and noticed that your "Mobile Processing Lab MPL-ON-2" HGR lab seems to do that. Did you encounter any problems with that? Anything I should take into account? I wanted to set the SurfaceBonus and ContextBonus to 0 and the homeworldMultiplier to 1, for realism. Thank you very much for your input.

Hey, since the new mobile processing lab is extremely unrealistic and imho immersion breaking (there is no reason why a scientist in orbit around the Mun should boost the science value of a thermometer scan of Minmus), I was wondering how to restore the old functionality. Providing eg a boost to the mystery goo transmission value. If possible the new "over time" mechanic could be retained, but all the other immersion breaking stuff removed. Do you know of any mod doing this? Or how to implement it in 1.0.x? Thank you very much, Yemo

Hello, since I see no reason why a Kerbal should be any better for repairing tires after going to Duna/Minmus, I m interested in a mod/.dll which starts kerbals with 5 stars in career mode. Or the place where I can change that in the configs myself. Or how to change the XP rewards for eg Kerbin. Thank you very much!

Does anyone know a mod which allows kerbals to start with 5 stars in career? I just do not see any reason why going to Duna should improve the skills of an astronaut regarding repairs... Or any mod dealing with the XP/trait system?

I would take a look at the tech tree mods. While I m not up to date, on them, I noticed that quite a few were published recently. The 1.0.x stock tree is just underwhelming for a modded game. I have my own one which starts with probes and is based on the CTT. It is called SETIctt, you can find the link in my signature. A progression contract pack (SETIcontracts) is provided as well, though the SETI system is modular, so one does not require the other. - - - Updated - - - Oh, and with SETIctt your probe cores have a 160km always on antenna for launching, so you do not need the DP-10 on every probe. The whole progression is balanced around complexity modding, from RemoteTech to TAC Life Support, while starting with probes and planes.

Hm, that is indeed strange. The contracts only use very standard parameters from ContractConfigurator and did so for months. I m a little bit lost here, since I have little understanding of the detailed inner workings of KSP/contracts. I hope nightingale from contract configurator can help out. For finding the cause I would start with a screenshot of the GameData folder as well as the ContractPacks folder and a description how to reproduce it/which contracts are affected. So if I can not reproduce it myself with a core mod setup, it could indicate a problem with other installed mods and we can narrow it down.

Thank you all! I will fix the water production to the intended 90% for the next version (is at 100% at the moment). But I ll wait for 1.0.3 to release it. @Cairan: I only made the configs, using the model by zzz. I would prefer another greenhouse model myself, as outlined on one of the previous pages. However I lack the modelling skills and the motivation to do so at the moment.

I understand that it is strange at first, when coming from stock KSP, but that is my reasoning behind it: The real problem is the game engine/design limitation, that collecting experiments makes them massless, even if they contain more than numbers. For example the surface sample is massless, which should not be the case. Mystery Goo and Materials Bay provide an easy solution for that limitation, making them non-collectible. It is essentially a workaround. Since apollo style missions in KSP have no value at all based on game mechanics (attaching a heat shield to a lander can or a capsule gives the exact same gameplay results), I can hardly take them into account for gameplay balancing. They are roleplay exclusively (not my idea/intention, just a result of squads design), just like the different antennas in stock ksp. Unfortunately unlike the antennas, there are no mods making apollo style missions a viable non-roleplay gameplay choice. However with a slight design adjustment/extension, you could make it work: The problem is, that connected living space would not allow you to pass through the Universal Storage node. If there is any interest, I could just make a radially attachable Materials Bay, using the Mystery Goo model. That would allow for greater flexibility. However it would be slightly confusing, since it would look exactly the same as the Mystery Goo... Though the effort to do this would be minimal. Oh and if you really want to roleplay, just leave out the mystery goo and materials bay. The experiments they might represent only make sense in LKO and on atmospheric bodies anyway... Thank you for providing the gamedata folder, makes it much easier. The most likely problem is, that you have multiple module managers installed, please delete every one of them except the latest (2.6.5). Also SETI contracts should be installed into the gamedata folder directly, so that SETIcontracts is right above SETIctt.

Hm, the scienceMultiplier looks useful to deal at least with a part of the imbalance. I do not quite know what "data" it refers to? I m guessing the same "data" as the transmission devices, as defined with the dataScale in the experiment definitions. I m not familiar with that, I guess it is the science value times the dataScale? Which makes this whole mechanic a nightmare to balance. Anyway, why would a temperature scan yield additional science anyway, when 2 people in an orbital lab look at the results?? It seems to be one of those backward reasoning issues. Devs needed a mechanic for a science generating orbital lab, instead of having a science progression and thinking about a lab which would fit into that. Same goes for the "scientist" roles. There is absolutely no reason why a scientist who visited Duna should make any more out of the temperature readings of Eeloo while orbiting the Mun, than a scientist back on Kerbin who never went to LKO... The only explanation is, they needed a mechanic to give the kerbals a progression and are thinking up more or less BS reasons. Like only engineers being able to repack parachutes... Or only engineers visting planets outside Kerbin SoI able to repair certain stuff... This is really annoying... The most annoying thing is, that I can not even deactivate this for the science lab... Imho for someone playing "fully modded" the game goes into the wrong direction. Progression for its own sake is no progression, it is just annoying and insulting to the players intellect. I remember the action groups pseudo-progression, kerbals can build rockets and planes but cant activate thermometer and barometer with the same button unless upgrading the building to allow bigger rockets. W T F So, rant over. This whole development is really bugging me. I really do not like unmotivated disimprovements, just to be able to claim a new entry on a feature list. I m thinking about just deactivating the whole kerbal experience nonsense implementation. Something I wanted to do for the BalanceMod. But I do not want to handle another download at the moment, so I guess it goes into SETIctt. The folder structure is simple enough that unwanted stuff can be deleted by the user. Imho, if a "feature" makes no sense and can not be easily modded to make at least some sense, it deserves to be deactivated by default. Well, it was part of the BalanceMod, so it is planned for the SETIctt as well. Not sure if it makes it into the next update, especially when massive gameplay issues (imho) like the ones above are still in it.

Thank you very much, I ll probably release a new update within the next day(s) incorporating those, since squad is just so out of touch concerning their recent (since 1.0) announcement/labeling/update policy. I probably can do it on my end, will check for it for the next update. Thank you for the notice. It is probably related to slot availability. Usually it is recommended to decline some 2 and 3 star contracts after completing a progression contract, if you are expecting new ones according to the progression overview. So that the follow ups have slots available to spawn into... Unfortunately I do not know of a way around that squad design limitation. Unfortunately another squad design limitation. Tellur made a post some time ago proposing diminishing returns per biome body, or at least that you have to go to another planet or so before science spamming mun and minmus. I m not aware of a way to implement this. I can not really nerf eg the surface sample for mun and minmus only. Also I find the new mobile processing lab mechanic to be quite imbalanced. To my knowledge, there are no config values for me to tweak it, another one of those unmotivated disimprovements with little/no moddability to rush "release". The usual solution/workaround applies: House Rules/Role Playing! You just have to restrain yourself from science spamming Mun/Minmus/Kerbin.

The old BalanceMod is as good as dead. It might get resurrected at one point, but only in the form of a "balancing" module intended to work in conjunction with SETIctt and SETIcontracts. Please keep in mind, that the current SETIctt contains rudimentary balancing configs, until the BalanceMod is rebooted. So SETIctt + SETIcontracts is your best bet at the moment, at together they are already much better than stock + mods alone.

Thank you, I ll take another look at them. Didn't they want to release 1.0.3 about 10 days ago or so? Hm, didn't take dead cockpits into account. Will try to change it for the next version. Your best bet in that situation is, to cancel the contract and take it again. I haven't checked it in a while, but it should work well. Will take another look.

Hey, thank you very much! Am I correct in assuming that those configs are for inclusion into the next SETIctt update? There are very little requirements, please keep in mind that the BalanceMod (which included everything) is for KSP 0.90, while the divided versions (SETIctt, SETIcontracts, SETIgreenhouse) are for KSP 1.0.x. And except for SETIgreenhouse they only have 1 dependency each.

@all: Thank you for the support! Hm, I cant find anything, though I m not very versed in contracts. The Duna/Ike one does not use anything which is not present in other contracts, as far as I can see. Maybe nightingale from the ContractConfigurator thread can help? I have not changed anything with regards to USI Freight Transportation Technologies. You could ask in the FTT thread, FTT itself might provide a config for CTT. In any case, I try to stay clear of meddling with RoverDudes mods as much as I can for the scope of my mods. If you mention SETIctt within the FTT thread, please make sure to also mention that SETIctt did not change anything for FTT... It will define the first vessel which fulfills the criteria as the named vessel. The intention is, that you really have to land the vessel at the end without destroying it. What part of it does not work? The unlock sizes are defined in the configs of ProceduralParts, I have not changed them for SETIctt. Although it is planned to do so at some point, as it was done in the original BalanceMod. Will probably have to wait until KSP is out of Beta. I recommend using the mod precise nodes in general. But for this specific case, the problem is just the inclination. The contract wants 180° inclination, which is exactly counter to your current orbit. For massive inclination changes (above 60° or so) it might be beneficial to raise your apoapsis and do the reversal over there (since you are slower), and then lower apo again. There was a formula floating around somewhere, but I can not find it at the moment. This thread should help for a start: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/69036

But if I set the physics significance flag, physics should ignore the part. Also, massless parts are intended to work as an addendum to the host part, you could upgrade probe cores by attaching mass and physicsless parts, using KIS...

I modded parts to have 0 mass, to have the same behaviour as the previous physics significance flag, removing mass for the part, not adding it to the host part. There seems to be a bug with the thermodynamic system. Instead of ignoring parts having the physics significance flag for thermal puposes (thus physics), it seems to be unable to handle massless parts correctly (ie by ignoring them). This is a post of the DeadlyReentry modder, discovering this problem: - - - Updated - - - Also, is there no way to just report a game bug, which is independent of OS and hardware?