Jump to content

nightingale

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,137

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by nightingale

  1. nightingale
    KSP's gibberish text generator has trained you away from reading the contract flavor text - read the text in the screen shot you posted and it will make more sense.
  2. nightingale
    Ah, interesting... the science system is far too limiting in how you specify where your experiment is valid. Station Science is another example where it is set up to be valid for landed - but not landed on Kerbin. Everyone has their own way of working around these exceptions, but it ends up being nearly impossible to tell what the exceptions are without looking at code. Anyway, I'm thinking of working this all into a config based system, and I'll just distribute the configs to make stock and various mods work. Once I'm less sick and can actually put too lines of code together without my head hurting, that is. I have no idea, I've never seen that one! Check out the contract in the .sfs file and you should be able to find the experimentID. If you toss that into google or a github search I'm wondering if that'll get you a hit on whatever mod is adding that experiment.
  3. nightingale
    Quick release with some bug fixes. I'll get a fix out to the KSC stuff later in the week (under the weather at the moment). Download now! ContractPack-FieldResearch 1.0.1 Fixed typo (thanks Barking Sands). Fixed issue with Rare Science contract generating for bodies the player hasn't visited yet (thanks True-Chaos).
  4. nightingale
    No problem, was an easy fix. Basically it's finding "old" contracts in the save file that it can't associate to a contract type anymore, and that causes it to fail. Problem is fixed for the next release. And yeah, my rule of thumb is that any unhandled exception (an unhandled one being any exception that doesn't have an [ERR] message right before it in the log) like this is a bug in Contract Configurator. Not sure when it'll be released - feeling sick today so most likely won't be spending a lot of time working on getting a release out. There's still a few things to fix for Field Research, so for sure by the weekend, I'd imagine.
  5. nightingale
    I still need to look at Station Science support - I ran out of time yesterday (baby teething ). As far as it reporting being capable of running the experiments on the ground, that really sounds more like a bug in station science itself. I'll follow up with them once I have a chance to dig a bit more. The Probe Report is for Lord Aurelius's Stock Science Tweaks. The fact that they are showing up for you is actually due to a bug in Crowd Sourced Science, which DuoDex has already fixed (but not released). So your options are: Bug DuoDex to release his fix. Install Stock Science Tweaks. There's no research on the contracts themselves (it would be redundant in my opinion). I feel the rewards themselves are balanced, but I'm always open to feedback. As far as being able to get paid twice... I'll probably look at it on a case by case basis. I'm definitely open to disabling some of the experiments if it clashes with the other mod's contracts.
  6. nightingale
    Contract Configurator 1.2.4 fixes some of the issues reported today. Orbital Science experiments won't be offered until the right parts are researched, but you'll still see the Laythe/Eve "rare science" contracts early. Next up I'll look at those and rework the KSC contract (my thought is I'm going to hardcode a list of the more sane KSC biomes and just leave it at that).
  7. nightingale
    A few exception fixes, and improved mod support for Field Research. Download now! Contract Configurator 1.2.4 Support for DMagic's Orbital Science and tomf's Impact! in science stuff (Field Research Contract Pack). Fixed exception loading ContractVesselTracker (thanks GFBones). Fixed exception in BiomeTracker when generating some Field Research contracts (thanks DaniDE). Fixed contract failure when renaming vessels in RemoteTech contracts (thanks Svannon).
  8. nightingale
    Ugh, the one that goes away is awful. I can detect the building levels, but I'm not sure if I actually want to... it's just getting a bit too much for what was meant to be a rather simple contract out of the bunch. Yeah, that's what I get for making last minute changes Sunday night before releasing. I accidentally broke this one, it's not looking at the bodies that have been orbited anymore for it's selection list. Anyway, fixed it for the next release. I'm sure I can work it in. It'll be second on the list to look at after orbital science. Yeah, but I get worried about making requirements too onerous that nobody ever sees the contract. I suspect most people who have Anomaly Surveyor haven't done the Jool contract, and that thing took me ages to get right. Seriously, do the Jool contract in Anomaly Surveyor
  9. nightingale
    Which is pretty much what I ended up doing. Oh, and I'm not sure about others, but for my use case the option of clearing the custom text just doesn't make sense, as I was often taking two or three shots so I could choose the best one. The only time I had it unchecked was by accident (as the setting isn't persistent across restarts), and was somewhat annoyed that I had to re-type my text. Anyway, despite my complaints, love the mod and it helped me put together a great gallery for Field Research:
  10. nightingale
    Perhaps I need to rethink the KSC science contracts. KSC science is a silly grindy mess if you try to get it all (it was okay before the upgradable buildings came into play, but the fact that you can get reports for "R&D East Lab" and junk like that is a bit silly). I'm sort of okay with it asking for the stuff that's late in the tree as long as the unlocking bugs are fixed with the mods that are adding experiments in their own way. But you're right... if the player has spent 3000 to unlock their super-late game experiment, they probably don't want to drag it around KSC for 10 science a pop at a bunch of random buildings. Another thing I realized is broken is that some of the biomes don't actually exist until you upgrade the particular facilties (R&D especially). So, opinions, people? Should I just toss them entirely? Or are there some easy changes I can make to improve them?
  11. nightingale
    Great, sounds good. I'll double check everything but if you had dropped below 70km that makes perfect sense.
  12. nightingale
    I assume that they aren't valid landed places other than KSC either, right? If that is the case it almost seems like this might be an issue with station science, as I check whether the situation (landed/flying/in space/etc.) and experiment combination is valid according to the KSP API. Regardless, I'll need to do some digging, as with Orbital Science. Not at the moment, although I'm looking at adding a way to disable/enable contract packs per save, and may fold in the ability to do it at the contract level as well. Also for that particular contract, it'll stop being offered once you go interplanetary.
  13. nightingale
    It'll probably be a window with a list of all contract groups (roughly equivalent to a contract pack) and checkboxes. So you'd definitely be able to uncheck one and then check it on again at a later date.
  14. nightingale
    Awesome, thanks. I think I see what the issue is, raised [#224]. Should be a fix tonight, although I don't believe this should cause any issues in your game - you can just ignore the exception.
  15. nightingale
    Ah, so if your PE is above the ground (or above 22km, where the heck does that number come from?!?), but below the atmosphere, it's considered orbital. Makes sense, even though it appears wrong. Easy enough to fix, raised [#223].
  16. nightingale
    That's annoying, but explains it perfectly. Do you know what it is considered if it's above the atmosphere? It shouldn't be orbital, and it certainly can't be landed, splashed, flying or escaping, which doesn't leave any other options...
  17. nightingale
    Provide a full log file and I'll look into it - I was playing around with that stuff right before release. Either I forgot to commit something, had some unreleased changes in Contract Configurator that I forgot about or you managed to find a situation that I wasn't aware of. EDIT: Actually that wasn't what I was playing with, so will definitely need to see that log. I have a suspicion that I know where the problem is - was this a new game, and was it your first launch?
  18. nightingale
    Hmmm, this sounds very odd, since the orbit "type" check is pretty much looking at stock KSP stuff. Things to do/check for: Since you're in a stable (ish) orbit, try going around once more. Does the "suborbital" come back at any point Check what Kerbal Engineer says if you have it Check the log for any errors at the time it went incomplete. Provide a screenshot - in case there's an interpretation issue Provide a log (in case there's something you missed in #3) That's about all I can think of off the top of my head on this one.
  19. nightingale
    It's a known issue, raised [#222] to track it. It actually does check the tech tree, but DMagic uses a custom module for his science experiments. I just need to add in some logic to detect it - hopefully should be a fairly easy change for the next version of Contract Configurator. Oh and these shouldn't have any cancellation fines. Thanks, fixed both of those! Yup, it's already all .dds for the images that can be .dds (waypoint icons and the scaled down agent image need to be PNG or KSP croaks). Oops, fixed that too!
  20. nightingale
    Yeah, that was probably what I was thinking, space-center only menu with check boxes... maybe some other configuration options if it makes sense.
  21. nightingale
    Raised [#221] to look into this. I like the idea, but right now there isn't any kind of player-facing GUI windows, so I'll have to think about what makes the most sense. Also, historian contract pack? What's that...?
  22. nightingale
    Awesome, glad you're enjoying it!!
  23. nightingale
    That should be the only condition that would cause it to fail.
  24. nightingale
    Nope, definitely not by design, raised [#220] to look into it. EDIT: Actually, can you provide a log? Just in case it's failing because of some horrible exception in the vessel rename code...
  25. nightingale
    Yikes, wonder why that's so significant for you... I'll try to take a look... soon-ish.
×
×
  • Create New...