nightingale

Thanks for the bug report Niarro - raised [#207] on Contract Configurator, hopefully I'll be able to take a look at this for the next release.

Really? That's very surprising, although not impossible. Can you provide a screenshot of what the contract looks like when you're expecting it to complete? Also, a log file may help, in case it's some exception that is happening that is causing it to not work.

Gotta run, so will just post the raw data. Had to take a completely new approach, but the numbers are way more sensible. Ice Caps = 0.999788348589873 Shores = 0.111981799797776 Water = 0.00176463097382161 Grasslands = 0.98367677703172 Highlands = 0.999844123454224 Tundra = 0.858763471355644 Mountains = 0.996277338296882 Badlands = 1 Deserts = 0.993243243243243

Correct on everything you said above. I'm going to play around with the numbers a bit and see if there's stuff right at/near the threshold to see if that change the ice caps (and possibly grasslands, those numbers just don't feel right).

Are you able to post up your save file? That may help here.

Sounds like something you could integrate into your spreadsheet! It's pulled directly from the height and biome maps, which are undoubtedly buried in the game code so I doubt you'd be able to do the same thing in perl. But if you want me to provide the data for the other bodies, I can do that once I get everything verified.

Well, I was getting way too many "Splashed down at Kerbin's Mountains" shenanigans, so I had to implement something. It's still a work in progress, but I was able to read from the height map directly, so it's relatively fast. Got some interesting data from it: [TABLE=class: grid, width: 160] [TR] [TD]Biome[/TD] [TD=align: right]Land%[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Badlands[/TD] [TD=align: right]84.25[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Deserts[/TD] [TD=align: right]80.33[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Grasslands[/TD] [TD=align: right]66.99[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Highlands[/TD] [TD=align: right]99.57[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Ice Caps[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.20[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Mountains[/TD] [TD=align: right]99.39[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Shores[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.16[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Tundra[/TD] [TD=align: right]48.39[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Water[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.00[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Some are fairly unsurprising, but there's some outliers - the ice caps are all water? Does that mean that the ice caps are actually implemented not as terrain but as a structure? That probably also would explain the 50/50 split on tundra. Grasslands also seems to have a surprisingly high percentage of water.

Bingo. EDIT: Wait, no. No Vessel. targetVessel = AllVessels().Where(v => v.ResourceCapacity(LiquidFuel)>1000 && v.ResourceQuantity(LiquidFuel)<100)

Added Vesel.ResourceCapacity() for next release (it was really, really easy, and made sense to have even if you don't end up using it. )

Could you send your save file? That might help in confirming why the contract isn't completing.

Ugh, ugh, ugh. I remember having all the issues you described many weeks ago, and I thought I fixed it all. Just in case, can you confirm you're on the latest versions of the contract pack (1.1.3) and Contract Configurator (1.0.4)? If yes, then I'll have to do some testing for a fix.

I'm hardly offended, Contracts Window + offers tons of functionality that mine doesn't. I was just thinking that perhaps you perhaps preferred the stock look/simplicity and might not be aware of Wider Contracts App.

Self advertising, but I'd suggest you give Wider Contracts App a try. Simple mod, but makes the stock contracts app much nicer to use. Or of course, there's always DMagic's Contracts Window +.

Fair enough - I'm hoping the "Contract Pack" designation keeps people from expecting that.

Done for next version, it's called HasAstronaut and takes the same inputs as the HasCrew requirement (which is now renamed to HasAstronaut for consistency). Test it on the dev version here if you like, otherwise it'll be in the next release in a few days.

Oh but it is something new... the contracts aren't all just going to be "go do experiment X at location Y"... that's too boring. Going to have to make some more interesting contracts than that.

Ah I see. I'm thinking for the first version I'll just leave it as is, but it will need to be addressed at some point. My current thinking (which hasn't been vetted by looking at what's possible) is to do a walkthrough of the vertices of the underlying data structure that represents the planet's mesh/PQS (which I finally just figured out stands for Planet Quad Sphere). For each vertex get the biome and flag whether it's above or below sea level. Use that information to get a % of land/water for each biome. I can then use that to estimate what biome/situation combinations can be considered extremely difficult and filter them out (or better yet, filter them into special 3-star contracts that make the difficulty clear). I have no idea how hard that will be code wise. I have no idea how performant it will be (do I need to do it one-time only at game start and cache the results to disk? or perhaps once per game without caching?). Regardless, I can't see it being something that can be done per scene change/game load. As far as the player figuring out where the biomes are, the most I'll do is give suggestions in the mod's thread. SCANsat is one, KRE shows the current biome, and the stock cheat menu has the biome overlay. Out of game, the wiki has biome maps for everything, and I'm sure there's more options out there too. Some players may want to figure it out on their own, as the biome names often give enough of a hint ("Highlands", "Northern Craters", "Poles", etc.) - - - Updated - - - Ah, but there are also experiments that are non-biome specific.

Try something like this: @targetBody = OrbitedBodies().Where(b => b.HasSurface()).Random() That will filter Sun and Jool. I've no idea if it's possible to add a gas giant with biomes in planet packs... but too bad for them, I guess?

Alrighty, thanks again DMagic, got all the progression stuff in. Took a while to figure out that AvailablePart.moduleInfos[].moduleName I was looking for was not "ModuleScienceExperiment", not "ScienceExperiment", but "Science Experiment". Jeez. Anyway, I think I've got all the groundwork stuff done, so now it's mostly a question of putting the contracts together, which hopefully won't take too long (but I can sometimes get carried away when I come up with an interesting idea for a contract...). So what do we want to call this thing? Going through a couple names in my head, and right now I like "Contract Pack: Field Research". Thoughts?

Be careful. Working on a little something now, so I may take you up on that.

As opposed to this: { name = RTGSolar type = PartValidation hideChildren = true title = Have one of the following power generators // PartModule(s) to check for. Optional, and can be specified multiple times. partModule = ModuleDeployableSolarPanel partModule = ModuleGenerator // Minimum count, default = 1 minCount = 1 }PARAMETER Because PartValidation doesn't really do logical-OR very well. What you posted says it needs a single part that is both a solar panel and generator.

The funds are about the same - rep was cut drastically from those insane numbers and science was removed entirely. The funds aren't too high considering the ones shown are for launching a 3-4 sat Eeloo network and a 6-15+ sat Jool network.... In fact maybe the Jool one (coming in at 3 million funds) is too low... it's a big logistical one to do, so maybe would be reasonable being 5 million.

It was a good attempt. You forked and made the change, but looks like you didn't hit submit on the pull request. Care to try it again? EDIT: And I definitely need a copy editor. It would probably all be perfect if I actually took the time to re-read stuff... Still, I need to fix stuff like this before I see it on HMV's youtube series like I did with a typo in Anomaly Surveyor.

Oh, disabling stock contracts is easy. See here.

Already got it so you could filter it any which way - it'll be just as easy to do surface only, orbital only, flight only, biome-specific, etc. Ugh, I thought I was just about done, but realized I don't have anything for looking at what experiments can actually be DONE by the player. Research is part of it, but there are other aspects: Does the player have the pre-requisite building upgrade (EVA and samples)? For EVA it's even uglier, because you can do EVAs on the surface of Kerbin without an upgrade, so it's got some special cases. Asteroid sample experiments are a big outlier. Hypothetically, you can do it right on day 1, but I wouldn't want to offer the player "do an asteroid sample while landed in Kerbin's grasslands" in a simple 1-star contract. Is there even a way to tell that a given experiment requires a part? I'll have to look closer at that.