nightingale

I needed to get 0.7.12 out for some fixes related to something special I'm working on.... check back in about 30 minutes for a new mini-contract pack. Download 0.7.12 now! Contract Configurator 0.7.12 Fix issue when loading part names with non-standard characters (thanks tattagreis). Fix issue with using custom behaviours. Can now provide multiple techs, parts and part modules in PartModuleUnlocked, PartUnlocked and TechResearched requirements. TechResearched requirement now supports selecting techs by specifying parts. WaypointGenerator now supports a hidden attribute for waypoints. Hash contract configuration details, and cancel offered contracts if the hashed values do not match. This prevents old contracts from staying on offer when a contract pack is upgraded. Improved handling of invalid vessel identifiers. SpawnVessel now properly supports landed vessels. Support for hierarchies of contract groups. Fixes for Expression requirement. Minor bug fixes.

Could you provide a log file? Also, does cancelling and re-accepting the contract fix it?

Here's what it would look like with an expression - I ended up keeping the requirements to match exactly what you're looking for: CONTRACT_TYPE{ name = KerbalExperienceTest title = Kerbal Pilot Experience description = Do something with @targetKerbal! DATA { type = Kerbal // Get a Kerbal that matches our criteria targetKerbal = AllKerbals().Where(k => k.ExperienceTrait() == Pilot && k.ExperienceLevel() == 4).Random() } REQUIREMENT { name = HasCrew type = HasCrew trait = Pilot minExperience = 4 maxExperience = 4 maxCount = 1 } REQUIREMENT { name = HasCrew type = HasCrew trait = Pilot minExperience = 5 maxExperience = 5 maxCount = 0 } REQUIREMENT { name = HasCrew type = HasCrew trait = Pilot minExperience = 3 maxExperience = 3 maxCount = 0 } } I ran some quick tests and there were minor issues (which will be fixed in 0.7.12). So if you can wait a couple days, the above should work, or you can grab the development dll here.

In that case you may want to look at an expression to "select" the Kerbal that meets your criteria. Tourism contract pack would have examples, although I may need to add methods for you to get the trait and experience level (they may already be there, can't check at the moment).

Hmm, those are quite low, I'll raise them a bit. But no science for those contracts, bring a thermometer along for the ride if you need science. Yup, like futrtrubl said - it doesn't make logical sense to require a sat in orbit to see those.

Correct. So if you wanted "one pilot at level four, and maybe twelve pilots at level two or lower, but none at three or five", then you would do: [COLOR=#333333]REQUIREMENT[/COLOR] [COLOR=#333333]{[/COLOR] [COLOR=#333333] name = HasCrew [/COLOR][COLOR=#333333] type = HasCrew [/COLOR][COLOR=#333333] trait = Pilot [/COLOR][COLOR=#333333] minExperience = 4 [/COLOR][COLOR=#333333] maxExperience = 4 [/COLOR][COLOR=#333333] maxCount = 1[/COLOR] [COLOR=#333333]} [/COLOR][COLOR=#333333]REQUIREMENT[/COLOR] [COLOR=#333333]{[/COLOR] [COLOR=#333333] name = HasCrew [/COLOR][COLOR=#333333] type = HasCrew [/COLOR][COLOR=#333333] trait = Pilot [/COLOR][COLOR=#333333] minExperience = 5 [/COLOR][COLOR=#333333] maxExperience = 5 [/COLOR][COLOR=#333333] maxCount = 0[/COLOR] [COLOR=#333333]} [/COLOR][COLOR=#333333]REQUIREMENT[/COLOR] [COLOR=#333333]{[/COLOR] [COLOR=#333333] name = HasCrew [/COLOR][COLOR=#333333] type = HasCrew [/COLOR][COLOR=#333333] trait = Pilot [/COLOR][COLOR=#333333] minExperience = 3 [/COLOR][COLOR=#333333] maxExperience = 3 [/COLOR][COLOR=#333333] maxCount = 0[/COLOR] [COLOR=#333333]}[/COLOR] Although those are fairly rigid requirements. Maybe just having contracts for "none at level 5", "none at level 4+", "none at level 3+", etc. may make more sense.

It should work with rescale mods, although it hasn't been extensively tested. There's certainly the possibility that there are some of the anomalies that are underground. In general though, the last update made offsets based on the PQS information - meaning that the waypoints should all be the right spots, at least.

It's an all or nothing thing, there's no way for severesolo to only remove them for Kerbin/Mun/Minmus.

Note that it's been planned for a little bit, but I added [#184] to Contract Configurator for adding a behaviour for generating asteroids. That may be one solution to the issue of generating multiple asteroids with Custom Asteroids (as well as allowing you to generate asteroids that aren't in solar orbit). Note however that this ties you to the contract system, which you may or may not want. Oh, and the functionality for generating asteroids via Contract Configurator is technically already available via SpawnVessel, but would require that you create a .craft file for the asteroid.

This looks awesome! Congratulations on the release!

Just a heads up, working on a change now that will break those contracts where the vessel name starts with a number... it'll be released in Contract Configurator 0.7.12.

Generally speaking, with few exceptions, all the contract data for an offered or accepted contact is stored in the persistence file. This means that when a contract pack upgrades the users won't see the changes in their active or offered contracts. I'll look at a change for the next version to auto cancel the offered ones on update (but I won't ever touch the active ones).

Not sure what Mission Controller 2 has to do with it. Contract Configurator in general should be compatible with MC2. This contract pack itself may have some overlap in the type of contracts that MC2 provides, so I although I doubt anything will break if you have both, it may not be the "ideal" play experience. As far grand tour contracts, I've never been aware of MC2 having them. I took a peek at the first post on malkuth's thread, and didn't see anything related to them. Perhaps you're thinking of the stock grand tours (which are disabled out of the box)?

Yeah, I'd rather not support vessel tags starting with numbers (complicates parsing, some cases that were clear before may become ambiguous). So I'd take Amedee's patch, as I may make what currently appears to be a warning into an error.

I saved the log for the entire session, so let me know if it would be helpful to look at it. Could you raise a GitHub issue (against Contract Configurator)? In addition to the info provided, for this one I'll need to see a save file. Not sure if this is related to the problem you're having, or is just background noise though (looking at that warning, it shouldn't break anything major).

I find myself giving out the first rep point fairly frequently for users signing up to raise support requests on my mods.

Exactly

Close. The parameter won't be inactive - it won't be there at all. Same effect in the end though.

I should be more specific - the functionality in Contract Configurator doesn't look at whether the part is unlocked, just whether the tech for that part is unlocked. EDIT: although I should probably change that in 1.0.0...

Personally not a big fan of requirements based on track node, since that effectively removes support for alternate tech trees. Also, 1.0 is going to change the nodes significantly. Better alternative when available is to base it off part unlock. As for the RemoteTech support, if you choose to do that you can look at my RT contract pack to see what I have for unlock requirements.

For the crew rotation contracts, severedsolo may be able to give you the run down - otherwise if you post up a screenshot I can probably point you in the right direction. severedsolo - I did take a peek, and have a suggestion for an alternate way of doing the crew rotation contract. Take a look at the contract in the tourism pack for sending Kerbals home from the attraction. It randomly picks X Kerbals and names the ones that need to return home in the contract - you could use something along those lines for your crew rotation to make it more obvious to the player what needs to be done (it wasn't obvious to me, but I only skimmed the .cfg file and didn't look at it in game).

Cinqo De Mayo. Then Squad can party and wait for the 6th to deal with issues.

Correct - until you get all the contract parameters green, it won't consider any vessel as CommSat I/II/III/IV. So because it hasn't picked anything up yet, you can't have a direct connection to it. Once the orbital stuff gets corrected, the rest of the pieces should fall into place.

Looks like you aren't meeting the eccentricity and inclination part of the parameters (they are still incomplete/grey).

Whoops, thanks for that. It's fixed now, but CKAN will probably be broken for an hour or so while it catches up with the change. Those are from the Anomaly Surveyor contract pack (link in my sig).