nightingale

New release! Just a bug fix release, but a few important ones, so I'd recommend you download now! Waypoint Manager 2.1.6 Fix for NullReferenceException in some cases. Fix for Module Manager reload (and possibly other scenarios) causing the add-on to get started multiple times (causes possible performance/rendering issues). Don't occlude waypoints when really close (fixes issues with waypoints at the top of hills disappearing).

Renaming is the same as deleting for the bug since they are referenced by name. Main reason I didn't want to reuse was so that the player didn't keep seeing the same names over and over again. How about this, I'll implement it so that if the list of unowned (or tourists if I make the change below) hits say... 250, I'll start reusing. That way there's a wide enough pool of names that a typical player won't notice the reuse, and the save-bloat is kept to a minimum. Raised [#160] on GitHub to track. I'll have to play with it again, but I seemed to remember it didn't work for some reason when I tried it. It may be what Squad ends up using for 1.0 instead of a trait - so might be worthwhile changing it now if that's the case. At the very least it behaved the same as Unowned.

Granted. Every poster is now Vanamonde. I wish for one of my meaningful posts to get rep'd so I can get the 5 rep I need for my next bar (been waiting since the weekend )

Good ideas, but won't work. I was very hopeful when you mentioned Claw's hotfix, but his solution is the same as mine - put the Kerbals into the "Unowned" state, so they don't show in the astronaut complex (but still exist in the save file). I can't stop it from happening as there's too many ways it can happen. One of the main places I see it is getting the "first splashdown" (maybe every landing before it was on land). Or vice-versa (first landing). Same thing with giving a warning - it's way too easy to accidentally mess it up - then the player ends up with a corrupted save. I'm not too concerned about the save bloat unless someone can point me to a specific problem it causes. From a file size perspective the extra Kerbals don't add a lot - let's say 100 bytes. 1000 Kerbals would be a ton of contracts, and that's still only 100KB (not negligible, but not huge either). My bigger area of concern is that they get stored in a list. Scanning a list of 1000 is quite fast, but I've seen too many places where KSP likes to do checks on every clock tick. Scanning a list of 1000 items 60 times per second still isn't terrible... but starts to get more worrisome. Anyway, the main reason that I'm not putting a fix in is that it would be a fairly painful fix for me (the cure is worse than the disease, for me at least), and I fully expect that this will not be an issue in 1.0 any more. Now if 1.0 rolls around and we still have this problem... then maybe I'll need to revisit this position and do the hard workaround for Squad's bugs that I really don't want to do.

That's the Contract Configurator debug window, which is mapped to Alt-F10. My guess is either you've remapped your hotkeys, or you have sticky fingers when you're trying to do Alt-F9. I'll put a close button into the corner, but in the meantime you can close it by doing Alt-F10 again.

Thanks guys. Nothing needed on your end, I just need to send a pull request in to the CKAN authors. This thread was mainly a place I could point them at to show that I had the approval of the authors. - - - Updated - - - Okay, pull request sent to CKAN, once it gets merged the changes will show within an hour after that. As far as renaming on KerbalStuff, it won't be an issue if they have different names (CKAN uses an internal identifier to find changes). Not sure if it's possible to rename on KS (as far as I know its not).

Oh yeah, had a look at that issue, there's really nothing for me to do - you've done all that needs to be done except that last cleanup of your zip file for them. Good stuff.

I'd like to rename a few contract packs on CKAN, and want to get buy in from their various authors. I'd like them all to follow the convention "Contract Pack: Something". This way, they all get sorted together in the list for CKAN, which helps with visibility for all the contract packs. I've listed the contract packs and authors below, so please respond and let me know if you're okay with this change (and no worries if you are not). [TABLE] [TR] [TD]Current Name[/TD] [TD]Proposed Name[/TD] [TD]Author[/TD] [TD]Response[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Advanced Progression Contracts[/TD] [TD]Contract Pack: Advanced Progression[/TD] [TD]tjsnh[/TD] [TD]Yea[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Banking[/TD] [TD]Contract Pack: Banking[/TD] [TD]Arachnidek[/TD] [TD]Yea[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]InitialContracts[/TD] [TD]Contract Pack: Initial Contracts[/TD] [TD]Yemo[/TD] [TD]Yea[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Once I get responses from everyone I'll push the change to CKAN.

Would you have any objections if I threw this up on CKAN for you?

Give the dev version a try, should be working now. I suspect with the "define" vessels you may run into issues with undocking/docking at some point where it loses track of the vessel (I think linuxgurugamer may have already run into it). I've raised [#158] to track it, so if either of you (or anyone else, really) run into issues with losing tracking of a vessel and can reliably reproduce it, please post the details there. I'll help me greatly when it comes time to fix that stuff up.

Sure does! I initially would remove them from the list, but if the tourists do something "meaningful" (first in space, first splashdown, etc. etc.), they end up in the progress tracking list in KSP, and then when it saves the persistence file it blows up with exceptions. Unless it causes a specific issue for someone/some mod, I'm not likely going to change it before 1.0. Which brings me to the elephant in the room (surprised it hasn't come up yet). Squad is introducing tourism contracts in 1.0 - so what will I do with this one when that time comes? To be honest, I'm not sure - but this is a contract pack that I wanted to build for a while, and I'm confident enough that it has enough content beyond what Squad will do to still be valuable once they release their stuff. Anyway, I will probably do one or more of these things: Integration the tourist trait (assuming that's how they implement it) into this mod. Fix issues with keeping tourists in the persistence list (because they will have the same problem and fix it properly... right?) Disable the stock tourist contracts (this really depends on what the overlap is). Decide if I want to implement any functionality that the stock tourism contracts do differently/better (or that I don't do at all). So anyway, let me know if the current model is causing a problem, and I can look at changes.

Attempted to build a Duna speed rover with inverted wings (like an F1 car!) and rocket engines. It ended... poorly.

Internal Contract Configurator speak. If you look at RKain101's screenshot at the top of this page (the one on the right), you see the "Vessel: Orbiter (new)" line. "Orbiter" is what I'm referring to as the tag. It's not an actual vessel name, but an internal tag that it gives a vessel when it completes the given parameter. In fact, if you complete it with a vessel called "Amhran I", it will then show that name instead in the contract window (but internally it will still keep track of it as "Orbiter"). Anyway, I'm trying to push tjnsh to change those contracts to make them simpler. There's at least a couple minor problems with the tag stuff that I need to look at (mainly around docking).

It should work that way, although sometimes KSP gets in the way. Can you send me the contract config in question and I'll take a closer look at it? Yup, unfortunately. What I was doing had nothing to do with flag planting, which is why I hadn't even though to test that. In short, KSP does weird things with EVAs when planting a flag, and I did not expect it.

I realized that for the past 5 months or so I've spent so much time working on mods that I've barely played Kerbal Space Program at all. This challenged seemed like the ideal break. But I didn't want to get into all the 60 km/s Duna insanity. So I decided to go for a planet with a little less... atmosphere. The goal was to get to Eeloo in less than 300 days. I made it, but I may have slightly bent one of the rules (would it be Kerbal otherwise?). Foxster, I'll need your judgement call on whether my entry still qualifies, being in the spirit of the challenge. Let's just say I'm glad that the EVA pack has about 500 m/s of delta-v in it... Read on for my journey to Eeloo, and don't mind the occasional plug for my mods. I also forgot that the mission timer would reset when Jeb left the capsule, so here's my estimated mission time: 294d 00:30:23 - Time of last screenshot (143,354m @ 706.9 m/s) 00:01:06 - (46,500 m) / (706.9 m/s) - Estimated time passed between last screenshot to Jeb exiting the capsule. 00:04:53 - Jeb's mission timer after landing. Total: 294d 00:36:22

Oh that could very much affect it since the tag orbiter is being used in many different contacts. Another reason I'd suggest reworking that a little. That being said, there's probably still bugs in that functionality on my side, especially when we talk about docking or decoupling.

Alright, think I've got the HasCrew issue for unmanned fixed properly now. If someone can give it a try and let me know if it's good, I'd appreciate it.

Hmm... can't tell much from that save since the only vessel still around is "Satellite Prototype". I'd need to see what things looked like before you recovered the vessel.

Interesting idea, to be honest I've never played with MechJeb so I don't even know if this is feasible/possible. Raised [#28] on GitHub to track, but no promises.

Seems like the tag "Orbiter" isn't getting associated to your vessel (and renaming your vessel won't help). Can you post your save file and I'll take a look (also let me know the name of the vessel you're expecting should be completing this.

Ack, just released 0.7.3 and missed this post. I'll have to retest some more. - - - Updated - - - Contract Configurator 0.7.3 is out with a few bug fixes. Download it here! Contract Configurator 0.7.3 Fix problems with VesselDestroyed (big thanks to linuxgurugamer for his patience on this one). Fix HasCrew for unmanned check. Improved parameter text slightly. Fix exceptions when planting flag (thanks Zach9236). Removing contracts (ie. uninstalling a contract pack) no longer causes exceptions in existing save games.

0/10 I've never heard of a walrus in space.

Heh, I wasn't sure if I should just require that there's the space for them or the free space. It works well with OKS/MKS where you usually end up with empty hab modules because your Kerbals are all in workshops. Maybe I need to come up with support in the expressions for "distance to another vessel" so that I can make real rescue contracts. Ie. "rescue the Kerbal that you left floating out in space (or in orbit of the sun)".

Thanks, I remember seeing him do that, but forgot that I have the direct download link(s) to update. Have some rep! That's the exact one! If you want to give it an early test, you can grab the dll from GitHub. My expectation is that I'll release the updated version tonight. That shouldn't work as there should be validation that minCrew <= maxCrew (and if there isn't I need to fix that). Yes and no. It's not quite as clean in terms of the feedback for someone setting up the contracts, so I may eventually add something more in the debug window for this, but you can look at how I do it for the "bring tourists to attraction" contract, which requires one of two vessels to exist. What I did there was: [COLOR=#A71D5D]targetVessel[/COLOR] = [ Space Casino, Space Hotel ].Where([COLOR=#A71D5D]v[/COLOR] => v.IsOrbiting()).Random() I think if you just do this though, it should work (and if not, I may want to improve upon that logic): targetVessel = LKOStation Not something I was aware of, but should be easy enough to find if it was introduced in 0.7.1. Can you either provide the KPS.log or let me know what contract(s) you had active to help narrow it down?

Yes and no. If you put the Module Manager NEEDS bit in, then it means that the contract type won't get loaded if the player doesn't have Kopernicus installed. So it's recommended, but only necessary if you have a mix of contracts that do and don't require Kopernicus. Depending on what you're trying to achieve, you can also do stuff like this with the new expression syntax: [COLOR=#A71D5D][FONT=Consolas]targetBody[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#333333][FONT=Consolas] = AllBodies().Where([/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#A71D5D][FONT=Consolas]b[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#333333][FONT=Consolas] => !b.HasSurface() && b.IsPlanet() && b.Children().Count() > 0).Random()[/FONT][/COLOR] Which would select a random gas giant with moons (of which there is only one in stock).