Jump to content

nightingale

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,137

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by nightingale

  1. nightingale
    Nah, that wouldn't have worked that way, main problem being that you can't use both define and vessel together on VesselParameterGroup. For define, it means "tag/name the vessel that completes this parameter with this name". For vessel, it means "this can only be met by a vessel previously tagged with the given name. They aren't strictly mutually exclusive, but wont' work in this case. Anyway, I'd realized that I didn't really like either of the options I gave you. So I added a VesselDestroyed. It'll be coming in 0.7.0, but I haven't done the documentation or even really tested it. But you can give it a go. The modified version of your contract would be: CONTRACT_TYPE { name = FirstMunImpact title = Crash a probe on the Mun! description = We want to see the Mun closer, in preparation of landing on it. To do this, we need to send a probe to crash on the Mun. This will be a monumental achievement. notes = Complete the following: synopsis = Launch an unmanned probe and have it crash onto the Mun. completedMessage = Future generations will remember this day. agent = Photographic Society of Kerbin cancellable = false declinable = false prestige = Significant targetBody = Mun maxCompletions = 1 maxSimultaneous = 1 rewardScience = 100.0 rewardReputation = 80.0 rewardFunds = 120000.0 advanceFunds = 60000.0 weight = 99.0 REQUIREMENT { name = CompleteContract_test type = CompleteContract contractType = MunImpact } PARAMETER { name = VPG_test1 type = VesselParameterGroup // nightingale - I'd let the title default itself in most cases // title = Vessel: Any; Duration: 1 year // nightingale 1 year??? in this case it'd mean that you need to wait 1 year after impact. Actually, maybe that is what you intended... // duration = 1y // nightingale - not useful, vessel will be dead. // define = VPG_vessel_key1 // vessel = VPG_vessel_key1 PARAMETER { name = VPG_TD_test1 type = VesselDestroyed } } You'll want to grab the dev version from this link
  2. nightingale
    Ah right, that would make sense.... that one is pretty tough, I don't think there's much I can do about that. There may be other instances where stuff is off by a bit, but I suspect the Island airfield would be the worst.
  3. nightingale
    I'd first try the TargetDestroyed parameter. It's not a vessel parameter, so you can't have it work on the current vessel, but what you can do is set up a VesselParameterGroup that uses the define attribute to assign a name to the vessel that matches the parameters (ie. orbiting mun, unmanned, etc.). You can then use that name in the separate TargetDestroyed parameter. A second (but not very good) option is to use VesselHasVisited, which give the option for a "die" on the Mun parameter. But it can't be tied to a vessel at all. If neither of those options work for you, let me know and I can try to get something new for you.
  4. nightingale
    As long as it's a Kerbin rescaled I think it should be okay - although I haven't tested. What I'm not sure about is how some of the the easter eggs do with the scaling. Note that the RemoteTech one will be getting an update after Contract Configurator 0.7.0 comes out and will support all rescaled systems automatically without needing to tweak it. Make sure to keep an eye on the contract objectives as you approach the monolith... you'll start getting new goals once you get close to the monolith (within 50km).
  5. nightingale
    Congrats again on the release! The contract pack list in the first post has been updated with a link to your thread.
  6. nightingale
    Congratulations on the release! I'll add this to the first post in the CC thread when I get back home this afternoon.
  7. nightingale
    Nevermind the GitHub issue - I've got the fix ready to go in 0.7.0 (note that it's not in the pre-release build linked to above though).
  8. nightingale
    Today, I built a space casino. Some say... it rocks.
  9. nightingale
    Hint as to what the upcoming contract pack is about:
  10. nightingale
    Nah, if it was a syntax error it wouldn't have loaded at all. I'm pretty sure I introduced this bug as part of my performance fixes in CC 0.6.6. I'm also pretty sure it's fixed in the dev branch. I'm going to do a pre-release of 0.7.0 (the real one is coming in a few days or so). Eiktyrner, could you give it a try and let me know if it resolves your issue? (I'll post the link once it's up). - - - Updated - - - Pre-release build is up: Contract Configurator 0.6.90.
  11. nightingale
    Ah, I see. Yes, if you have a dish with sufficient range pointed at the planet, you would get somewhere between 0.2 and 0.7 coverage (I left the window very large, as the update happens slowly, and there are only a few sample points, so this can vary a little bit over time). I wanted to give as much freedom as possible... if the player completes the innersat contract but then turns off the dish pointed to Moho or something, then I'd like the Moho contract to NOT show up. Similarly, if the player chooses not to do innersat, they can still activate the per-body contracts by pointing a dish at said body. Okay, your use case makes more sense to me now. With the exception of the Kerbin contract that acts as a semi-tutorial, I wanted to leave the per-body ones very open - the player gets coverage, but I don't tell them how (as the network design aspect is half the fun of RemoteTech!). For that reason, I don't want to create a contract that specific in this contract pack - but I'll help you out if you need assistance on the Contract Configurator side of things. Raise a GitHub issue on Contract Configurator please. Because it's defaulting from the CONTRACT_TYPE, it will always put the targetBody (which is not what was intended). The workaround is to put activeVessel=True in your HasAntenna parameter (that will disable checking for a targetBody).
  12. nightingale
    As a general, that type of behaviour typically implies a crash in the waypoint system, but I'd need a log to know more. Also, which arch is it? And double check that you're on the latest Contract Configurator version (0.6.7). In 0.6.6 there were some performance changes to work around the issue (stock performance issue) that you described with the stock toolbar.
  13. nightingale
    0.6.x - Yes, but only if the station is one that was set up as part of another contract. 0.7.0 - Yes, and it can be any station that meets the requirements you define. However, I would be somewhat upset if the other half of that contract didn't involve bringing said forms back to the Administration building for long term storage.
  14. nightingale
    Write C# code! Unless of course, you meant how to do it using Contract Configurator. Start by reading through the wiki - you might then want to look at the contract packs listed in the first post as examples. If you have specific questions, feel free to post them on this thread or the general contract pack thread.
  15. nightingale
    Oh, I don't enjoy novelizations of movies. I kid, I kid!!!
  16. nightingale
    I'm not you!!!!! sal_vager is always watching.
  17. nightingale
    As a Canadian, I approve of this mod.
  18. nightingale
    That's the problem with putting the "fun" stuff at the end behind 2 prerequisite contracts and way out at Jool, nobody realizes that good content is out there. And it really needs to be out at Jool to mesh with the source material that inspired it... Maybe I need to get one of the YouTubers that hang out here to do that mission.
  19. nightingale
    Great stuff, let me know what you think of that Jool Monolith contract.... I've been waiting to hear feedback from anyone about it! I spent almost half of the development time just on that one scene.... you'll see...
  20. nightingale
    <shrug>.... that's the contract system for you... transparency is not a key feature.
  21. nightingale
    You may also want to look at my Anomaly Surveyor contract pack which has contracts for visiting the easter eggs (using the 0.90 waypoint system.
  22. nightingale
    The SequenceNode parameter was deprecated in 0.6.7. Nothing for 0.7.0 will be deprecated - mostly was new stuff being added.
  23. nightingale
    And that is why I hate undeclinable contracts...
  24. nightingale
    The 0.7.0 release and contract pack are closing in... just doing a little bit of testing that requires me to do some fun construction projects.
  25. nightingale
    Yup, just checked both of you are on Contract Configurator 0.6.3, which is very significant - as of version 1.0.2 of the contract pack, you need at least Contract Configurator 0.6.6. I mentioned 0.6.6 in the release notes, but I didn't make it super clear that it was a required update - I'll make sure to do that in future. That being said, I think there is a pretty good chance that your saves will be unbroken just by upgrading Contract Configurator - so please do give that a try and let me know! It *may* be that you need to cancel the Jool monolith contract and re-accept it to get the monolith to show up... not 100% sure, but we can deal with that if it's an issue.
×
×
  • Create New...