nightingale

Agreed, raised [#9] on GitHub. I spot checked, and the ones I looked at have a requirement for coverage between 0.2 and 0.7 (see Duna one as an example). Is there a specific one that you were looking at that I perhaps missed? Note quite sure what you mean here - other than the Kerbin network, the per-planet networks have very loose requirements (ie. just "get coverage"). It can be met in any number of ways. I'm also curious about what your proposed DP-10 network would look like... I did a quick calculation and think you'd need 4 four equatorial Duna coverage - which isn't so bad. But I don't want to know what that would look like for Eve....

All four seem to transfer the "weak" landed-ness back to the return ship after docking AND/OR after EVA'ing a kerbal over from the lander. Clearly, progress. :-) A2 and B2 allow completion AFTER re-docking the lander & return ship by simply launching a "10 meter hop" ship off the launchpad. A1 and B1 both require the correct ship to return home. They still work if the lander is "terminated" from KSC before the returnship gets home. Any thoughts or advice on if I should go with A1 or B1 as the template? Hmmm, now that the EVA kerbals keep the parameters, I guess that makes A1 a pretty creative solution to not allowing another ship to do the flag-planting. I can't think of a reason it wouldn't work, so I vote A1! Note that on this one: [COLOR=#333333]PARAMETER {[/COLOR] [COLOR=#333333] name = ReturnHomeA1[/COLOR] [COLOR=#333333] type = ReturnHome[/COLOR] [COLOR=#ff0000] vessel = Landermission[/COLOR] [COLOR=#333333] completeInSequence = true[/COLOR] [COLOR=#333333]}[/COLOR] vessel = Landermission doesn't actually do anything here - since the vessel attribute doesn't get read for this parameter type (it should be generating a warning on startup).

I use Waypoint Manager to put a custom waypoint at the end of the runway....

Hey Yemo - I'm just finishing up Contract Configurator 0.7.0 (expect to release it by the weekend). It turned out that I didn't really need to do much with the asteroids, you can pretty much just use: PARAMETER { name = PartValidation type = PartValidation partModule = ModuleAsteroid } Which basically will mean "you need to grab an asteroid". It won't work 100% on 0.6.x because I needed to check for a couple extra events, but otherwise, that's all there is to it. From looking at your roadmap, I think this is probably enough for you - but you tell me. I'll also double check that the Docking parameter works for asteroids (haven't done that yet).

For returning without the lander can you describe your steps including undocking/docking and EVAs? I'd like to try to reproduce. Also is this using the config I gave you, or with modifications?

Although I would also prefer seeing newer stuff, it's unlikely that anything I see on Modding Monday is new to me - so I'm really not their target audience. Considering that the same Modding Monday post goes up on facebook and twitter, I'd say that the vast majority of the forum goers here simply aren't who they are targeting. And that's okay, since it's just another day to wait for devnotes tuesday. But hey, we can always start our own modding mondays for new mods! I nominate michaelhester07's Civilian Population.

Edit : Doesn't seem to work, same issue I was having before with the landing failing to complete the contract. More tinkering to do. Edit2 : removing vessal = lander in the returnhome parameter (from the example in the spoiler) SEEMS to have done the trick, but more testing is needed to see if it's abuse-able. Edit 3 : Ok - found an issue. Current behavior with contract in spoiler (minus the vessal = lander) is thus : Launch Pod A, park in kerbin orbit Launch Pod B, go plant flag on minmus Land pod A back on Kerbin Mission completion credit triggers. Suggestions? Yup, that makes sense - it's the stock plant flag parameter. Anything that isn't under the Vessel Parameters heading in the wiki will not be tracked at a vessel level. It will still work in a VesselParameterGroup - it just will only get completed once. Here's how I'd suggest you rework your contract: //////////////////////////// CONTRACT_TYPE { name = TESTMINMUSLANDING2 title = TESTMINMUSLANDING2 description = TESTMINMUSLANDING2 notes = Complete the following: synopsis = TESTMINMUSLANDING2 completedMessage = TESTMINMUSLANDING2 agent = Kerbin World-Firsts Record-Keeping Society cancellable = false declinable = false prestige = Trivial targetBody = Minmus maxCompletions = 1 rewardScience = 100.0 rewardReputation = 20.0 rewardFunds = 100000.0 advanceFunds = 10000.0 weight = 99.0 PARAMETER { name = VesselParameterGroup992002 type = VesselParameterGroup PARAMETER { name = HasCrew992001 type = HasCrew trait = Pilot minCrew = 1 } PARAMETER { name = ReachState992001 type = ReachState situation = LANDED completeInSequence = true } PARAMETER { name = PlantFlag type = PlantFlag targetBody = Minmus } PARAMETER { name = ReturnHome992001 type = ReturnHome completeInSequence = true } } } //////////////////////////// And my list of revisions (some were minor): Removed maxSimultaneous - redundant since you have maxCompletions Removed the outer VesselParameterGroup - it actually wasn't doing anything, because the parameters underneath it weren't "vessl parameters" (VesslParameterGroup is special - doesn't count). If you had other reasons for grouping it (aesthetics?), then you can get the same thing using an All parameter. Removed the define off HasCrew (it should've been generating a warning, as it's not an attribute that is used by HasCrew). Collapsed the two VesselParameterGroup parameters together - it's a better way to force the "return home" to be met by the same vessel that meets the other parameters (when available). Added a ReachState with a situation of Landed (the Minmus targetBody gets inferred from the contract). It also has the completeInSequence flag set - forces the landing portion of the mission to have the 1 crew. Technically speaking, it's still possible to have a different vessel/mission do the flag part. However, the one ship/crew must do the landing and have the pilot on the surface of Minmus - so you can remove the flag and still effectively have the same mission. I raised a GitHub issue (#139) to see about getting the PlantFlag to be a vessel parameter - won't be in the 0.6.x branch, and no guarantees for 0.7.0.

Contract Configurator 0.6.7 is out. Download it now! Changes: Added support for completeInSequence attribute (all parameters). The state of vessel parameters may now be "transferred" via EVA Kerbals. This allows a ship to land on the Mun, have the Kerbal EVA from the ship to a new ship, and have the new ship still complete the "land on Mun" parameter. Minor bug fixes.

The SETI contracts use Contract Configurator, and that debug menu won't help too much for generating a specific contract. That being said, I took a look at Yemo's configuration, and the requirements for that contract are that you complete the "Orbit & Recovery!". Make sure that you have a "Significant" (2-star) slot open for the contract to show up in. You can try going to mission control and cancelling other 2-star contracts that you don't want - that may make it appear.

With the latest version of active texture management you don't need to do your own DDS conversion - it does it for you. That sounds unlikely. Performance may suffer, but I doubt there's an upper limit.

Wow, no wonder you didn't get any answers... there's some odd stuff going on in that log. Did you remove KSP AVC textures in an attempt to save memory? Going from the top, and most of these are likely red herrings: PlanetShine error, probably nothing: NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at FlightGlobals.get_Bodies () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at PlanetShine.ConfigManager.LoadSettings () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at PlanetShine.ConfigManager.Start () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 Ton of messed up KSP-AVC errors (I'd reinstall it, if you intentionally deleted the textures, I doubt you're saving much anyway): KSP-AVC -> System.IO.IsolatedStorage.IsolatedStorageException: Could not find file "C:\Users\Dylan\Desktop\KSP.90 - K2\KSP_win\GameData\KSP-AVC\Textures\DropDownHover.png". at System.IO.FileStream..ctor (System.String path, FileMode mode, FileAccess access, FileShare share, Int32 bufferSize, Boolean anonymous, FileOptions options) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at System.IO.FileStream..ctor (System.String path, FileMode mode, FileAccess access, FileShare share) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at System.IO.File.OpenRead (System.String path) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at System.IO.File.ReadAllBytes (System.String path) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at KSP_AVC.DropDownList.GetTexture (System.String file, Int32 width, Int32 height) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 USI Exploration Pack seems mucked up: Load(Model): UmbraSpaceIndustries/ExpPack/AES/Spaces/AES_Internal File error: Failed to read past end of stream. at System.IO.BinaryReader.ReadByte () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at System.IO.BinaryReader.Read7BitEncodedInt () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at System.IO.BinaryReader.ReadString () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at A. .ReadTextures (System.IO.BinaryReader br, UnityEngine.GameObject o) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at A. .ReadChild (System.IO.BinaryReader br, UnityEngine.Transform parent) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at A. . (.UrlFile ) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 Model load error in 'C:\Users\Dylan\Desktop\KSP.90 - K2\KSP_win\GameData\UmbraSpaceIndustries\ExpPack\AES\Spaces\AES_Internal.mu' More KSP-AVC odd stuff: KSP-AVC -> System.InvalidCastException: Cannot cast from source type to destination type. at UnityEngine.GUILayout.BeginScrollView (Vector2 scrollPosition, Boolean alwaysShowHorizontal, Boolean alwaysShowVertical, UnityEngine.GUIStyle horizontalScrollbar, UnityEngine.GUIStyle verticalScrollbar, UnityEngine.GUIStyle background, UnityEngine.GUILayoutOption[] options) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at UnityEngine.GUILayout.BeginScrollView (Vector2 scrollPosition, UnityEngine.GUILayoutOption[] options) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at KSP_AVC.Toolbar.ToolbarWindow.DrawAddonBoxStart () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at KSP_AVC.Toolbar.ToolbarWindow.DrawAddonList () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at KSP_AVC.Toolbar.ToolbarWindow.Window (Int32 windowId) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 Some KSPI errors: [KSP Interstellar] Exception caught adding to: FNSmallerAugmentedArcjet part: System.InvalidOperationException: Operation is not valid due to the current state of the object at System.Linq.Enumerable.First[ModuleInfo] (IEnumerable`1 source) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at FNPlugin.PluginHelper.Update () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 Some TAC-LS errors... Tac.AddLifeSupport[57F51680][325.66]: The expected exception is still happening when adding the Life Support part module to the EVA: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at Part.AddModule (System.String moduleName) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Part.AddModule (.ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Tac.AddLifeSupport.EvaAddPartModule (.Part part) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 Some odd RealChute failure, again, my guess is this isn't the problem: NullReferenceException at (wrapper managed-to-native) UnityEngine.MeshFilter:set_sharedMesh (UnityEngine.Mesh) at SpriteMesh.CreateMesh () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at SpriteMesh.get_mesh () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at SpriteRoot.Delete () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at SpriteBase.Delete () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at UIListItemContainer.Delete () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at UIScrollList.RemoveItem (Int32 index, Boolean destroy, Boolean doEasing) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at UIScrollList.RemoveItem (IUIListObject item, Boolean destroy, Boolean doEasing) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at UIScrollList.RemoveItem (IUIListObject item, Boolean destroy) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at ApplicationLauncher.RemoveModApplication (.ApplicationLauncherButton button) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at RealChute.SettingsWindow.OnDestroy () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 Nothing here that is an obvious smoking gun, but the two that are happening during the actual game (the rest are while loading or exiting) are the KSPI one and the TAC-LS ones. Try removing each of those mods in turn to see if it fixes your issue. I'd also reinstall KSP-AVC and USI-Exploration, just in case.

Sounds like something broke in the contract system. I'd need a log file to investigate beyond that though.

Oh yeah, that's a good one - didn't notice that exploit was available. EDIT: Yay, post #500!

Oooh, I think I suspect what's happening. You are defining the lander as the vessel that must return home. So even though the other parameters transfer, the definition of the craft that is the lander does not. If you remove the sequence and put everything under the same VesselParameterGroup, it should work. Note that doing that opens the exploit of "returning home" first. You can get around that by putting the Return Home under a SequenceNode, but I was actually just about to improve that in 0.7.0 and change it to an attribute (SequenceNode will stick around for another version or two before being removed). What I'll do is make that change and the EVA thing we discussed under 0.6.7 and release today or tomorrow. After the change, your new ReturnHome parameter will need to look something like this: [COLOR=#333333]PARAMETER[/COLOR] [COLOR=#333333]{[/COLOR] [COLOR=#333333] name = ReturnHome992001[/COLOR] [COLOR=#333333] type = ReturnHome [/COLOR] completeInSequence = true [COLOR=#333333]}[/COLOR]

I may try removing that and see if it has any effect. Will have to wait until tomorrow though. Any help on this matter is greatly appreciated!! Yes, missing a part would explain on an existing save - but for an entirely new game it really shouldn't be an issue. Anyway, not much more I can say without a log... still just guesswork!

It's undocumented (I'll have to fix that soon), but it's meant to cover the exact scenario you're trying to accomplish. When a ship that has completed a vessel parameter docks with another ship, the new ship will get the state of that parameter "transferred" to it. It will then be flagged as "weakly" meeting the parameter. The only difference being that a ship that weakly meets the parameter will not be able to transfer that parameter state on to a third ship. Scenario 1 is the one you described, although I'll make it slightly more complicated. The mission is to land on the Mun and come home, and the player has built a vessel that consists of a return capsule, mothership and lander. The lander lands on the Mun and completes the various "Mun" parameters. It then returns and docks to the mothership - the main part of the mothership and the return capsule now weakly meet the parameter(s). The player then undocks the return capsule and goes back home (the capsule still meets the parameters). It can then be recovered for mission success. Scenario 2: A ship that meets a parameter docks with a refuelling station. The refuelling station now also weakly meets that parameter. The original ship leaves. A third ship docks to the refuelling station. This ship does NOT meet the parameter - as the docking station only weakly met, and does not transfer the state. So scenario 2 shows how it's somewhat difficult to exploit this behaviour. Not impossible - but more difficult than just doing the contract the way it was meant to be done. Also note that these are for meeting contract parameters - if the contract is met, and a new similar contract comes about, these are considered new parameters (so you couldn't just park a thing that landed on the Mun in Kerbin orbit and somehow use it to "farm" Mun landing contracts or something like that). Anyway, for the EVA it'll work the same - a Kerbal leaving the ship that meets the parameter will strongly meet the parameter, and when entering another ship that new ship will weakly meet the parameter. If the Kerbal leaves again, he will not meet the parameter - as I do not plan on "persisting" anything about the EVA kerbal. Very cool, can't wait to see it.

That sort of thing (don't worry about the exact syntax, it's a dirty CP from an old version) didn't work especially well, as the lander would complete the "reach situation landed" but without physically docking with the mothership (I usually just fly close and do an EVA) and landing a big mess of a ship, the "return home" wouldn't trigger. I've been looking for a better way to do this. For now, I'm just using a generic "plant flag" but I'd like to find a way to do "plant flag, and return home" in some way that maybe is centric to the Kerbal who plants the flag? Or in some other way allows an orbiter/lander Target-Orbit-Rendezvous mission profile. Any suggestions? (I'd also apply this to the "first mun landing" contract too, which for now is also just a flag plant) CONTRACT_TYPE { name = FirstPlanetLanding title = Send the first manned mission to land on another planet. description = We're ready. It's time to land on another planet. We want you to send a Kerbal to land on the surface of one of the other planets, and return safely back to Kerbin. This is the big one - let's make history! notes = Complete the following: synopsis = Launch a manned flyby mission to land on another planet. It doesn't matter which one. completedMessage = You did it! We've launched the very first manned mission to land on another planet! agent = Kerbin World-Firsts Record-Keeping Society //deadline = 100 // NOTE deadline value is in kerbin days cancellable = false declinable = false prestige = Significant // Trivial // Significant // Exceptional maxCompletions = 1 maxSimultaneous = 1 rewardScience = 250.0 rewardReputation = 100.0 rewardFunds = 500000.0 advanceFunds = 100000.0 weight = 99.0 PARAMETER { name = Any13001 type = Any PARAMETER { name = PlantFlag13001 type = PlantFlag targetBody = Moho } PARAMETER { name = PlantFlag13002 type = PlantFlag targetBody = Eve } PARAMETER { name = PlantFlag13003 type = PlantFlag targetBody = Duna } PARAMETER { name = PlantFlag13004 type = PlantFlag targetBody = Dres } PARAMETER { name = PlantFlag13005 type = PlantFlag targetBody = Eeloo } } } For the first attempt, note that if you had redocked, it would've "transferred" the landed status to the mothership, so that if you undocked a small part of it and landed that, then you should've still met the parameters. One option would be that I can do this same logic that I apply to docking to Kerbal EVAs - that way the lander will land, the Kerbal will transfer that "landedness" to the mothership via EVA, and then you can meet the return home parameter with it. For your second idea, I would need to implement some sort of kerbal-tracking (sort of like I have for the vessel tracking). It's been on the roadmap, but wasn't planning on looking at it any sooner than 0.8.0. So for option one, I can probably bang that out for you in the next couple days and release as 0.6.7. Or if you want the Kerbal tracking, I can probably work it into 0.7.0 - but that'll probably be in the neighbourhood of two weeks. Otherwise I don't see an easy way to get what you want done (without accepting the current limitations of method one).

This thread has a lot of various ideas from people about how to improve/fix contracts and strategies (I think regex may have replied in there as well, can't remember offhand).

You misunderstood me - I meant that "launch new vessel" is working around the problem you described, and the "stacking strategy" is the further workaround to "launch new vessel". It's an exploit arms race. I agree completely. It's a problem with no good solutions. Oh and by the way, when I said "workaround for an awful gameplay issue", what I really meant was the fact that the economy is such that it forces the players into grinding contracts - if the incentive for "contract stacking" were to go away, then I really don't see it as a big issue.

For Contract Configurator specific stuff, I'd mostly want to see up to the main menu - but going into a game and then trying to generate the contracts you want via the debug menu would be helpful. That being said, what you've described (as WuphonsReach pointed out) is basically what happens when any contract cause the contract system to fail. This is such an obnoxious problem that in Contract Configurator I've trapped those error and spit them out in a dialog box (so they can't be missed). Anyway, what happens when there's an exception on load is that the contract system stops loading other contracts - which means stuff like the "reach space" contract gets repeated, because KSP has "forgotten" that you already did it. So what's likely happening is a contract is failing to load. It could be a stock contract (part test missing a part it wants to test seems likely) or a modded one. Hopefully a Contract Configurator one is unlikely due to the error message that is supposed to pop up for it.

Here is basically what happened and what is now going on. I had a good career game going, lots of part testing contracts, I had established a RT comms network and sent probes to the Mun, however memory usage was quite high and I was getting a little tired of crashing every hour or so. I had already pruned a number of my mods and some of the stock squad and NASA stuff. So I decided to prune further and remove a majority of the stock squad lifter and upper stage engines, I pretty much never used them since I have KW installed and use those instead. At the same time that I removed the squad engines I also updated MKS/OKS to 0.22.8 from 0.22.6 and MCM from 0.4.4 to 0.4.5 I also updated this to 0.6.6 around the same time, although I think I did it before hand. These are the only significant changes I made to my game that I can remember at the moment, and this is when everything went to hell. When I reloaded my save after updating the above mods and removing the stock parts all of the buildings at the space center were max level, also I had no active contracts, I went and took a quick look into my save file to see if there was anything obvious, first thing I saw was that in the save file it stilled showed the appropriate upgrade level for all the buildings, but no matter how many times I loaded my save they all showed up as fully upgraded. I declared that save to be dead, deleted it and went ahead and started a new game, I assumed one of the parts I had removed was needed for an active contract and my removing it corrupted my save. However in the new save I wasn't getting any parts request contracts at all. I decided maybe something in my install got corrupt, so I reinstalled KSP and then moved the majority of my mod folders over from my old game. I didn't move anything that to my knowledge involved the contract system, like this mod, contracts window+ etc. those I did a fresh install of. Yet in this new game I am still not receiving any part test contracts other seemingly weird things that are happening: I keep getting launch a new vessel contracts, Iv'e completed that one like 8 times now just cuz. I only get like the same 5-6 contracts offered. Two one star perform visual surveys contracts, a one or two star position a satellite contract, a two star rescue from kerbin orbit mission, and the three star explore the Mun contract. no matter how many times I hit the decline button, the contract doesn't go away just changes agencies. When I try and force create a part test contract in the alt-F12 menu it shows: [Error]: Contract of type 'PartTest' was not be generated in the alt-F2 log window Now it does this for pretty much all of the other contracts as well, except rescue a kerbal, this it will let me add two and then will show the same error, and the First Launch contract, this it will let me add seemingly infinite launch a new vessel contracts. please any help and trouble shooting tips are greatly appreciated Won't have time to look at this for a couple hours, but if you post a log file in the meantime it would help greatly. EDIT: I can't remember offhand when part test contracts are supposed to show up - I think it was after getting a manned orbit. Typically the "was not to be generated" error just means that the contract didn't meet the requirements. I bring that up since you mention preferring not to do manned missions - if you haven't gotten a Kerbal into orbit yet, give that a shot.

It's an awful workaround for an awful gameplay issue. Which is why the "must launch a new vessel" contract restriction is just silly - it's trying to close this loophole, and you've demonstrated that it's super easy to get around. But don't get me wrong - I'd use this exploit too, since otherwise it's super grindy and not fun at all. I just hope they fix the economy rather than having satellites self destruct after completing a contract or something silly like that.

As a mod author I hate the fact that releases drop with no warning. Makes it really hard to plan as I may be forced to switch gears and work on compatibility for the next version with zero notice. Because you know that there are plenty of vocal players using mods will be in the forums asking "does this work in 1.0?" "When will this be updated for 1.0?!?"

Note the ultra-massive warning text in Active Texture management:

Hard to say. As a general rule, if anything in the contract system fails (throws an exception), it'll prevent anything else from loading, and cause tons of problems. However, I would *guess* that in this case it would be okay. Only one way to find out for sure.