nightingale

Oh yeah, that's a good one. Easy enough to fix, I need to add some logic to decide what a "planet" actually is (something I'd previously done in Contract Configurator). Raised #20. Right, I forgot to add that before release. Raised #21.

The name doesn't matter. Otherwise yup, that's what I need. Whoops, will have to fix that - identifiers are supposed to start with [A-Za-z], but I'm generating these from the vessel ID so I may have to relax that.

Ah, totally forgot about that, I even had a tracker issue for it. I'll definitely catch that for the next release.

On mobile, so apologies for the brevity. In short, it's a limitation of global variables where it doesn't know the type and is guessing wrong. You can work around by putting it in a data node on its own first (I do that in the attraction contract I linked earlier).

Did I end up using the term month in there? I thought I changed it to explicitly say 30 days... we are talking about Free Ice Cream, right?

@severedsolo - I realized that I'd already done 95% of the work for to get orbits to work in expressions in a previous release. So I finished off the last 5% to get this to work: BEHAVIOUR { name = OrbitGenerator type = OrbitGenerator FIXED_ORBIT { ORBIT = @/targetVessel.Orbit() } } Right now there are no methods that work on an Orbit object, but there's plenty I can add (stuff that gets the attributes of the orbit, stuff that changes the orbit). Let me know what you're looking for (or just raise a GitHub issue) and I can look into adding it.

@Temeter - The one thing I'll add is that a while ago I fixed a bug where disabled contracts would get re-enabled incorrectly (this was fixed in Contract Configurator 1.9.3). However, because that is per-save information, if you started your game on a version older than that, it's possibly they are stil re-enabled. You can can manually disable them in the Contract Configurator menu off the toolbar in the space centre scene.

@Speedster159 - I've run that contract and wasn't able to reproduce the issue. Can you confirm you are on the latest Contract Configurator, and if so, get me a KSP.log that covers the time that you hit orbit with that craft?

Figured this one out, it wasn't correctly checking the state of the passengers, so it was considering them as needing to be loaded. Whoops! Fixed for next Contract Configurator release.

Thanks, forgot to update that. Not sure if that's something that will take effect on CKAN's next hourly pass, or if it will wait for next release. Either way I'm not too concerned, as it'll get fixed eventually.

Can you provide a KSP.log - not sure what's going on here.

I've got an issue out there somewhere to improve the logic around the Orbit class so you could just do Vessel.Orbit() and plug that into the OrbitGenerator and other places its needed. Without that, you'd need to calculate/derive all the orbital elements (I suspect there should be enough information available, but it certainly would be trivial to do in expressions). Peeked at the code, should work fine. Let me know if you think there's a bug and I'll dig further. 1) No - should match with the name value. 2) Yes and no. I had to hack in each experience point level as an entry in a list (so the list has the values 3 through 64). Hypothetically I could do it in 0.5 or 0.1 increments, but there needs to be a fixed number. 3) No. You'll have to either work that into the contract description, or add it as a note if you want it to stand out a little bit more.

Not quite - the mission ones will actually give you a contract, but the contracts have a very high level goal ("Land a Kerbal on the Mun", "Do an uncrewed fly-by of three different planets"). They can have a drastic effect on the milestone awards given (quadrupling them for the selected body or quartering it for other bodies). I may look at having it impact contracts in the future, but stock KSP doesn't give an easy way to tell the contract system to generate more contracts for a given celestial body (mostly it's based off the player's progress).

... and the forum ate my formatting. Not so WYSIWYG after all.

Strategia has been released, and a new thread created in the Add-On Releases section. Can I get a mod to close the old thread in Add-On Development (here)?

We're live! Please head on over to the release thread here to continue discussing Strategia. Fetching a mod for closure of this thread...

Strategia - A Brand New Strategy System! Description Strategia is a revamp to Kerbal Space Program's strategy system. All the stock strategies are removed, and replaced with new and unique strategies. The first set of strategies are special mission strategies. These strategies will give you advance cash and bonuses to certain milestones for completing a high level objective as part of your space program. They are dynamic, so they will work with mods that change the stock solar system by adding or changing celestial bodies. Be warned though - if you cancel one of these strategies without completing the objective, you will face a heavy penalty! Crewed Missions Once we've proven we can get a Kerbal to orbit and back, we need to continue to break new barriers. We have a choice of nearby bodies that we can get to. We choose to go to <insert celestial body here>, not because it is easy, but because it is hard. Uncrewed Missions The costs of sending a Kerbal to another planet are astronomical compared to those of sending a probe that we can leave behind. Why don't we send some probes to our neighbouring planets to gather science autonomously for us? The remaining strategies are the standard strategies - these give a bonus while active, and can be active for as long as you like. Astronaut Training Program Our standard training procedure is to treat newly hired astronauts as a disposable commodity to greatly reduce the cost of unscheduled disassemblies. Still, some argue that training our astronauts before putting them on top of a top of a ton of explosives will result in a lower mission failure rate. The cost of setting up the program will be high, nevermind the cost of actually training the astronauts. What do you say, do we want the right stuff, or the almost-good-enough stuff? Massive Scale Launches We've found some investors who are willing to sponsor us if we're able to launch colossal structures into space in a single launch. We'll have to employ some truly Whackjobian construction techniques to get these things into orbit. Contract Slot Machine These agencies seem to think they're doing us a favour offering by us these ridiculous contracts. Why should we be penalized for being choosy? By closing our books to the public, agencies will have no idea what we're willing to accept. There might be a little chaos in the contracts we see under this model, but if we're only choosing the best ones, then who cares?!? To Boldly Go If we want to get the most research possible done out there, we need to explore as many new biomes as we can. Government grants from exploration programs will ultimately help us fund further exploration and research. Probe Frenzy If we want to do some research, then probes are the way to go. What we save on sending Kerbals out there can be spent on a vast fleet of autonomous probes. Local Science There are so many research opportunities right in our back yard. We should focus on local research to bootstrap our space program. That way when we do make it further out there, we'll be sending the best technology we can. Stagnated Research There are several conservative groups on Kerbin that think we've gone too far, too fast. We're not about to shut down the space program, but maybe slowing down our development of new technology to appease these groups will get us some goodwill and ensure that they don't burn down KSC? Free Ice Cream We've come up with a crazy idea - giving out free ice cream at the space center. The public will absolutely love us. If we push the program far enough, we'll get better rewards for rescuing Kerbals (they'll get ice cream when they land!) and maybe even be able to get a discount on hiring new astronauts. FREE. ICE. CREAM. Media Circus To make a reputable space program, we need to ramp up the media involvement. Cameras everywhere, coverage 6 hours a day, 426 days a years. Of course, this could easily backfire if we have any... accidents. Pilot Focus Clearly the most important role among our astronauts is that of the pilot. Without a skilled pilot, nobody is going to space today (or any other day). Shall we build our space program around our brave pilots? Engineer Focus Where would we be without our engineers? They make sure everything is in order to get the other astronauts up and down safely. Shall we build our space program around the skilled engineer? Scientist Focus The scientist is the key role that we need to focus on. A skilled scientist knows exactly which sample to send back to maximize our science gain (we can only fit so many Mun rocks in those capsules). Shall we build our space program around our brilliant scientists? Download CKAN: In CKAN, select and download the mod "Strategia". GitHub: For the direct download option, please ensure you have all the dependencies before raising a support request: Contract Configurator is a required dependency and can be downloaded from its release thread. Custom Barn Kit is a required dependency and can be downloaded from its release thread. ModuleManager is a required dependency and can be downloaded from its release thread. Strategia can be downloaded from GitHub. Source The full source is available on GitHub. Change Log Special Thanks sarbian - For mods like ModuleManager and Custom Barn Kit that make my life a lot easier. smjjames - For the ridiculous amount of bugs he found during the beta phase. License Strategia is licensed under the MIT license. Like what you see? Consider donating to the coffee fund! It will not go directly to supporting this or other mods under my care, but it may keep my motivation up!

That's definitely suspicious. Raised #472 to track.

That's from Advanced Progression. Can you provide screenshots of what the problem is?

It's Kopernicus, @Thomas P. is aware of the issue. The only known workaround is to get the contract to generate while in flight (you could use CapCom or the debug menu to cancel the contract and decline others until it comes up).

This is one of those things where stock is just a black box, and I've never done the testing required to change that note. Unless something has changed, the default value is what was used in stock. As far as I know nobody has actually played around with that one yet, so you may be the first. It'll store the vessel id. There's a feature that I added in 1.9.5 that covers this case exactly. In VesselParameterGroup, take a look at the defineList attribute. You can see it used in Tourism Plus here and here. One of the nice things about the new forum is it will mark a thread as unread if the last post gets a ninja edit. So those no longer cause me trouble like they used to. --- No idea. Could be historic missions (my guess because of the Gemini II name), RP-0, one of Yemo's SETI packs, linuxgurugamer's Advanced Progression and maybe some others I forgot. Need to at least know which ones you have installed before I can even begin to help.

I need more info - I assume this is in the historical missions pack? You might have better luck asking on that thread first.

This is a known issue with the vessel tracking, and caused by limitations in how KSP defines what a vessel is before/after docking/undocking. When vessel tracking is used, I assign the current root part to be the "key" part, so that when stuff is undocked (or decoupled), it will keep tracking the section that contains the part that used to be the root part (it may not longer be the root part). In about 95% of cases, this is the desired behaviour. The other 5% tends to fall by the wayside. I'm not familiar with the details of the specific contract (@Yemo, toss me a GitHub link and I'll take a look), but the recommendation is to make changes to the contract to not use the vessel tracking (if possible). Still, I might be able to improve on this a little (maybe get it to work the way the player expects 98% of the time), so raised #471.

You have the log spam from having an older version of Asteroid Day installed - I can't tell if that's the cause of your problem, but it's certainly going to kill your performance. I'd update that, then get KSP-AVC (unless you're a CKAN user) to make sure everything else is up to date (because I see a whole bunch of other errors from mods like DOE and KIS and don't know what's safe to ignore).

Then I'll definitely want to see that KSP.log so I can fix Waypoint Manager....