nightingale

Really more of an internal issue of avoiding having to duplicate information in multiple courses that may give the same effect, especially if that effect (effect makes more sense than activity) is not unique to a specific course. Example, you have the courses Science 100, Piloting 100, and Engineering 100 which all give the effect "EVA" (without this, they are basically tourists and can't EVA). Rather than having to check if the Kerbal has one of the 3 courses, you just check for the "EVA" effect. In other words, Kerbals take courses. Courses give effects. Kerbals have effects. Effects are used in checks for the ability to do things, for penalties and for bonuses. This also gives the flexibility that down the line you could also conceivably give effects without any courses ("on the job" training). Taking it one step further, you might even be able to implement the effects as ExperienceEffects that are added to the Kerbal on load (rather than as part of the trait definition). I have no idea if that part is possible, or if it gives any worthwhile benefits over making up a new system - just idle speculation. Implementation wise I may be overthinking it too - in Magico's example config the effect really may just boil down to a FLIGHTLOG item. I think reason that I'm thinking of it as a separate "entity" is that you can then give it attributes (such as the expiry, rather than having that as part of the course).

I've got a simple regex based date parser that I use in Contract Configurator to accept strings in pretty much that exact format: https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/blob/master/source/ContractConfigurator/Util/DurationUtil.cs#L22-L42 I didn't realize that KCT had a math parser too - neat! I like this, it's very well fleshed out. One thing I'd suggest is a sort of tiered expiry. If the course expires, they may need to take a refresher course that is half the duration of the regular course (and could be a self-directed course with no teacher). If they don't take the refresher within the expiry period, they go back to completely untrained and need to take the full course. This way players aren't penalized as hard for forgetting to top up training (and an astronaut with expired training is still valued higher than a brand new hire). Another is to think about splitting the courses into activities (atmospheric flight, orbital flight, Munar injection, etc.) and courses (which give the ability to do an activity with a certain level/proficiency). In a way, this just takes the idea of meta-courses one step further - the *only* kind of course is a meta-course.

Personally, I think that's way too granular. I would go with a GAP Core which includes: Contract Pack: Giving Aircraft a Purpose (GAP) Milestones Contract Pack: GAP: Charters and Airlines (req Milestones) Contract Pack: GAP: Global Airlines Expansion (req Charters and Airlines) Contract Pack: GAP: Stunts (req Milestones) Contract Pack: GAP: Skydiving (req Milestones) Contract Pack: GAP: Seacraft Contract Pack: GAP: Coast Guard Contract Pack: GAP: BDArmory Missions (I was going to say don't include BDArmory, but with module manager only people who have BDArmory are going to get them anyway.) There are so few contracts in the remaining areas, that I would keep them together as something different... maybe GAP extended? Then again, most of these don't really fit the aircraft theme (which the exception of offworld), so they might be better as their own non-GAP contract pack: Contract Pack: GAP: Space Shuttle Missions (req Milestones) Contract Pack: GAP: Offworld (req Milestones) Contract Pack: Sounding Rockets Contract Pack: Offroad Contract Pack: Mining

CKAN meta-files look like they got updated correctly after release, so should be working correctly on CKAN. Make sure to hit the refresh button in CKAN. I don't know much beyond that on the client side, so you'll have to look to the CKAN folk for support if that doesn't do it.

The Contract Configurator way is a horrendous hack. I'd just add something that tracks experience in a scenario module and inserts it in, instead. Interested, but I really don't want to take on anything new until I get Strategia out the door. It's been in "almost done" state for a month an a half now. Also, people need to stop raising Contract Configurator enhancement requests.

Maybe I will change that text. Depending on the detail level setting and whether or not Kopernicus is installed, the monolith may not be underground. It can! It's off by default so that the informational display isn't too huge. Have a look in the settings menu. I forget if it's a relative heading or absolute heading (I think it's absolute).

Some interesting ideas, I really like this kind of stuff. Like the idea, although it probably shouldn't be automatic on hire (since the most common use case for hiring Kerbals is "oh crap, I need a pilot for this rocket that I'm launching in 5 seconds"). I guess it depends what the bonus/penalties are. Something like "Your Kerbal isn't trained for orbital flight, disabling controls" might just be punishing gameplay (although as long as they didn't go TOO fast, they should be coming back...). This area has actually been my biggest struggle with Strategia - thinking up bonuses that are good from a gameplay perspective, significant enough for a player to want it, and technically feasible. I remember there was a mod that did something like this - Kerbal Interactions, Kerbal Emotions or something along those lines (it was maybe 6-9 months ago?). I think the mod really was more of a toy though, as I don't think it ever got anywhere significant. That being said, I do like the idea. Absolutely necessary if you're doing all encompassing where time matters. You'd probably also want to tack on salaries (in place of escalating hire costs), which could be dependent on experience. I'd also rip out the stock experience system almost (ie. don't calculate it purely based on the flight log, but base it on all kinds of other stuff), and then hook back in by setting the kerbal XP at the appropriate time (much like @magico13's Field Experience mod does). To make a cohesive "Kerbal Career" mod, I think you'd also need to add: Kerbal age (really just storing a birthdate, and using that to determine likeliness of retirement). Kerbal salaries (I always forget if BROKE does this or not). Lots of different bonuses/penalties for high/low experience, good/bad team dynamic, etc. Final Frontier style ribbons/awards/military rank might be neat UI to put all of the above together Lots of good areas that can be explored here that haven't seen much mod love. The trick would be getting it all together in a way that is cohesive and FUN.

Stock shenanigans. I've changed it for the next release so that it doesn't occur anymore.

Awesome, got that one fixed for the next release. Turns out that the ones I looked at (like landing and fly by) were slightly different than suborbital and orbital. It should work everywhere now (I hope). I've tried to make the conflicts obvious (via line items in the text). So Scientist Focus does conflict with Pilot and Engineer Focus (ie. you can only pick one). That should be the only conflicts there.

Have a look at the recent Tourism release - I use it for the repeatable Hotel/Casino tourism contracts to create lists of vessels that are either casinos or hotels. Other ideas - use it to track satellites that are launched for a GPS or RemoteTech constellation, and then provide some sort of follow up contract (eg. replace faulty satellite). Or closer to your bread and butter, you can use to track all the navigation buoys and then have a contract that requires visiting them in a randomized order (Vessel.Location() can be used to create a waypoint). Haha, very cute! You should release it and see if @illectro will stream playing it while "Stream Hack 2016" is still relevant news.

Wrong thread, you're looking for this.

Raised [#18]. Minmus Flats? I'll have to take a look, shouldn't be anything special. Toss me a KSP.log with that one. The system I use to know what body the reward is for is a total hack (I have to catch which body node is being hit, then store that for the reward (because when the reward is given, KSP won't say what it's for). Anyway, it's fragile, so wouldn't surprise me if you've found an ugly case (although I thought I had the body transition/suborbital thing figured out.

A sizeable update for the Tourism Plus contract pack (download). The biggest change is a new Space Camp contract that @mcortez inspired. Take 12-16 tourists to an orbital station for 40 days with a Pilot, Engineer and Scientist and when you return 3 of them will be added to your permanent roster (one Pilot, Engineer and Scientist). They'll also get a little bit of bonus experience (enough to bump them to level 1). ContractPack-Tourism 1.4.0 Strategia integration. New space camp contract which gives you free Kerbals (thanks mcortez for the inspiration). Investor contract (and therefore casino/hotel contracts) are now repeatable. Support edge case for RemoteTech + AntennaRange installations (thanks Algiark). Fixed asteroid contracts to need the tourism starter contract completed. Show messages when entering/leaving waypoints. Silence warning about deprecated Contract Configurator functionality.

Another big meaty release: download here. Contract Configurator 1.9.5 Output additional log files when log level is debug or higher (thanks linuxgurugamer). VesselParameterGroup now supports a defineList attribute to add a vessel to a list on contract completion. PartValidation module checks now check the parent type. This allows mod-introduced PartModules that inherit from stock ones to count for PartValidation checks that look for the stock module (eg. ModuleEnginesFX = ModulesEngines). Added SubAssembly as a valid option for CopyCraftFile.craftType. Added NewKerbals() methods to generate lists of Kerbals. AwardExperience now supports awarding experience directly to Kerbals (instead of via a VesselParameterGroup). Limited the impact of a problem where the final Anomaly Surveyor contract causes revert to editor to leave a vessel on the pad (thanks lodestar). Fixed problem introduced in 1.9.4 where all waypoints without a name get called "site" (thanks smjjames). Fixed issue where Kerbal spawning behaviours didn't clean up properly when the Kerbal was in a command chair (thanks inigma & nobodyhasthis2). Fixed issue with Expression requirement bleeding through between different contracts (thanks Yemo, smjjames and nobodyhasthis2). Added logic to prevent duplicate Kerbal names from coming up in the same (or recent) contracts. Fixed issue with VesselParameterGroup where the vessel wasn't set correctly when loading a Kerbal into an EVA seat triggered the completion (thanks inigma). Minor bug fixes.

Send the log and I'll take a look.

I can't remember for sure, but that might just be how the stock contracts work. Do the waypoints go away when the contract completes?

Yup, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. This is one of the cases where I'm not doing anything special with vessel tracking, KSP just decides on its own what part of the vessel should be the "main" part and which part is then the debris/lander/whatever when you decouple/undock. I'll have to give some thought as to the fix here, if there is an easy one. Raised [#467].

Already squished, just not released. Expect 1.9.5 in the next day or two.

That's the way KSP works with Reputation. I don't have the exact math handy, but you get diminishing returns based on how much reputation you have. If you have 0 rep and try to add 10, it'll add 10. If you have 500 rep and try to add 10, it'll only add 10. If you're at 900 rep and try to add 10, it'll add like... 0.5. Basically, the function is such that you can only ever asymptotically approach 1000 or -1000. I'm also assuming that the 270 was a typo, because losing 500 rep would be serious.

I'm going to increase the cache size for the contract slot machine random values - I think that may also help.

That's the Contract Configurator bug that's causing some of the Field Research contracts to keep re-rolling. It's fixed in 1.9.5, which will be released in the next couple of days.

Yes, but not until I see how the stock functionality is implemented to reduce likelihood of contracts coming up. Because I most likely would want to just use that.

You're on the Contract Configurator thread, trying figure out how to use Module Manager to work around a CKAN or RemoteTech bug. I would start with CKAN. I'm guessing though that there is something left in the directory so it's not empty. If it's something you had added, problem solved. If it's something generated by RemoteTech as part of normal operation, then RemoteTech needs to change, or CKAN needs a mechanism to handle it. All up, I wouldn't use this as a reason to not use Module Manager, as it seems like quite the edge case.

Yup. Here's a bit from Tourism that also handles AntennaRange (and the bizzare combination of both RemoteTech + AntennaRange), you may be able to do something similar without having to completely duplicate the blocks: // RemoteTech changes the antenna module, so change it in our config too to // support RemoteTech installs. @CONTRACT_TYPE[Tourism_Casino]:FOR[Tourism]:NEEDS[RemoteTech] { @PARAMETER[VesselParameterGroup] { @PARAMETER[AntennaPart] { @partModule = ModuleRTAntenna } } } // AntennaRange changes the antenna module, so change it in our config too to // support AntennaRange installs. @CONTRACT_TYPE[Tourism_Casino]:FOR[Tourism]:NEEDS[AntennaRange&!RemoteTech] { @PARAMETER[VesselParameterGroup] { @PARAMETER[AntennaPart] { @partModule = ModuleLimitedDataTransmitter } } }

Good stuff, thanks to both you and @smjjames I've managed to get it sorted out. It's actually a duplicate of #458, but I hadn't been able to get that one figured out until you two put the pieces together for me.