Jump to content

nightingale

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,137

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by nightingale

  1. nightingale
    I'm going to get you a build today that outputs that to the log to help stomp this down (I won't be able to look at the actual problem until sometime during the work week though). Hmm.... That partially seems to be a Field research problem too - the base rewards (250k Funds, ~50 Rep) seem a bit on the high side. At the same time, that's sort of the point of contract slot machine - you've hit the jackpot! I'm thinking about changing the random function from uniform to normal - that way you will get fewer outliers (and they will be that much of a treat).
  2. nightingale
    Mod that uses the stock contract system (like DMagic, Mission Controller 2, etc.). For disabling other contract groups, use module manager (but do it with care - I don't want any contract pack wars started ;)) There was a bug that inigma caught yesterday related to that. It's fixed in the dev build, and will be released in 1.9.4 when it comes out.
  3. nightingale
    Not Contract Configurator syntax - Module Manager syntax. BEHAVIOUR:NEEDS[StageRecovery]
  4. nightingale
    Yup, pretty much the reason everything uses config nodes like that is to get that type of functionality visa module manager for free.
  5. nightingale
    I remember when this game required you too be actively watching... @sal_vager
  6. nightingale
    Correct. You would then do a git command to set mine as upstream (in phone, don't remember the exact command offhand).
  7. nightingale
    Not easily, unfortunately. I had to disable anonymous edits because github's web based editor screws up the folder structure, which I rely on for the page links to work properly. You basically have to do a manual pull request: Clone Contract Configurator (this also clones the wiki) Set the real wiki as your upstream Make your changes, and check them in Raise an issue and say you want me to pull your changes - sending a link to your repository would be helpful, but I can probably figure it out without this. (ie. request that I do a pull).
  8. nightingale
    Cool, then it is significant - thanks! If you're able to, can you tell me what happens for a crewed vessel without a probe core?
  9. nightingale
    Hmm.... that shouldn't be relevant, but it's mostly controlled by stock functionality - so who knows, maybe it is. I'll keep it in mind, either way!
  10. nightingale
    That is all Module Manager functionality. You'd have to look there, but you can do something like -CONTRACT_TYPE:some_condition[some_stuff] to disable other config nodes (ie. other contract types). Raise an issue on GitHub please.
  11. nightingale
    Looks to me like you're using it right, and the contract window output doesn't look correct. So yup, agree with that being a bug.
  12. nightingale
    EngineType = SolidBooster There should be a warning about that in the log - as it should have no idea about EngineType. Looking at the code (if the documentation doesn't agree, then let me know as it might be wrong), you should be wrapping that in a MODULE node: NONE { MODULE { EngineType = SolidBooster } } I don't have a good answer for the ModuleEngines vs. ModuleEnginesFx bit. So I made a couple changes and now it will "magically" pick up ModulesEnginesFX for ModuleEngines.
  13. nightingale
    Raised #15. The Progression Nodes in the game have two states - Reached and Completed, and they don't seem to get set in a consistent and logical way. At least that was the problem I was noticing when it would flip on landing. This may be something different. Either way, I'll have to look into this and nail it down.
  14. nightingale
    I really do intend to do that soon....
  15. nightingale
    Doesn't sound terrible - you can even keep delivering them all together and just use a ModuleManager line of CONTRACT_TYPE:NEEDS[!RealSolarSystem]. That way you don't even need to really be all that modular (although I'm sure that can cause other problems in your progression). Nothing of the sort. It checks whether the player hit the splashdown progress node in KSP's progress tracking. It's one of those things that is 99% stock KSP, so I just assume works.
  16. nightingale
    GAP too, don't tell @inigma. Actually, usually I rely on KSP-AVC. I'm not getting KSS notifications because I'm probably on the wrong "stream" and need to just reinstall the correct one. And GAP doesn't support KSP-AVC. You need to get on that, @inigma....
  17. nightingale
    Looks like RSS isn't supported. @inigma - to fix this, change references from Kerbin to HomeWorld() - then it'll work generically wherever. Other bodies (Mun/Moon) get more complicated, but I don't think you have any contracts that leave Kerbin in here. EDIT: Duh - forgot you have stuff that deals with very specific locations that would instantly break in RSS.
  18. nightingale
    Not currently, but I do accept pull requests....
  19. nightingale
    Don't count on the log file for stuff like that - I have no idea what I actually write to the log for data nodes, and not all expressions get stored (typically only stuff that is needed to be saved for uniqueness checks). Also, some values are deterministic (parsed/executed at KSP load time) and others are non-deterministic (executed each time a contract is generated). Look at what showing in the debug menu: http://i.imgur.com/M9g0Jlb.png Mouse over the applicable CONTRACT_TYPE node, and slide over to the right. Near the bottom should be all the DATA node elements for the contract, and their last value (the value from either the initial parse, or the last time it attempted to generate a contract.
  20. nightingale
    Where are you looking? In the debug menu? Can you post a screenshot? What do you mean by before the medium Planets? You can see hardPlanets?
  21. nightingale
    Well, I did a quick fix to make it disable itself in scenes where there is no contracts app (no official release, go here if you want it).. Otherwise though there wasn't anything that jumped out at me, and I will have to completely rewrite this for 1.1. So I'm just going to hold off a little bit longer...
  22. nightingale
    Correct. One thing just to be sure though, the CONTRACT_* values apply to all contracts of the same CONTRACT_TYPE. Short answer: Yup, that will work (event for non-stock planets). Can't remember how the colon (:) gets parsed - if you get any parse issues, try a space instead. Long answer: It's probably more than what you need. This same check will do the same thing (only allow the given contract type to be offered once per Celestial Body): DATA { type = CelestialBody uniquenessCheck = CONTRACT_ALL requiredValue = true uid = @/targetBody } Now, if you wanted something more complex that isn't directly tied to a contract type, then you'd need to do it the way you showed. For example you could use it if you had two contracts that were variants on the same theme, but only wanted the player to be able to do one of them (for example, one contract for landing at a specific location, and another for landing at a bunch of specific biomes). I'll tentatively leave it in 1.9.4, but that'll probably be the first one to slip if I run low on time.
  23. nightingale
    New BETA release, Strategia 0.2.0 is now available. Reduced setup cost when upgrading from one strategy to another within the same family. Added check and pop-up message for when Custom Barn Kit isn't installed. Fixed issue with invalid notifications for some of the crewed mission strategies (thanks smjjames). Fixed detection of celestial body when modifying progression milestone rewards (thanks smjjames). Fixed check for Mun/Minmus strategy availability (thanks smjjames).
  24. nightingale
    Thanks. I've made some adjustments to the lists.
  25. nightingale
    I've marked issue #420 for the 1.9.4 release. I've gone through and pruned the list to what I think is actually achievable for that release, and moved other things into a 1.9.x release. Those are ones that are uncertain - although it's possible they will be in 1.9.4, it's not very likely. See the lists here: 1.9.4 1.9.x @Steven Mading, @inigma, @severedsolo - you guys should probably have a look through those as well. If there's anything that is on the 1.9.x list that you want to see in 1.9.4, then drop a note on the issue. Similarly, if there's something in the 1.9.4 list that you raised (or I raised for you) that you can live without for a while, let me know (it'll drop to 1.9.x, but you will gain goodwill ;)). I've been aiming for roughly weekly releases, but looking at what's been done for 1.9.4 (not much yet) this one will probably be later. Probably either mid-week or even as late as next weekend.
×
×
  • Create New...