nightingale

Sorry all, been a busy couple weeks with work travel, so I've been quite absent. Just about to leave on one last international trip, and hopefully things should be a bit less crazy after this one. Sort of known - I just piggy back off the KSP classes in this case and I've seen cases where they are not very reliable in detecting manned vs. unmanned. If you want me to dig deeper, raise something on the tracker with details and I'll look when I can. Contract Configurator's system for vessel tracking has always been quirky due to working around stock limitations. I haven't played around with the new stock stuff yet, but from what I read from @TriggerAu's dev notes on the subject it's just a special module that saves off the correct vessel names. CC relies more on the vessel's various part ids for each "sub-vessel" (which is a set of connected parts bounded by docking ports/decouplers). So I don't think the new stock stuff is at play. I'd say the bug is in the launch new vessel bit - that sounds like it's what's resetting everything. It does the same logic as the stock one (checking the launchId, which I haven't played with enough to know if that gets changed on docking at all (could it be one of the vessels in play launched prior to contract acceptance?) It's the OrbitGenerator behaviour that is responsible for generating the orbits that you can see in the tracking station. There's an Orbit.cfg in the test area that has some examples you can try looking at. For another example, I saw there are a few in severedsolo's Clever Sats contract pack. @CT96B - You want to use the completeInSequence attribute on your parameters to make things work right: // Indicates that this parameter needs to be complete "in sequence". // All parameters that are before this parameter in the list (and at // the same level) must be completed before this parameter is allowed // to complete. // // Type: bool // Required: No (defaulted) // Default: false // completeInSequence = true Note that this won't play very well with the nesting you have - so you may need to flatten out the parameters a bit.

@CT96B - See the expression documentation for the Kerbal class. Because of the way overloading works in CC expressions, that particular function signature got renamed some time ago from NewKerbal to NewKerbalWithTrait. I'll fix the sample in the wiki.

@Kematia - It's in the difficulty settings, there's a global multiplier. @CT96B - You'll need to be running KSP 1.4.x (ideally 1.4.3). I don't know what 3.1.1 is, probably 1.1.3, but either way you'll definitely need to be on the latest. @inigma - Officially no, but I didn't expect it to take so long to get my release out. The existing version seems to run fine against 1.4.3, but I always want to at least get a recompile in because there's historically always been *something* wrong. I expected CKAN to use the version file that is part of the tarball, but looks like it's all too happy to go to GitHub where I've made updates. I gave up on figuring out why CKAN does certain things long ago.

I'm unaware of issues with 1.4.3, but I haven't tested extensively. I'd need a KSP.log to be able to comment any further though.

@linuxgurugamer - I spent some time thinking about your issue and I think I'm going to change it to just return null on a non-match. There's so few cases where the "error handling" is helpful and so many cases where you need flexibility due to planet packs that I think it'll just work better this way. So expect that to get fixed for you in the next release.

@linuxgurugamer - Not a bug, there isn't very good handling for constants sourced from things like CelestialBodies that may not exist in some cases. ModuleManager patch, something based on min body radius or the space altitude threshold are going to be your best bets. Trying to think if there's a good alternative to fix it - if I let it resolve to null if the CB doesn't exist, then you lose out on potentially valuable error checking.

Sure, I'd love a pull request. I'll likely be looking at doing some dev this week - there's a couple issues on the tracker that I need to look at (including one that @inigma has been patiently waiting for). If you raise an enhancement I may be able to get something for you, I'll likely just enhance SpawnKerbal with an option to spawn to the AC instead of in-world.

No, SpawnKerbal can only add them on land or in orbit. There currently isn't a behaviour for adding Kerbals to the roster.

Speaking from experience, it really is the exception with the ones that you mentioned (+ Arsonide) where they were compensated for their mods + hired to maintain and integrate said mods into stock. Many others were brought in to help with crunch time (I was brought in pretty much via a referral from NathanKell, I don't know if Nestor initially even knew what the scope of my mods were). It's really more of a business strategy question. Will adding features (from mods or otherwise) drive new sales (my opinion is no)? If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say the sound strategy is to port in the 1.3.x updates for localisation (new markets, more customers) and 1.4.x + MH (monetizing existing customer base). Given that it's a separate studio doing the actual work on the port, the only way they are getting stuff from modderstaff is if it comes in through PC releases - so that'll take a while of catch up. Hehe, is that not the definition of a corporation? In all seriousness though we're at the stage in KSP where DLC is going to be the driver for future development - it'll start with a business plan and only then will they look at if there is external assets that could be utilized. But I think we can both guess how the player base would react to being sold mods they already get for free as a stock DLC to be able to say we're unlikely to see another FinePrint situation. Can't comment on KerbalEDU, but many of the staff's mods are licensed in such a way to make it non-trivial to pull it into a closed source application, especially where there are multiple contributors (forked projects, even a pull request). It's the downside to Squad having a very open strategy around mods (and for any EULA fear-mongerers out there who want to challenge that comment, first go check out Paradox's mod licensing, it basically reads as "you can't release it under any license because we own any mods you want to have on our platforms"). Because I also once made a wish that career could be fixed. Then I got jaded.

But JPLRepo maintains TAC-LS... so maybe we can get both in stock? And the rest of the USI catalog? Kerbal Alarm Clock? Definitely going to need ResearchBodies too. Although many modders were hired as part of buying their mods and integrating into stock, just as many were hired simply for their experience. The business side of Squad/T2 is what's going to drive what features go into KSP/DLCs, so as much as those Squad developers might want to implement their passion projects into stock KSP, it's not something I'd ever hold my breath on as a player.

Yes, that could be it as well.

I'd need to see the log, but sounds like some sort of installation issue.

@inigma - I'll have to play around with it, but won't have time until at least the weekend. If you have a suggestion as to what you think would make sense syntax-wise feel free to raise the github issue. @theonegalen - It's pretty much as @Ger_space says when it comes to the KK integration. It looks like I never added the documentation when I pulled that stuff in from AlphaAsh though - I'll have to remember to do that. For the moment you'll have to either read the code yourself or use Kerbin Side Jobs or Side-GAP as an example.

This was my gateway mod - the very first mod I installed as a player. Without this mod, it possible that Contract Configurator and all the mods I've made would never have happened. So thanks for bringing this one back!

See sarbian/ModuleManager#108. In the next version of Module Manager you'll be able to do NEEDS[SquadExpansion/MakingHistory].

Wow, it still reference In-Flight Waypoints? That is OLD.

Thanks for the update!

@wile1411 - HUGE thank you for this, I've been really putting off updating that list, even after @Mark Kerbin kicked it off. Your edit rearranged it very nicely, so I've kept most of your suggested changes (although I moved newer KSP versions to the top). @Kwebib - Something like this for your interest rate (untested, could be minor syntax issue): description = You will get @interest.Print()% interest. DATA { type = double interest = Random(1.075,1.25) interestPct = @interest * 100 } I'm 95% sure the parser will be fine without a space after Print(). If you don't like the way that looks (two decimal places), then you can do @interest.ToString("P0"), although there's a chance you need to do that outside the description string due to idiosyncrasies of the parser. For the player's reputation, see Repution() in Global Functions. Keep in mind that this is the reputation at the time the contract was generated, so it could be stale. Another method that is a bit more transparent to the player may be to use the Contract Prestige (or the multiplier that goes with it).

Contract Configurator looks at all assemblies to find classes that are extending CC. That error is saying that CC couldn't read the EVAEnhancements assembly. The most common cause is the .Net version being set incorrectly (but this is a @linuxgurugamer mod, so that's unlikely). Next most common is a missing dependency, or version mismatch with a dependency (including KSP itself). Finally it could just be a coding error of some kind. The error that you should be looking at is: [ERR 19:49:44.139] AssemblyLoader: Exception loading 'EVAEnhancementsContinued': System.Reflection.ReflectionTypeLoadException: The classes in the module cannot be loaded. at (wrapper managed-to-native) System.Reflection.Assembly:GetTypes (bool) at System.Reflection.Assembly.GetTypes () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at AssemblyLoader.LoadAssemblies () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 Additional information about this exception: System.TypeLoadException: Could not load type 'EVAEnhancementsContinued.SettingsWindow' from assembly 'EVAEnhancementsContinued, Version=0.1.13.1, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null'. From the logs I see that you have the dependency correctly installed (Click Through Blocker and Toolbar Controller), so I'm betting it's an incompatibility with KSP 1.4.3 (the thread says 1.4.1+, but maybe it doesn't work in 1.4.3 and lgg isn't aware yet). This guess is supported by the fact that someone's reporting it crashing for Mac under 1.4.3 (but that could just be a coincidence). Anyway - you can safely ignore the Contract Configurator part of the error - it was never going to find anything it wanted in EVAEnhancements anyway.

The problem is that a lot of those links used the old forum links, for which we were promised backwards compatibility. Until something broke and nobody seemed able to fix it. So more than likely those are still there and I just need to fix up links. Or they were lost in the great "oops" deletion a year or so back.

Done, although I don't think I want to know how many of those other links are wrong/out of date.

Better than the way it used to be where there wasn't a message and the feeds were just empty. Looks to me like the software supports other reactions, but @SQUAD just hasn't set anything else up. I got the impression that under IPS that it's Invision that manages everything - so it could also be that Squad doesn't get a choice of when upgrades happen (and if it's not well managed, they may not even get clear notification before it happens).

Seems like it doesn't. It's CleverSat that is adding the Strategia integration though - so you'd be better off asking in that tread.

Basically, if the current vessel (or EVA Kerbal) has/is an Engineer/Scientist/Pilot when the required type of contract completes, you'll get the bonus.

@Gordon Dry - I'm going to go ahead and say that there isn't anything that @severedsolo solo can do to fix that, sounds more like a fundamental incompatibility with Contract Configurator. I'll raise a issue to look into it (unless you'd be so kind as to do it for me). In the meantime... What is Crew R&R and what does it do? EDIT: Issue raised: jrossignol/ContractConfigurator#662