Jump to content

nightingale

Members
  • Posts

    4,137
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nightingale

  1. Looks to me you need another ../ for where you are in the tree.
  2. Yup, missed the stuff after the page break, as the last posted user on the thread matched the last post on the page,so didn't think to look for a second page. This is an exception from Contracts Window+, and I'm going to assume it's the problem until I hear otherwise. You're looking at it the wrong way. You can't reference stuff that's happening in the iterator outside the iterator's parent node, because the iteration isn't happening there. In that node, there is no @targetBody value. If you change your ReachState to something like an All, and put the VisitWaypoint underneath it, then it will work better for you.
  3. Do you have a "free" slot for a 3-star contract? If there's a bunch of "Explore Duna" type of contracts taking up those slots, it may not be able to show up.
  4. Can you post a screenshot with details? Did saving and loading make it show up? Or did it just never show up? Please raise a GitHub issue with details. Usually indicates an exception. Check logs and let me know what you see. This could likely be affecting #2 as well.
  5. Sorry, missed that part of the question. Unless you specify hidden = true on the waypoint in WaypointGenerator, it will be visible (on the map and in Waypoint Manager). If you use a hidden waypoint, you can unhide it on completion of a specific parameter (referenced by name). See the WaypointGenerator wiki page for more details.
  6. It's ambitious, but looks like there's a lot of planning already done. I like what I'm seeing so far, and I absolutely love the shield logos! One thing I would suggest is to try to be as loose as possible with requirements for new trees to open up - try to rely on the progress tracking stuff instead of contract completion wherever possible (if done right you can even go so far to have someone able to drop this into an existing save, although it's probably not ideal). I've also raised [#420] to break out the manned/unmanned progress which may be useful for you. I'll be keeping an eye on this one!
  7. Raised [#419], but it may be a while before I get to it. This one seems to keep cropping up every time I think I've stomped it out.
  8. It's due to the loose string parsing rules. One of these days I'll find some way to revisit that. In the meantime, break it into two: DATA { type = List<string> names = [ "Marker", "Memorial", "Milestone", "Monument", "Museum", "Tree", "Battleground", "Benchmark", "Bend", "Blaze" ] } DATA { type = string theName = @names.Random() }
  9. I changed it to allow negative values, give the dev version a try. I'm not able to test it tonight, so if it doesn't work as advertised, raise a GitHub issue and I'll look at it soon...ish.
  10. There was at least one issue relating to spawned Kerbals not being properly cleaned up that was fixed in 1.9.1. Likely that Final Frontier was having problems as a result of one of those bugs.
  11. Should be something like: calcMinCrew = @/targetVessel.CrewCapacity() > 0 ? 1 : 0
  12. That's why I use config nodes - to harness the power of Module Manager: DATA:NEEDS[KAX] { type = AvailablePart partName = Aerosport Engine } DATA:NEEDS[!KAX] { type = AvailablePart partName = Basic Jet Engine } Or something like that (I didn't test it). EDIT: AvailablePart instead of string
  13. No worries. I'll get PMs and GitHub issues emailed, so I'll see those first, but unless it's something urgent like "the last release of Contract Configurator is completely broken", I'm not likely to action it any faster than a forum post. And if it's a question that others can answer, a forum post may get your what you need quicker.
  14. The PM, forum post and GitHub issues raised on the same topic is extremely excessive. My availability is a little bit more limited due to the holidays, but I will respond to inquiries as promptly as I'm able. I've responded to this via issue [#414]. I haven't seen anything that's of concern yet. The numbers you've given seem like the memory jump is more with stock (although the numbers are so small it's hard to tell). Also, some stuff would get cleaned up over a scene change. At this point unless I'm seeing really big jumps I'm not going to do much in the way of investigation on this one.
  15. Can you quantify this a little bit? In these different scenarios, what's the memory usage after a certain intervals, and how does that compare to a stock install?
  16. BROKE. True, which is why it's in a big list of things. May require balancing. The feature isn't really something that's useful for Contract Configurator (or Strategia). Anyway, the mission-based strategies are meant to set a rather broad goal, rather than having a chain of contracts/missions. Not specifically, but if you put something in the comment it's still useful data for me.
  17. Probably need to update the docs to be more clear complete means the contract is done (cancelled, failed, completed successfully), whereas complete means completed successfully.
  18. They aren't supposed to disappear, so that's probably a bug (can you raise it in GitHub for me?). The contract should come back though.
  19. You're going too fast, but at least you stopped raising bugs. I hope that means you're not finding any, versus waiting to raise them when I release 1.9.2.
  20. Just want to throw out that Waypoint Manager let's you drop custom waypoints (like for marking the runway). It can also report on your glide slope angle, and you can drop a waypoint without having to drive out there.
  21. Should still be fine, add it uses internal identifiers to track the vessels. Some static text like the contract title might not get updated, but it shouldn't affect anything.
×
×
  • Create New...