nightingale

It used to be that Mun or Bust was the main title screen, and EVA Kerbals was the one when you went back to the main menu. They switched it in 1.0 (presumably to highlight Val's addition to the EVA Kerbals). Otherwise it's always been consistent for me - EVA Kerbals on startup, Mun or Bust any time after that. What I would really like is for @blizzy78 to bring back Mun Hoax. It used to be when I was doing mod development and having to restart KSP a dozen times that I would take seeing that startup screen as a sign of good luck and that whatever I was trying to fix would work that time. EDIT: I said sarbian thinking Module Manager, but it was toolbar that had that easter egg....

Oh silly forums and your indestructible quote boxes... Anyway, this will be fixed for 1.9.2, but in the meantime you can grab the dev dll here and it should fix the issue for you.

Raised [#406] - looks like I must've somehow broken this in a recent Contract Configurator release. I'll try to get this resolved ASAP.

I don't understand the use case, let's continue the discussion on the issue you raised (#405).

Can't dig up the details on this one for you at the moment, will do so tomorrow if you still need support. The short version is you can use an expression to get the waypoints out of the WaypointGenerator behaviour - look WaypointGenerator on the expressions page on the wiki. Once you have that you can get the lat/lon/alt from it and feed into other things. I thought there was an example out there in one of my contract packs, but can't think what it would be at the moment (maybe something in Field Research)

We're talking about both balance and progression here, which aren't necessarily the same thing. I'm thinking that what you're really interested in is the progression side of things, with an end goal of being able to put something together that makes the player step through the vehicle types as a form of progression, correct? And because you want to do stuff like limit even the most basic rocket parts until the "unmanned rockets" part of your progression steps, that automatically means changes to the tech tree (in a different way than is done in CTT). Which is why the balance question comes up because moving stuff around in the tree like you would need to is likely going to break the stock balance. Am I on the right track? From the contract angle, it also sounds like you want to put various existing and/or new contract packs together with a sort of progression between the contracts or contract packs via Module Manager (rather than trying to fork stuff and invoke the maintenance nightmare that nobody wants). There's definitely some pretty big gaps out there, so I think there'd be a lot more "creating new stuff" than "hooking stuff together" on the contract side. My other concern is that it is a very long progression to get to rockets there - I'm not sure if I personally would want to play a variant of KSP where I have to go through a bunch of ground vehicle and boat stages to get to rockets (but that may just be that it's not my personal cup of tea). I think the difficulty in doing this as a community thing is that there's a very broad focus at the moment. I think you may want to narrow the focus a bit more (or maybe make the overall vision more clear). Myself, I'm also spread way too thin at the moment, so I don't think there's much I can offer in terms of support here, but there's definitely some potential here.

Thought there was only one - the amount of rep to add.

If I remember correctly, Reputation.Instance.AddReputation()

Correct, SpawnVessel doesn't care whether the player could actually build the vessel.

When automerging posts, it would be nice if the post had something that divided the two parts of the merged post (like an <HR> or the old updated line we used to get in vbulletin).

Nope - take it up with GitHub. Interestingly enough, there is a chrome extension for GitHub wiki search though (see here). Also, if you wanted it to be in a random order, you can do: DATA { type = List<string> allareas = [ "First string", "Second string", "third string", "4th string", "5th string" ].Random(5) a1 = allareas.ElementAt(0) a2 = allareas.ElementAt(1) a3 = allareas.ElementAt(2) a4 = allareas.ElementAt(3) a5 = allareas.ElementAt(4) }

I think I may just make it drop the "bad" contract, while still showing the dialog box. If I do anything more than that, I think there could be bad side effects in other areas (like not knowing when you've put a bad part in your PartValidation in the CONTRACT_TYPE). The reason it's like that is that Contract Configurator supports strings in the following forms: s1 = This is a string s2 = This is a string with a @variable replacement s3 = @String + @From + @Variables s4 = "This is a quoted string" + @with + @variables So when it sees you string, it thinks it's parsing the s3 scenario above. I could probably make it smarter, but I really hate going into the parser code since it's so complicated with a high chance of breakage. Besides, there are workarounds. I believe either of the following should work for you: s5 = "@String that starts with a variable" s6 = @String + " that starts with a variable"

#404'd I'll have to give it some thought. Ideally I'd like it to be smart enough to just silently drop those contracts, but in general those pop-ups are there so when stuff goes pear-shaped there's the possibility to recover. Out of curiosity, what other side effects did you see from removing the parts? If the rest of KSP is pretty graceful about it, then I definitely need to do something. It can be whereever you want - I just didn't expect that you had stuff in ContractPacks/spacetux/ and spacetux/

Something like this (untested): DATA { type = string shipName = "S.S. " + RandomKerbalName(Random()).FirstWord() } That is not likely to be a Contract Configurator issue - the white box happens when KSP was unable to load/find the texture. Look for any [EXC] (exception) or [ERR] (error) blocks in the KSP.log - likely you'll see something in the agency loading section. If I had to guess I'd say you're missing the ContractPacks/ part in your logo URLs. EDIT: Also, case matter on Linux, so that could also be the issue.

Contract Configurator 1.9.1 is out! Lots of bug fixes and a couple neat new features. Including automatic Draft Twitch Viewers integration. If you have Draft Twitch Viewers installed and in use, any Contract Configurator contract that generates Kerbals will use Draft Twitch Viewers to get Kerbal names. Download now! Contract Configurator 1.9.1 Draft Twitch Viewers integration - when creating new random Kerbals for contracts will get names from Draft Twitch Viewers (thanks IRNifty for assisting on this one). ITERATOR nodes for automatically duplicating PARAMETER nodes for every value in a list. AutoAccept contracts now more likely get generated immediately when available. Added Biome.PrimarySituation() method. Added CelestialBody.SCANsatCoverage() method. Allow multiple parameter identifiers in WaypointGenerator (for blocks with more than one waypoint). Support for clustered waypoints in WaypoingGenerator. ReachState supports multiple vessel situations. Fixed VisitWaypoint support for contracts with multiple WaypointGenerator behaviours (thanks linuxgurugamer). Fixed further issues requiring rouding when checking for a zero speed (thanks Aelfhe1m). Fixed issue where ContractMultiplier() wasn't calculated correctly. Fixed issue where failureFunds was not being set when the contract had an advance. Fixed issue with load passenger dialog disappearing too early (thanks inigma). Fixed parsing of CelestialBody in WaypointGenerator (thanks severedsolo). Fixed some parser issues for exceptional cases (thanks inigma). Fixed major issues with CopyCraftFile behaviour (thanks inigma). Fixed default Kerbal type back to tourist in SpawnPassengers (thanks CovertJaguar). Minor bug fixes.

Stable - but there's two issues remaining to be worked before I release.

Whoops! I must've somehow broke this in Contract Configurator 1.9.0! I'll fix this for the next release.

Strategia Development Diary #5 - Uncrewed Missions It's been another busy week with Contract Configurator bugs/enhancements, and Strategia suffered again. Fortunately, I was able to finish off the work that I'd planned to show off in this week's development diary. Wernher von Kerman is proud to present his series of uncrewed missions. What you'll immediately notice from the image on the right are the similarities with the crewed missions that I showed off a few weeks back. Although similar, I'm planning on giving them slightly different rewards that are a little bit more science based, as well as changing the top-tier missions completely. Note that I still need to fix up the rewards - the numbers are just place-holders copied from the crewed missions. Generic Probe Missions First up are the generic probe missions that get offered for each celestial body. Unlike the crewed missions that just require a landing, these will require a landing in multiple biomes. Although it doesn't explicitly state it as a requirement, this encourages science gathering and "biome hopping". Of course, some planets may require more than one lander to visit multiple biomes, like Eve here. This is powered by a new feature in Contract Configurator that allows a contract author to easily copy parameters for every item in a list (like I've done with the biomes). It used to be these types of contracts were among the most complex - now they are ridiculously simple. Impactor Probe Missions Next up are the impactor probes. Now instead of having a specific body for a goal, these will ask you to send probes to multiple different bodies. These can't all be the same probe (for somewhat obvious reasons), but it's definitely possible to make one big probe that splits off smaller impactors. Planetary Flyby Probe Missions Finally, the planetary flybys encourage a player to send out a probe to multiple bodies while performing flybys. Ideally this will encourage using gravity assists to get to the different bodies (the flavour text of the strategy encourages this). Of course, if a player chooses to do this with multiple probes, that's their choice. It'll also give a nice chunk of bonus science for adjusting course to do flybys of the moons of planets the player chooses to visit. That's it for this week, hopefully only a few more weeks for me to get the rest of the strategies knocked out. I'm also quite happy that managed to figure out how to get the layouts for these dev notes the way that I want them in IPS - far better than what could be done back in vBulletin (although it requires some HTML hackery).

Still working on the permanent fix for this for 1.9.1, although I may not be able to fix existing saves, so it's just as well that there's the easy workaround.

Hmmm.... could be you ended up with the pre-release of that one by accident too? No worries either way - I'd recommend not going back to 1.9.0 anyway, I tend to make things backwards compatible, but if you roll back there's no guarantees. Shouldn't be anything else that is majorly wrong with 1.9.1 dev anyway.

It's a problem in the dev build of Contract Configurator which is now fixed - which means I need to ask the question: why are you running the dev build?

No risk to this contract pack - but it may/will break whatever you were using Kopernicus for. Still, not sure if it's the same issue - is it Waypoint Manager that's saying there's 0.0 distance to go? Can you toss a log file and screenshot my way (screenshot including the contract app open)?

A couple tips for you, @Dabroski: You can see the contracts requirements in the Contract Configurator debug window (alt-f10). Press the "force check requirements" button and check if the requirements for your contract are all green (careful of spoilers!). In this case, it looks like you need the barometer unlocked - not the whiplash. As you were told, the contracts are fairly random. You can cycle them in the main debug window (alt-f12) by going to contracts and pressing "clear current contracts" (the middle one, I think that was the label). Note that this also clears your active contracts, so don't have anything on the go if you do this. You can instead cancel other contracts to open up a "slot" for the one your looking for. In this case it's a two-star contract, so cancel other two-star contracts.

I've gotten a few reports now of the issue @Djolox reported above about disabled contracts coming back. If anyone is experiencing this and is able to provide more details, please head over to this post on the Contract Configurator thread.

I've gotten a few reports of this, please see this post on the Contract Configurator thread if you're able to provide more details.