nightingale

Another sig tip - if you don't want the text to be grey, just change the color from automatic to black (I wish what I saw was actually what I got in the sig editor in this case).

Sounds like the error you'd get if you're running the 1.0.4-compatible version of Contract Configurator (1.7.x) with KSP 1.0.5. Or the other way around - running Contract Configurator 1.8.x on KSP 1.0.4. EDIT: Just checked, and this may not be from Contract Configurator. The only way to know for sure is to see the full stack trace from that error (available in KSP.log).

Something like this? Apparently, IPS does support tables... but the editor doesn't. I reverse engineered from Necrobones sig, but all I did was copy the HTML <table>, hand-edit it, viewed it in the web browser, and copied that into the WYSIWYG editor. Same thing if you create the sig in any other editor (other forum, github, whatever) that allows you to generate tables.

Shift-enter will do a single spaced linefeed.

[quote name='inigma']I can easily hyperedit there, but SpawnVessel is doing something really weird.[/QUOTE] Could you be more specific? EDIT: Also, raise a GitHub issue - normally I don't mind doing support requests via the forum, but we're at T-10:21 to forum death, and I may or may not be able to look at this one tonight. :)

[quote name='jhook777']Yes sir, using up to date mods from ckan except I downloaded this mod straight from Kerbalstuff since ckan says it isn't compatible with 1.0.5. Every time I accept a new KoF mission at least one Volwen shows up in the space center. These little guys tend to disappear randomly if I exit the astronaut complex, enter VAB, then go back to AC. Or, if I blow up all the targets and recover a vessel with a Volwen in it (from flight) it will remove the clones. Next KoF mission spawns more Volwens. It actually doesn't bother me as I can just go around them when selecting crew and they tend to become my 'test pilots.' But, if this concerns you I'll gladly provide logs, save files, screenshots or whatever you need when I get home (at work, currently). I love this mod, it really got me into designing atmospheric flight crafts (as opposed to rocketeering away). So literally, opened up a whole new game for me![/QUOTE] It does concern me - raised [[URL="https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/issues/362"]#362[/URL]]. [s]I'll get back to you and let you know if I need logs or anything (it'll be at least a few days before I look at this one).[/s] EDIT: Actually, yeah post up a log here or on the linked issue. Since last time it was due to an exception, logs might be helpful here too.

[quote name='jhook777']Any new updates in the pipe for this _amazing_ mod? Works with 1.0.5 (64 bit Linux) without any problems other than the Volwen clones in the astronaut complex (this isn't really an issue for me as I have... uses... for the clones). Just wondering if work is still being done on this mod :) Jhook777[/QUOTE] Wait, what? I thought I fixed the Volwen clones. You're still seeing that in 1.0.5?

[quote name='StevieC']even if the launch-clamps on the Mun thing is fixed, there is still an annoyingly frequent occurrence of contracts to test launch clamps splashed down on, in flight over, on sub-orbital trajectory over, in orbit of, or even on escape trajectory out of Kerbin.[/QUOTE] I mean that I thought all those invalid launch clamp contracts were fixed in 0.90. I have not seen one in a [I]long [/I]time, so it's likely you've got some other issue and would be best off posting something in the support forums. [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='severedsolo']Quick question regarding the persistent data store, just to make sure I'm doing it right: Let's say I write a value to the data store. For the sake of argument, let's say [code] BEHAVIOUR { name = Expression type = Expression CONTRACT_ACCEPTED { MyValue = true } } [/code] Presumably, I could later overwrite the value in MyValue by using a new Behaviour node (in a different contract for instance) and the original store would be replaced? So: [code] BEHAVIOUR { name = Expression type = Expression CONTRACT_ACCEPTED { MyValue = false } } [/code] Would override MyValue to false, and undo what i put in my first code box?[/QUOTE] Correct, and don't forget to add type=bool or it'll default to double (for backwards compatibility).

[quote name='vardicd']I found an issue with this mod, and RoverDude's mod, Sounding Rockets: [URL]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/102502[/URL] The specific issue is, Sounding rockets adds a number of early game science 'packages' Field science detects these experiments, and asks for science recovery from an area around KSC, easily done, but if the experiment has already been run, and the science return is zero, the contract won't complete. I've had this pop up twice now, and had to cheat the contract into completion both times. I've double checked to be sure that I'm using the right experiment too, as the names can be confusing compared to the stop science modules, at least for me, and the in flight contract checker shows the results with a green checkmark, showing that it's right, but on recovery, the contract doesn't complete. I can provide pics, and logs if need be.[/QUOTE] Raised [[URL="https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/issues/361"]#361[/URL]]. Shouldn't need anything else, I just never specifically added support for the experiments in the sounding rockets mod. I'll take a look and figure out the best way to handle it.

[quote name='Venusgate']Yes. For people who want to be more ambitious than getting a single kerbal to mun within 100 days (I'm fairly sure you could do it by the 2nd day if you grinded) Although I may be confused on how you are implementing them. Your Program strategies look like a hybrid between a completable contract, and indefinite strategies.[/QUOTE] The rewards/goals of the program are still in flux, but the idea is that it gives a very broad goal (Land on Planet X), some bonuses for achieving it, penalties for missing it, and maybe something over time that helps to get you to the goal. [quote name='Kaboom!']Is there a DL?[/QUOTE] Not yet. Thinking about getting a beta download out before Christmas, but it won't be any good if I release it on the 24th and then everybody goes and plays something else bought on steam sales for two weeks. :) It all depends on how far I get with development. Right now most of the framework side is in place, but I've only got about 25% of the strategies that I want to get done in place.

[quote name='magico13']Something that would be really cool to add later on down the line would be some way of visualizing the beacon locations and their sizes, but I don't know how to do that.[/QUOTE] If you just want to mark out the location, easiest thing is to use a waypoint - all you have to do is create it and do WaypointManager.AddWaypoint() to get it to render. Unfortunately, it's limited to career mode. Rendering the zone would be trickier, I imagine you're getting into shaders for that, which is not my area of expertise either. :)

[quote name='inigma']Count me in as another interested party in Strategia offering program focus. Simply code a hook called "programFocus" which can be referenced by Contract Configurator groups to offer up a specific group of contracts that override weights found for contracts not referencing the group. No need to touch stock contracts for this. Info sharing between Strategia and CC could really make both shine.[/QUOTE] No plans for Contract Configurator integration for the first release, but it could possibly be a future update.

[quote name='Sampa']Hey Nightingale, how about you also make use of the community Blog to help give us update or more details? Just an idea to help keep this somewhat clean.[/QUOTE] What, the blogs that are going away with the forum migration in 3 days? Sure, why not, all it takes is clicking a button. :) [quote name='severedsolo']I have a couple of [s]issues[/s] questions around the "Stagnated Research" strategy. As a player, I'm not even 100% sure what reputation does. As far as I'm aware, it just makes you lose if you don't have enough (did they ever introduce that?) - and I'm vaguely aware it affects the number of three star contracts available. Meh.[/QUOTE] I agree completely rep is almost meaningless in stock. Within Strategia, reputation will hopefully mean a little bit more, as I'm planning on using reputation requirements to lock away higher tier strategies. For example, if you want to turn on "Super Good Strategy III", you might need to have 500 reputation. [quote name='severedsolo']I wouldn't take the science hit for that. Also, it seems from your early screenshots that this is literally "give me 100 science and I'll give you x amount of reputation right now, plus contract increases"[/QUOTE] From the player's perspective, it's "Pay 100 science, and get 6 rep per contract (and contract parameter) completed". For example, with Stagnated Research III enabled, here's what your contracts look like: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/BhDf0LV.png[/IMG] [quote name='severedsolo']I take it that the other contracts will follow a similar vein. What's to stop a player like me, who could give two figs about rep, just keep activating the rep>science strategy to get free science?[/QUOTE] I doubt I will have a strategy that does rep => science, but if I do it'll have to have some downsides. I should probably also mention that the numbers have only a little thought put into them, they're going to get a serious balance pass (both the research and rep numbers in this case). [quote name='severedsolo']Perhaps it could be balanced, so the reward is released in a "drip feed" - so with Stagnated Research, in your second screenshot, there is 16 rep available. However, you only get that rep if you unlock the nodes with the strategy activated. (Example, you have 16 rep to give, 8 science nodes left. Each node gives you 2 rep)[/QUOTE] That's pretty close to how it works. With Stagnated Research III, for each completed contract you get (0.3 Reputation) * <# of unresearched nodes>. So the reward gets worse the further you are into the tech tree. [quote name='severedsolo']Having said that, I like everything else you talked about! I especially like the notifications (it makes a nice friendly reminder to use the admin building) - and the list of requirements.[/QUOTE] Thanks! [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='Venusgate']I was just about to ask about the -500 rep thing, even though failing 100 days to get to mun seems a little ridiculous :P A -500 rep while being otherwise broke would pretty much be a game ender. I like the stagnated research though! Good counterpoint![/QUOTE] Yeah, that'll likely have to change. Maybe level I strategies will (mostly) require -1000 rep (which shows up as no reputation requirement), but level II and III strategies will require more than zero. I really don't like how the negative rep requirements show up right now, it tends to be confusing. [quote name='Venusgate']Thought about scaling the different programs: boost reward% by increasing requirement of contracts? Like "Land a 3+ crew module on mun within 20 days" = 1k%+ milestones?[/QUOTE] I'm confused by this. Are you talking about the Celestial Body Program strategies?

Until the release of Strategia (or at least until a beta release), I'm going to aim to have weekly developer diary posts. Since the first one happened to fall on a Tuesday, that'll be the day I do them. This week, I want to showcase some of the quality of life changes that I'm implementing for the strategy system. Commitment Levels One thing that I don't like about the strategies is the commitment level system. Right now, a player chooses to make a percentage "commitment" to a strategy, typically in 5% increments between 5% and 100%. Discrete choices are much better than a slider. With a slider, the player is just trying to put it as far to the right as possible. With discrete levels, it's much easier to balance them to make each level a more viable choice. For Strategia, I'll have two kinds of strategies. One-offs that do not have any levels (like the celestial body program strategies that I showed last week), and leveled strategies. Leveled strategies will have 3 levels (which conveniently lines up with the number of Admin Building levels). Initially I had implemented this using 33.3% commitment increments, but I quickly found some pretty serious problems with that approach. Using the example of Stagnated Research, if I took it at 33% commitment but later wanted to upgrade, I had no way of seeing what the 66% and 100% levels actually give me without cancelling the strategy. When most strategies have a setup cost associated with them, that's a pretty bad design. The other limitation was that any numeric values that are built in to the system had to be derived from the percentage. Which means if I wanted to set the science levels using a simple geometric progressing (say 100, 200, and 400), I can't do it. Naturally, this is all implemented through one config file that gets expanded (so I don't have to maintain three separate copes of the Stagnated Research strategy). Clear Requirements Stock strategies give you a reason why you can't use a strategy at the top of the strategy description. But it only gives one reason. If a strategy that I really want says it needs 100 science, then as a player I may go do something to get that science. Having happily grinded out some science, I'll be rather upset when I come back and find out that I was also 500 reputation short and didn't know it. This one is solve fairly simply with a section that shows the requirements for the strategy and gives a quick and explicit visual as to which requirements the player does and doesn't meet. Notifications The last problem with Strategies in the stock game is that they are just kind of... just background noise. As a player, I rarely see the need to go to the Administration Building at all. A big part of that is that the strategies aren't interesting - obviously a player installing Strategia is going to have a little bit more incentive to visit the Administration Building. Still, I felt that something more was needed. What I've implemented is a notification system. Any time a new strategy becomes available (or an old one is no longer available), the player will get a notification in the message area. This will allow me to make strategy availability depend on player progression, and give them a reminder about new strategies that they can try. The system is implemented somewhat like the world firsts milestones using a single message. So if the player manages to unlock 10 new strategies without checking the messages, they won't have to click through 10 windows. This also shows the last reason I made leveled strategies instead of using the commitment level. A player with Stagnated Research I will now get a notification when Stagnated Research II becomes available. Stagnated Research I should probably also quickly discuss the strategy that is showcased this week - Stagnated Research. Because I'm getting rid of all of the stock strategies when using Strategia, I felt that I still needed a way to help the player bootstrap reputation. The reputation gains apply to all contract rewards (including parameter rewards), even if there isn't already a reputation reward. For a one-time science cost, the player can get a sizeable increase to reputation gains from contracts. Any time they want to unlock more tech, they're forced into make a decision on whether to cancel the strategy, cancel and re-add it (paying the setup cost again) or to simply pay the increased research costs. Hope you guys enjoyed the dev diary. I'll be including a donation link on these posts, but no pressure! What I'm most interested in is feedback - feel free to post, tell me what you like, tell me what you hate!

[quote name='JWS']Hi. First of all, thanks for this great mod. Can't play new save without this mod and contract packs installed. I'm currently making a contract pack which offers ship shipping commodities or resources from space. And I'd like to add a parameter that limits maximum g on the spaceship. Already searched docs and coudn't find any suitable things, but docs can be slightly outdated(or maybe not). So my question is , does this version of CC supports that function? And if not, do you have plan to implement something like that? Thanks.[/QUOTE] Docs are completely 100% up to date. I'm not sure what you're asking for when you say "maximum g" though. Do you mean maximum mass? Or perhaps maximum g force? For the first one, there is [URL="https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/wiki/VesselMass-Parameter"]VesselMass[/URL]. For the second, you'd need to raise an enhancement request. [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='StevieC']Does anyone know a way to make the game STOP offering contracts to test launch-clamps in places that are NOT at the launch-site? I am constantly having to slog through offers of contracts to test launch clamps while splashed down, in flight, on sub-orbital trajectory, in orbit, or even on ESCAPE trajectories from not just Kerbin, but even the Mun and Minmus, and it is outright exasperating.[/QUOTE] Is launch clamps on the Mun even a thing anymore? I thought that was fixed in like... 0.90. Really nothing to do with Contract Configurator, though it does give the ability to disable different types of stock contracts altogether.

1.8.2 introduced a nasty bug, 1.8.3 fixes it. [URL="https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/releases/tag/1.8.3"]Download now[/URL]! [B]Contract Configurator 1.8.3[/B] [LIST] [*]Fixed NullReferenceException in code introduced in 1.8.2 (thanks kunok). [/LIST]

[quote name='kunok']Tried the previous version 1.8.1 from github and now works again, I don't know how to help more Edit: you ninja'd me, gimme a moment EDIT2: You have a PM with it[/QUOTE] Think I see the problem. Can you do me a favour and test the dev version (just copy the dll into GameData/ContractConfigurator from [URL="https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/blob/master/GameData/ContractConfigurator/ContractConfigurator.dll?raw=true"]here[/URL]). If that works for you I'll release an immediate hot-fix.

[I]Installed a version of windows off of floppy discs.[/I] - Yup, Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 [I]Played Doom on an iPod (5th Gen)[/I] - I can't even... [I]Erased a hard drive with an electromagnet[/I] - I've erased one with static electricity. Close. I have: "Smuggled" snow from the US into Canada in a canoe Travelled from -30 [FONT=arial]°[/FONT]C weather to +30 [FONT=arial]°[/FONT]C weather (about -20 [FONT=arial]°[/FONT]F to +80 [FONT=arial]°[/FONT]F for those of you in the states) Had a root canal due to basketball ([I]never again![/I])

[quote name='kunok']The last update broke my tracking centre, it looks like always but when I try to fly some vessel, it goes to the infinity like this: [URL]https://imgur.com/AQWnjSk[/URL] When it goes to this situation, i'm unable to make anything, I can't fly any vessel, or go back to the space centre. It should be this mod, because it's the only thing that was updated, yesterday it worked fine.[/QUOTE] I need a log file to be able to diagnose this.

[quote name='Stupid_Potato']Hi Is it possible get on hold of version 1.8.1? I updated this mod today with ckan and now my save files/game is a total mess, so I would just like to rule out this mod as a factor if possible.[/QUOTE] Yup. The GitHub release page (link in first post) has all previous versions.

New release, [URL="https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/releases/tag/1.8.2"]download now[/URL]! [I]This release marks the 1 year anniversary of Contract Configurator (close enough, considering the forums will most likely still be down on the actual anniversary). Happy birthday Contract Configurator, you've come a long way from a small wrapper on top of stock parameters. I guess it's time to update the images in the first post. I'll do it... later.[/I] [B]Contract Configurator 1.8.2[/B] [LIST] [*]Added vessel highlighting (from contextual contracts) to TargetDestroyed, Docking, Rendezvous and VesselParameterGroup. [*]Added Vessel.VesselName() method. [*]Added support for title in KerbalDeaths parameter. [*]Improvements to contract generation process (prevents some issues with a contract not showing up due to prestige levels). [*]New orbit methods for Vessel (OrbitApoapsis(), OrbitPeriapsis(), OrbitInclination(), OrbitEccentricity()). [*]Support for showMessages attribute in VisitWaypoint. [*]Fixed issue with FacilityRequirement always thinking the player's facilities were maxed out. [*]Fixed exception in WaypointGenerator for BaseConstruction (thanks dakakeisalie). [*]Fixed issue where Duration timer would reset under some very specific scenarios (thanks severedsolo). [*]Fixed some issues with facility level checks not working correctly. [/LIST]

[quote name='inigma']I thought I'd ask here first: I have a boat with command seats for the pilot and passenger. I can load in the passenger in the command seat on launch of the craft (providing a cabin for them to spawn into and then have pilot and passenger manually board the command seats on the boat), or I can do this easier via the Take Command mod right on launch from SPH which allows me to spawn direct to the command seats. Anyways, I run into two issues: 1. The passenger is not recognized as being in the command seat by HasPassengers 2. On recovery of the pilot (and subsequently the vessel he's piloting) the passenger remains. RecoverKerbal fails to recognize separate recoveries for pilot and passenger. Would be really nice to figure out a way to make boats and planes using just command seats, to complete tourism or passenger transport contracts for early game careers that only start with a command seat and no closed cockpits. Thoughts?[/quote] Let me look into this a bit and get back to you. Command seats work a little bit differently than pods. But all the information should be there, so I don't see why I wouldn't be able to make HasCrew, HasPassengers and RecoverKerbal recognize this. Raised [[URL="https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/issues/355"]#355[/URL]]. [quote name='inigma']Also, I created an agency called Kerbal Space Program. Do you foresee that conflicting at anytime with stock KSP or anyone else using Contract Configurator with the same agency name?[/QUOTE] No issues with anything that I'm currently aware of, but I tend to be a bit shy about creating something that generic, as you never know what Squad or some other modder will add that will cause conflicts. Although if you're going generic, I personally prefer "Mission Control" or "R&D" or the name of some other department. I almost did R&D (actually there's already an R&D agency) for Field Research, but ended up just making "the Field Research Team". [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='inigma']Had this idea, thought I'd share it with our contract master, nightingale: [URL]https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/3tzb6c/would_anyone_be_interested_in_developing_a/[/URL][/QUOTE] It's an interesting idea. I think there will definitely be some struggles though. A Contract Configurator contract can range from extremely simple (see WhiteCat's [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/123453"]Historic Missions[/URL]) to very complex/dynamically generated (see my [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/123892"]Field Research[/URL]) - what would the target complexity be? Would you have specific agencies with specific "types" of contracts? In that case, one could argue that it's better to have those as separate contract packs, but maybe it makes sense to combine if they're not strong enough to stand on their own. The other issue I forsee is that unlike something like Crowd Sourced Science, there's a bigger barrier to entry. If I wanted to contribute to CSS, I just need to pick a Body/Experiment combination and write a blurb. Although I've tried to make Contract Configurator simple to pick up, some people may not want to invest the time. Anyway, not saying that it's a bad idea, just that I foresee difficulties. Kudos to you if you can make it work.

[quote name='Corax']I hope this "support" you mention includes turning them off completely. There's little about these forums that I find as annoying as how they break the flow of reading, mess with line spacing, and just look plain ugly. I know I can switch them off for my posts , but that setting ("If selected, [noparse]:)[/noparse] will not be replaced with :)") is not remembered and I have to check that box every time I post, also it doesn't affect how other people's posts are displayed. On top of that, I have yet to see an "auto-emotify" function that doesn't regularly mangle text that isn't actually an emoticon, like source/config code etc. I'm not too opposed to text smileys, but those stupid icons annoy the crap out of me. Burn them with fire.[/QUOTE] I hope the Kerbal-themed emoticons includes stuff like the Funds, Reputation and Science icons from the game. I've had a few times trying to do more organized posts (eg. the first post on a thread for a mod) where it would've been nice to have easy access to those. If it's just the smileys, Kasper needs to take that off the "reasons to migrate list", since we kind of have that now. :P

[quote name='Rodger']I had the problem with the waypoints for the island airfield contract being off as well, with Kopernicus 0.5.2 and KillAshley's Kerbol Plus Remade v1.1. Took both of them out and retook the contract and the waypoints were in the right place, but then I put Kopernicus back without the planet pack, retook the contract, and the waypoints were still in the right places. Reinstalled K+ and took the contract again, and the waypoints were offset again, but in a different direction this time. And K+ shouldn't be doing anything to Kerbin ether...[/QUOTE] I posted something on the [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/114649-1-0-5-Kopernicus-Beta-%280-5%29-November-17?p=2310866&viewfull=1#post2310866"]Kopernicus thread[/URL]. Hopefully Thomas P. is able to fix whatever the issue is (assuming it's a Kopernicus issue).

[quote name='Araym']Actually, playing in Full Screen, I have set the exactly aspect ratio of my monitor (a poor laptop at 1366 x 768), and I have no issues without Waypoint Manager... ... aside that: reverting to 2.4.2 fixed it just at the first load. As soon a new waypoint is set (by a contract or manually) the issue appears again. For the moment, I should (sadly) remove it...[/QUOTE] From the link OWK posted, I suspect you'll have the issue whether Waypoint Manager is installed or not.