nightingale

[quote name='ObsessedWithKSP'][URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/138802-Kerbal-Space-Program-1-0-5-New-Issues-Repository#map_offset"]Yes, it happens when KSP has an aspect ratio different to your monitor.[/URL] It's a new issue for stock 1.0.5 which explains why the WM version for 1.0.4 works correctly - because stock 1.0.4 works correctly.[/QUOTE] See, I knew if I just vaguely referenced the issue someone smart would come along and give a link. :)

[quote name='Belthize']Interesting, I was about to post asking where I could snag 2.4.2 (link I found for it returns 404). I need to stay at 1.0.4 base so does this mean that 2.4.3 will work if I just install it. If it won't is there somewhere I can snag 2.4.2.[/QUOTE] All the versions ever released are on the [URL="https://github.com/jrossignol/WaypointManager/releases"]GitHub release page[/URL]. Kerbalstuff is maintained as a mirror, because that seemed to be [I]really, really[/I] [I]important[/I] to a lot of vocal users. :) [QUOTE]Thanks for making the mod, I suspect it will be pretty handy with BTSM.[/QUOTE] Indeed, if I remember correctly Waypoint Manager is a recommended mod for BTSM.

[quote name='inigma']I know about spawning vessels selected by the contract, but I was just wondering if there was a way for the player to specify which vessel to spawn.[/QUOTE] Ah, I misread the question. [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/117893-1-0-5-regex-s-Useful-Mod-Emporium"]KSC Switcher[/URL] is a lighter version of Kerbin Side that gives this functionality. Nothing like this functionality exists in Contract Configurator, and I can't think of a [I]simple[/I] way to build it.

[quote name='inigma']Is there a way to make [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/101604"]Contract Configurator[/URL] contract packs work with FF to allow contract packs to award custom ribbons? I'd love to add Araym's ribbons (if he'd let me) or something similar, as reward for progression for completing KSC Coast Guard contracts. Check out my draft concept of how Contract Pack modders should have easy config file access to interacting with FF in their Contract Packs: [URL]https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/issues/351[/URL][/QUOTE] [quote name='Araym']^_^ I put them on "public release" just to allow anyone to use them, if they will fit a role, Inigma. Obviously I thought that they could have, eventually, some room directly inside the Final Frontier mod. (Or at least, they are fitting now, for me, exactly the spot occupied by those "Custom" ribbon I never used :P) My 2 cents about Final Frontier, now, should be a way to allow some "open coding" to add freely other custom made ribbons, both for "free form" assignment and for "custom events" maybe triggered by external events (specific contracts, like yours, for example). I'll be enough happy to be able to add (maybe in a custom directory) more ribbons than those "hardcoded"...[/QUOTE] I worked with Nereid on this for a little bit a long while back (maybe 8 months or so), but both real life stuff came up for him, as well as more important issues with Final Frontier around persistence. We never really got past the discussion stage. It kind of fell off my radar since then. Anyway, there's nothing I can do in Contract Configurator without changes from Nereid. I could be completely wrong as these are from memory, but the major changes required were: [LIST] [*]Better support for externally loading ribbons. If I remember correctly, the problem with the custom ribbons was you had to assign them to a "slot". So there would be the potential for two people doing different contract packs picking the same slot and conflicting. [*]API for allowing a custom ribbon to be assigned or the level upgraded. Right now it's all event based [/LIST] I think that was it (although those two items would require a fair bit of rework in the Final Frontier code base, if I remember correctly). If Nereid wants to and is able to make those changes, then I may look into support in Contract Configurator again.

[quote name='Araym']I'm experiencing a weird issue with the version 2.4.3 for 1.0.5: if any waypoint is active on Tracking Station Map, planets and background image (stars) are shifted to the right (leaving a black band on the left), with waypoints, orbits and PE-AP markers displaying where they are supposed to be... ... BUT if I'm using 2.4.2 (the latest build for 1.0.4) all is working as intended...[/QUOTE] That is extremely strange, but I thought I saw a bug report for stock 1.0.5 about something similar? 2.4.3 and 2.4.2 should be [I]exactly[/I] the same. The only reason I recompiled it was to change the version number to make CKAN happy...

[quote name='inigma']Is there a way for CC to spawn player's vessels for launch somewhere else, such as the VAB helipads or KSC Island (for rescue missions)? I know there's Kerbin-Side, but I was wondering if CC had a simpler capacity to do so on a per-contract basis.[/QUOTE] [quote name='severedsolo']Doesn't spawn vessel have a parameter that makes them controllable immediately?[/QUOTE] Indeed: [code] // Whether the vessel should show up as owned or unowned. If it is // owned, then it will be immediately selectable. // // Type: [URL="https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/wiki/Boolean-Type"]bool[/URL] // Required: No (defaulted) // Default: false // owned = False [/code]

[quote name='severedsolo']I figured it out. I was expecting Waypoint Manager to flash the waypoint marker like it does for survey missions. It didn't, it just silently flips the "at K2" parameter. Because I wasn't watching the contract window, I missed it.[/QUOTE] Raise a GitHub issue anyway, I'll see if I can hook into or emulate that behavior in VisitWaypoint.

[quote name='inigma']I had this thought. This really crazy off-the-wall-can't-believe-it's-not thought. Any chance to incorporate a means to include cut-scenes on load of a craft to complete a contract? Imagine reading in Mission Control a contract to respond to an S.O.S. to rescue a merchant vessel, which after accepting, and launching your craft, a cut scene loads from say a youtube or flv video that plays a video showing a rogue submarine torpedoing said merchant vessel, giving your mission a sort of backstory ... when you finally arrive to see the vessel cut in two and Kerbals floating around needing rescue.[/QUOTE] There's a one-quarter done branch on GitHub that adds in-game CutScene support. There's a long ways to go and I may resume work when Strategia comes out. But no promises. No plans for support of external videos though.

[quote name='inigma']What does ReturnHome do? The wiki isn't clear on what it means.[/QUOTE] Be landed or splashed on Kerbin. I'll update the wiki.

[quote name='Wiseman']I love this idea. I've been toying with a similar mod concept for a while now, which also centered around opening "projects" that would encompass a lot more than just a single contract. Up until 1.0.5 (and the penalty on declining contracts), I've always tried to bundle several contracts together, so I could plan a larger mission, to, say, the Mun. Instead of fulfilling one contract, I build a large craft or several smaller ones to hit a bunch of objectives in a short span of time, which I find to be more satisfying. I definitely like the idea of flipping the contract system around, and declaring where you want to go and then getting a bunch of contextual contracts to pop up all involving that objective. Would that be something that is possible with Strategia, maybe using Contract Configurator? In my ideal world, I would declare I want to open a project (a first manned spaceflight program, or one of the planetary exploration strategies you've previewed already), and the Strategy component modifies global costs/rewards. Then, you would see that most of your contracts now involve going to that body/accomplishing that objective, and there are two sets: Milestone contracts (first orbit/first landing/rendezvous/etc) and repeatable contracts (deploy satellite/perform science/etc). The strategy would be "finished" with a capstone contract, which would have a big reward much like the rewards on your previewed strategies, and finish out your work on the given body. You could keep the program strategy active to wrap up anything you still wanted to do, but there'd be not much else but the repeatable contracts at this point, and that should be good encouragement to move on. That seems like it would allow for the granular control of contracts (with all the "new vessel" goodness), but allow strategies to dictate your space program's immediate objectives. In any case, I'll definitely be watching this closely![/QUOTE] [quote name='Reiver']... could you have a certain strategy affect the choices of contracts offered? I have visions of picking Luna, and then being fed a bunch of the optional subquests, as it were. :D (I have no idea how to 'end' it, but an Atmospheric Engineering contract could be cool, too. For those jetheads out there.)[/QUOTE] I should say that don't have any intentions of touching contracts with this (outside of currency modifiers). Maybe this could be a future thing, but then I run into the problem that I either have fairly basic procedural contracts (which probably would be far worse than the stock contracts in terms of variety), or it would require a big development investment. So not something I'll consider until I get the core of it done. But as a concept, having strategies that modifies what type of contracts are offered is a very appealing feature. Still, we'll see how things shape up once I've got my desired number of strategies out there.

[quote name='severedsolo']Honestly, you report something from a development save by accident one time, and you never live it down ;) Seriously though, no I was on my main save, it was a normal playthrough. I don't tend to report things during development because I know I'm doing things that I'm not supposed to (for example, field research will fail validation if you reload contracts for some reason)[/QUOTE] Eh, more the fact that I didn't want it to be true, and was really, really hoping that it was something else. Anyway, raised [[URL="https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/issues/348"]#348[/URL]].

[quote name='severedsolo']You may need to stick a uniqueValue flag on these - I'm getting duplicate "create a network for Mun" contracts (duplicate offered that is, I haven't accepted them)[/QUOTE] They aren't dynamic, so it's a different issue (maxCompletions should prevent there from being more than one). I remember having that problem a couple versions ago. Was this normal playthrough, or contract development? In other words, were you doing anything in the debug menu you shouldn't have, or did it just happen to pop up that way?

[quote name='Arsonide']The issue here is feedback to the player. "Why does this ship work, and this ship not work?" It might cause some confusion if not presented properly, and really you want to present it in the simplest way possible. That's why I opted for "a new vessel" back in the day. It's boolean, it's clear, and it's concise. Even that has issues though: "When did I launch this vessel? I forget..." With the contract I have the benefit of a visible check box in the contract app. A strategy doesn't have this, making communication all the more important. Closest intercept is a bit complex and abstract to convey in a concise manner. Of course you could just leave it in the player's hands. At a certain point you have to realize, cheaters are going to cheat. All they have to do is hit Alt-F12.[/QUOTE] Way ahead of you, my next preview post will be about some of the quality of life changes I've made for these strategies, one of them being a list of requirements for activating the requirement in the description that highlight green/red as they are met/unmet. I won't say what the others are, because then I'll spoil the post. :D In this case I can just abstract all the detail into a text line that says "Have no ships near or en-route to Duna". But I'll need to think about if that's the solution I really want to go with.

[quote name='Arsonide']This looks nice, some thoughts I had... [LIST] [*] The deadlines will not mean much to the player. Having one year to get to Duna just means the player will activate this strategy with a kerbal in orbit of Duna. There needs to be some kind of balancing mechanism there. I cannot think of one off of the top of my head at the moment. Contracts generally deal with this sort of thing by requiring a new vessel, or by having a secondary objective of some kind that ensures that the player puts some sort of effort into his accomplishment. [*] Remember that 1.0.5 added support for progress tracking for both manned and unmanned progression. The milestones intentionally do not care how you achieve something, but maybe your strategies can... ;) [/LIST] [/QUOTE] Well, right now you can't activate the strategy if you've reached Duna. But yes, that just means they have to activate it just outside the SOI boundary instead. I could move the boundary to "leaving Kerbin", but that has the drawback of disallowing the player from taking a new Planetary Program strategy. Oh that gives me a thought... I'll have to look at stuff to see if it's possible to do this on an unloaded vessel, but I can loop through all the vessels and disallow the strategy if there are any vessels that have a closest intercept with Duna within the time limit that is less than a given tolerance, and then disallow the strategy. It could work... Good reminder on the manned/unmanned. Since I'm considering unmanned variants on this strategy, I'll have to change some stuff over to look at the appropriate progress item. [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='magico13']I'll keep these in mind when I start working on that. I definitely was planning on having the ability to add/remove upgrade points (perhaps even directly to an upgradeable rather than to the available pool), but you make me realize that I should also have a way to tack things onto the existing formulas without permanently modifying them (and maybe also an event when a formula is parsed so you can just act on that value). These will take a while, but it sounds like that's later on down the line anyways. Custom funding modifiers you can already do, so that part's done on my end at least ;) I'll have to think about how to handle other mods adjusting other funding modifiers. I'm not a huge fan of the idea of someone overwriting someone else's FM (rather than just writing their own FM to have a similar effect) but perhaps I'll add a way to adjust an Invoice when they're created (aka, more events), since I don't think anyone would do anything stupid/malicious on purpose (which does make me think about the licensing issues that could be present with FMs. They should probably follow the official mod rules in that they need a license and otherwise are considered ARR). As for other thoughts, I don't have any at the moment. I think BROKE's flexible enough that you can easily do whatever you want with it after I add events for Invoices. KCT's a bit more of a hassle, but if you can modify the formulas then you can do just about anything. You could play around with the part inventory as well if you wanted people to use certain parts (that'd actually be great for contracts).[/QUOTE] If you haven't seen them, look at how the stock strategies work, I think it's a good solution for [I]simplistic cases[/I]. Every time something is about to spend Funds (for example), it'll fire a CurrencyModifierQuery game event. One of the objects in that event represents the funding change that is going to happen, and can be modified by event handlers. Something similar with a construction time query even would allow me to easily do a percentage based modification. It breaks down quickly if there's multiple modifiers being applied (they get applied manipulatively instead of additively). I guess it's a question of where in the formula is the best place to apply a given modifier. Which if I haven't yet looked to see what is the formula being used, then I'm just kind of babbling. :D

[quote name='magico13']Let me know if you need anything on my end! I really need to get back to finishing BROKE and the KCT API, been too distracted with work+other games lately. Currently there aren't ways for other mods to modify the build times, but that can certainly be something I add in when I (eventually) get around to doing the API. I got a lot of work done around the holidays last year, so perhaps I'll crank out most of the API this year.[/QUOTE] Definitely! I was going to wait until I was working on specific stuff, but probably good to be proactive. I haven't looked at the code for either recently, but here's some of the ideas for KCT. These would be implemented as StrategyEffects on my end, and worked into various strategies that I may or may not have thought of yet: [LIST] [*]Modify (increase/decrease) build times by a percentage [*]Modify (increase/decrease) research times by a percentage [*]Unlock a separate build queue that will disappear when the strategy is deactivated [*]Modify (increase/decrease) upgrade point cost [/LIST] And for BROKE : [LIST] [*]Add a customer funding modifier line [*]Increase/Decrease all/certain funding modifiers by a percentage [/LIST] If there's others that make sense, I'm certainly open.

[quote name='severedsolo']How close do you need to get to waypoints for sub-orbital? I was flying over the K2 waypoint, my plan originally was to wait until the waypoint triggered (using waypoint manager) and then de-orbit to get suborbital. I got within 30k and nothing happened! how close do you need to be?[/QUOTE] Should be 75km, looking at the config. I'd say either 1.0.5 broke something or there's was something wrong with your test (you sure all the other parameters were checked?). If you're able to reproduce it again, raise a GitHub issue against Contract Configurator for me, if you don't mind.

[quote name='severedsolo']I was just wondering about KCT myself. Although I don't think it would be too bad. I think, what I would do, for the "land on a body" programs, is I'd build my craft in the VAB, then see how long KCT said it needed to build. Then, that many days (plus a few just in case) before the launch/transfer window I'd start the strategy, and get my craft building.[/QUOTE] At some point I was going to do KCT and BROKE integration. I haven't decided if it will be strategies tailored to each of those (eg. a standalone strategy that decreases KCT build time), or just module manager additions to other strategies (eg. you get decreased build times as part of the Moon Program).

Getting a lot of good feedback here. In general, I'm going to be trying to keep strategies as close as possible to the general stock concept, which is "provide a benefit while a given strategy is active" (or provide a benefit over time). The strategies that I happened to work on first are ones that don't fit in that mold. One of the main reasons for keeping the timelines for these as small as possible was to prevent the % reduction on research from getting too abused. So having thought about it some more, what I'll likely do is move the % reduction of research to some other strategy, and adopt severedsolo's idea. The benefit to the "program" strategies will be cash up front (to kick-start the endeavor), with small cash and large rep awards on completion (and keeping the modifiers to milestones as is). There also be a large cash and massive rep penalties for failure. So these strategies will serve as a source of up-front funding for the player's desired goal, allowing them to not have to do contracts. The main downside of the strategy will be that it'll take up a slot that the player won't be able to use for other strategies. Right now the strategy limit is 1/3/5 depending on building level - I'm strongly considering changing it in Strategia to 1/2/3 to make choosing which strategies to use into a more difficult decision for the players. Heck, maybe there's room for a strategy that gives +2 strategy slots, but provides a bunch of other big downsides.

Yay, equal light and dark bars. Must say that I don't pay attention to rep like I used to, so this one kind of snuck up on me. :)

[quote name='stoani96']How is that with stock contracts of that sort? For example this crew report things, are they bugged in the same way? Does anyone know? (Just curious about that ;) )[/QUOTE] Hmm.... you're right, I must be remembering wrong about the stock KSP behaviour. There was a reason why my stuff worked the way it does, and it might be to support a variety of scenarios (like transferring science from one vessel to another).

[quote name='Volchik']Aha! Possible, it was CrowdSourcedScience (in old format with custum science report definitions). Or updating and reinstalling sorted *.cfg and removed old files. (That's because CrowdSourcedScience now just the same.) Anyway there is no error in KSP log now.[/QUOTE] Ah yup, that makes sense, and probably falls into the "bad module manager config" section. :) [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='Volchik']Also, am I correct about "recoveryMethod = None"? (Meaning that none is deprecated.) In what file I can find possible recoveryMethod values (Yesterday I had to make text parser small "reverse engineering" :) )[/QUOTE] Doubled checked this and the None value should still be supported. None just means "I don't care about whether the science is recovered".

[quote name='One-Way Films']This will improve Career mode by a long way! Will you need a certain tier admin building to unlock some of these strategies? Then there'll be a reason to upgrade the thing. A pool just isn't enough to upgrade imo[/QUOTE] Yup, the intention is to have certain strategies with three commitment levels (that nicely fall into the three building tier levels). Other strategies will have a minimum building level (in the example above, the Moon Programs need level 1, Planet Programs level 2, and Gas Giant Programs level 3). [COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='Streetwind']Definitely interesting! I see one issue though: in your screenshot, each of the three sample strategies you present have a crewed landing as their ultimate goal, with a deadline. It's probably a reasonable assumption for stock KSP that almost nobody ever flies uncrewed exploration craft, but in modded KSP, this is much more common. If you wanted to, for instance, recreate the likeness of the Apollo program, you would more or less complete every single milestone other than the crewed landing with probes and robotic landers. And again, with the Mun the margins are quite lenient, but now take Jool. Four years time limit to put a Kerbal on all five moons, when only two or three transfer windows occur during that time period, and trip times are very long. If I decide to send an unmanned probe first, wait till it arrives and does its stuff, then construct an unmanned lander probe, wait for the transfer window, wait for the transit time... the time limit may already be consumed before I even start to think about sending Kerbals to even one moon. I realize that this is an extreme example, but I wanted to use it to point out that these strategies disfavor unmanned exploration. Which is why I want to suggest employing committment levels here: you can scale the milestone payout bonus in several increments, with the higher committment levels paying more but having shorter deadlines to the first crewed landing.[/QUOTE] I want to try and keep these deadlines as short as possible, but having an alternate version via commitment level without the 5% research cost reduction and with reduced rewards might be a workable idea. I'll hold off for now though, as there will be other strategies that will have an emphasis on unmanned exploration that might be sufficient to balance this off. EDIT: Also, in your specific example, you could send all three missions one after the other in the same transfer window. These strategies aren't intended to aid in a cautious approach, but be more like the Apollo program - the whole country coming together to meet an ambitious goal quickly.

[quote name='severedsolo']Not 100% sure you got what I meant... the first two work if you put them separately in a contract, so it worked when I used [code]v.ResourceCapacity(LiquidFuel)/10 > v.ResourceQuantity(LiquidFuel)[/code] and it worked when I removed that and replaced it with: [code]v.VesselName().Contains("HELP")[/code] However, for some reason when I put them together: [code]v.ResourceCapacity(LiquidFuel)/10 > v.ResourceQuantity(LiquidFuel) && v.VesselName().Contains("HELP")[/code] It's failing. Or do you mean that I'm trying to do too much at once with the Where function? and it's calling for vessels more than once? I'll try the list though, see what falls out.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it should've worked then. Outside of a typo or weird parser bug, I can't see any reason why it wouldn't have. Maybe put all three in the same contract so you can compare the results side by side by side.

These are stock KSP calls that are failing: [code] ResearchAndDevelopment.loadExperiments () ResearchAndDevelopment.GetExperiment (System.String experimentID) [/code] What's happening is that it's trying to load the full list of science experiments and failing because there's a duplicate. This means that somewhere, there's two config files that are defining the same experiment. This could be a mod experiment, or a stock one. It could be due to a mod install issue (duplicated files), a bad Module Manager config (causing duplicated config nodes) or some other similar type of issue. I'd recommend fully reinstalling (ie. delete and reinstall) any mods that add science experiments. If that doesn't work, try removing mods until the error goes away.

[quote name='stoani96']hello guys, I have a short question for you: How can I make a contract, which wants you to do a certain experiment (i.e. temperature-scan) at a specific location (waypoint)?? I tried this, but it does not work, as it is bugged... when I collect the science before I reach the waypoint nothing checks, but as soon as I am close enough to the waypoint it is finished...... but i want that you have to do the science there not somewhere and then just move there.. can you help me, please? Sry, if it is obvious ^^ [CODE]PARAMETER { name = Sequence_1 type = Sequence title = 1 PARAMETER { name = VisitWaypoint_1 type = VisitWaypoint index = 0 distance = 10 hideOnCompletion = true disableOnStateChange = false } PARAMETER { name = CollectScience_1 type = CollectScience targetBody = Kerbin situation = SrfLanded experiment = temperatureScan //recoveryMethod = RecoverOrTransmit completeInSequence = true disableOnStateChange = false } }[/CODE][/QUOTE] There are limits to the completeInSequence, unfortunately, as all it does is prevent a parameter from checking off immediately. What happens in your example is that it completes as soon as you visit the waypoint because it detects that the current vessel has the required science on-board (KSP doesn't give me the ability to check for [I]doing[/I] an experiment, only [I]having the results[/I]). So it's sort of a bug, but not one that I can fix. [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='bpiltz']Running into a problem where complete fly-by of Mun for Tourist isn't logging the event as done despite an hour in fly-by trajectory. I wasn't viewing vessel when SOI changed from Kerbin to Mun (maybe a reason). I changed fly-by trajectory to orbit and then back to fly-by. Still did not log as complete.[/QUOTE] Looking at that contract, there's a minimum altitude that you need to get to, so I'd guess that's the problem. Otherwise, send a screenshot of your ship when you're expecting it to be complete (include the contract window in the screenshot).