dunadirect

Playing 1.1.3, it seems to kick in when my target craft reaches about 200m away from the active vessel. the target's semi-major axis was unchanging until i got within that distance. originally my station was in ~25km x 25km around mun, but it's drifted all the way to 43km x 19km as i've tried unsuccessfully to dock. it seems better with orbital drift correction off (i can at least dock now). see distance & semi-major axis in this series of KER screenshots: http://imgur.com/a/iZM7T hard to verify whether it exists on 1.2 as i don't have KER and stock doesn't display target semi-major axis anywhere, but it did seem like my active vessel picked up a torque.

I switched to KW for my new 1.1 career, and am 2 game years in when i finally realized... the fairings do nothing! so i searched around and found this and... of course it's from bob fitch (a big fan!). If you haven't tried it with 1.1 it seems to work OK after a rebuild. thanks for doing this!

Ah, I hadn't installed the update. Good call!

I happened to glance at my logs and noticed repeated exceptions being logged: MissingFieldException: Field 'FinePrint.Contracts.Parameters.SpecificOrbitParameter.targetBody' not found. i reproduced this on a clean install of 1.0.5.1028 by installing the Asteroid Day mod. Removing the mod from my regular install fixes it. here's the opening portion of my logs, although i assume it's not relevant: Kerbal Space Program - 1.0.5.1028 (WindowsPlayer) OS: Windows 8.1 (6.3.9600) 64bit CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz (8) RAM: 32709 GPU: AMD RADEON R9 M295X (3072MB) SM: 30 (OpenGL 4.5 [4.5.13407 Compatibility Profile Context 15.201.2001.0]) RT Formats: ARGB32, Depth, ARGBHalf, RGB565, ARGB4444, ARGB1555, Default, DefaultHDR, ARGBFloat, RGFloat, RGHalf, RFloat, RHalf, R8 Log started: Fri, Dec 11, 2015 18:16:17 can anyone reproduce?

so i was excited to see this had been split out from the rebalance mod, as i didn't really want any of the other rebalances, but these changes are a bit beyond "No part rebalances except for early probe cores." I respect your choice to maintain the mod however you want, but wanted to provide this as feedback. Also, my career hasn't been going long, but I didn't see a need for SETIcontracts anymore, except for stuff like recycling station and colonizing, since those features aren't in the stock game. Cheers!

Thanks, I'll be getting out an update soon. If you'd like to be put on the beta list, DM me an email address you use as an Apple ID.

I was about to write this mod today myself, but I still wanted the 9:11 LF:OX ratio... So I've added a config which is 9:1 LF:OX to pair with an OX-only tank to keep the right balance: // Cost 2 * LF + OX %mixLFCost2 = 0 %LF2 = #$LF$ @LF2 *= 2 @tempVar = #$LF2$ @tempVar *= 0.8 @mixLFCost2 += #$tempVar$ %OX2 = #$totalCap$ @OX2 -= #$LF2$ @tempVar = #$OX2$ @tempVar *= 0.18 @mixLFCost2 += #$tempVar$ ... resourceNames = LiquidFuel,Oxidizer;LiquidFuel,Oxidizer;LiquidFuel;Oxidizer resourceAmounts = #$../LF$,$../OX$;$../LF2$,$../OX2$;$../totalCap$;$../totalCap$ tankCost = #$../mixLFCost$;$../mixLFCost2$;$../LFCost$;$../OXCost$ Download the patched version. Cheers!

A while back RoverDude asked if anyone could put together a spreadsheet for MKS base and station building. I had recently tried, but failed, but thought I could throw together a quick iOS app to do it in a couple of nights... it ended up taking a couple of weeks instead, but it's now available! UmbraCalc helps you understand what's going on in your MKS base or station. See how a more experienced engineer will improve efficiency, or how many agricultural modules are needed for sustainability, without having to build any test vessels or build spreadsheets. Add parts to a base or station Configure resource converters Assign crew Insights into how efficiency is calculated Plan initial supply and resupply missions with yearly resource use totals Download on the App Store! Bugs and/or feature requests! Screenshots! Based on and includes portions of Moduler Kolonization System by RoverDude https://github.com/BobPalmer/MKS/ This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

So I'm fixing Soyuz 4 & 5, and I'm going to suggest that they be merged into a single contract. Consider the following scenario: You successfully dock and exchange crew, and successfully recover Soyuz 4, completing the contract. Unfortunately, the second vessel experiences an anomaly during re-entry that results in loss of mission. But since you already completed Soyuz 4, you can no longer complete Soyuz 5! I'm going to give it a shot and it'll be on my github if i get it working.

some contracts won't be offered until some time after the previous one was completed (early on this is typically 10 days). that's not the case here; you may just have to decline a few contracts before the new ones will be offered (due to mechanics in ContractConfigurator). - - - Updated - - - i've started keeping my changes in GitHub, just so I can keep track of what I've fixed. Feel free to incorporate these fixes; I'll try not to push until I've actually verified the fixes work (which means I won't be updating RSS missions). Cheers.

i've just been giving myself 60 science at the start of a career, and then doing the "get science from kerbin" stock contract for the last five to let me start off with probes. science can be pretty sparse, if you don't allow yourself EVAs until you do contracts with them. I'm midway through Gemini, and missions requiring 3 crew are also difficult w/o the larger capsule. playing with RemoteTech makes the early Eve missions nearly impossible w/o the stronger dish, and returning unmanned capsules can also be a challenge! I'm guessing once I reach Apollo and can do science from Mun i'll be ok science-wise.

Finally tracked down why none of the duration requirements were showing up; it seems like they need to be outside the Orbit parameter, at the same level as VesselParameterGroup. If you had the source repo up somewhere i'd send you a patch This might get you partway there: $ find . -name \*.cfg -print0 | xargs -0 perl -000 -p -i.bak -e 's/(\s*PARAMETER[^{]*{[^{]*name = Duration[^}]*}\s*)}/}\n$1/gi' Gemini VII's objective says "title = Launch the Gemini-V" and not Gemini-VII.

Gemini-II: You need to set disableOnStateChange = true on the suborbital parameter. That one's pretty tricky with RemoteTech.

The Gemini-I has trait = Pilot, which requires a pilot on board (even though max crew is 0). This makes the contract pretty much impossible, afaict. i removed "trait = Pilot" and was able to complete the mission. also, did they not test parachute/recovery with this mission? the mission calls for destruction of vessel, but i'd feel more at ease sending kerbals up if this mission also tested recovery! Also, i think you have some fancy unicode emdashes instead of hyphens when denoting date ranges; at least on Windows these don't display so you just get "19581960." if you can't recall which missions those are, i can look them up. cheers!

like i'm still doing mercury missions but i have 684 reputation.

After playing through for a few days, I suspect the reputation rewards are a tad OP. On hard mode, "Orbit the Mun" gives me 9, but pioneer-4 gives me 30, and ranger-8 gives me 38. Also, Vostok 3+4 & 5+6 should both be a single missions. It's kinda lame that you can do those alongside a Mercury mission, and accomplish 3 missions with one flight. I'd like to try to merge those this weekend, but i wonder if you can have whole groups conflict with each other, so you can only have one crewed mission and one probe mission accepted between the two space programs. on my career i'm alternating russia/US launches every 6 days.

Possibly unrelated, when reloading module manager within the game, i see a few "Parent null for ..." messages. This ends up being because the files are named "... .cfg" - a space before the .cfg. The two I found were "STS-51-B .cfg" and "Historic Mission Pack .cfg". Still looking into why contracts sometimes get cancelled for no reason, and why contracts don't get offered when the should. Also, ContractConfigurator has a "no random contracts" agent mentality; the agents in this pack should probably use that.

i'm actually on windows, so i was surprised! maybe there's an internal file list stored, and they're indexing into it for performance rather than trying to stat?

two other issues come up in the debug log: a) Mir-Kvant-2: "Required value 'description' is empty" 2) It complains that it can't find CNSA logos; in my install they're the only files that are .PNG; the others are .png. I managed to recompile contract configurator with my change, and the contracts do indeed show up as green in the contract configurator debugger!

i may have figured it out; i think there was some inverted logic with computing cooldownDuration in ContractConfigurator: https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/pull/246

Really excited about these contracts; reminds me of going through all the campaigns on the wiki when i first started playing KSP. I'm running into two problems with early missions like V-2. One is that sometimes the contract just disappears - not listed in the archive as failed. I get a log in the debug console from contract configurator: "Removed contract V-2, as it no longer meets the requirements." This seems to happen mostly when transitioning to the launch scene, but might also happen when time warping at max speed. The other is that ditching the V-2 in water doesn't complete the contract (or is that intentional?) Thanks!

Bumping up the LF+OX production per LH gives a more realistic efficiency:

Oops. Thanks for bringing this up! I've been crunching some numbers. I'm using a 1:12 ratio of fuel generation by mass (CO2 + 2H2 => CH4 + O2), and the densities provided by community resources. Let's say you want to fill an FL-T200 with LF+OX. This requires ~0.083kg of H2. I've calculated this to be about 1176 units of fuel, which requires an FL-T400 and FL-T800. Unfortunately, KSP tanks are really heavy. An FL-T400 and FL-T800 filled with H2 mass 0.278t and 0.557t respectively, so you're required to transport 0.835t of H2+tanks to produce 1t of fuel. Comparing LF to kerosene and methane, they have a density of about 1/10th that of LF. To compensate, I was thinking of giving tanks a 10x capacity or storing H2. This allows tanks to store an amount of H2 approximately equal to their dry mass, reducing the efficiency to ~6x (1t of H2+tank => ~6t of LF+OX) Anyway, this table summarizes my plan. Does it make sense?

cool. i did originally try my hand at modelling but the result was pretty terrible, and i didn't really enjoy the experience. the materials bay might actually be too big - check out the picture on page 5: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120016419.pdf Anyway, keep in touch - I'd definitely prefer to use a custom part.

I've switched to using the Atmospheric Flud Spectro-Variometer instead of the stock ISRU. It sort of looks the part, although it doesn't work as an intake so I've left that requirement in.