Arsonide

This sounds like a NullReferenceException. Can you cause this lockup to occur, then immediately quit the game and post your log? Also, I see you have a high resolution background there, what mods are you running?

Surface surveys have very small target areas. They're only about 50 meters in diameter. Make sure that you are standing in one before you do the experiment. Sometimes it can be difficult to tell when on EVA, so make sure that you park your vessel close to the target area. The outpost might not be completing for several reasons, but I need more information to help you. The outpost has to be new, it has to have docking ports, it has to have power generators, it has to have an antenna, and it has to meet crew capacity. It also might have special requests on top of these requirements. If you meet all of that, and you land in the correct location, you still need to hold your vessel steady for ten seconds to complete the contract. If your vessel is sliding, this will not complete. It needs to be stable.

It'd have to be a big app! The amount of options in that file far supersedes simple contract amounts. You can completely customize the difficulty of each individual contract type, and how they generate, as well as the rewards they offer. As an example, if eccentric orbits on satellite contracts aren't your thing, you can either make the random orbits rounder, or disable them entirely and opt for more synchronous and stationary orbits. The survey clusters can even be tightened up from there.

Incorrect. Go to GameData\Squad\Contracts\Contracts.cfg, find any entry that says "MaximumAvailable" or "MaximumExistent". If you tweak those, you can adjust the frequency of those contracts. If you set them to zero, that contract type will no longer appear.

Look for "MaximumExistent" and "MaximumAvailable". You can use those to cap how many show up on the contract board, or you can set them to zero to disable a contract.

Most contracts have a healthy list of configurable tweaks. If you head into GameData/Squad/Contracts/Contracts.cfg, there are plenty of options there, including the option to disable or adjust any contract type that doesn't sit well with your particular playstyle.

Overthinking is not a word in the Kerbal vocabulary!

Back when they were first implemented, there were no numbers. I preferred the simplicity of an orbit with animated direction as well, but there was a high demand for numbers, so I added them into a minimizable note.

This contract is not impossible. In flight does not necessarily mean atmospheric flight, and gravimetric scans can be taken in orbit.

Oh no, I didn't mean to disprove. I just frequently speak in hyperbole. It's a character flaw - any number I throw out will probably be in the hundreds. I'm definitely open to feedback and ideas - that's what got Fine Print to where it is today. It is just, a lot of brainstorming, ideas, and prototyping happen behind the scenes, and I just wanted you guys to know where my thought patterns were when I first did this. Feel free to poke holes in them. Similar discussions have sparked entire new features in the past.

Your log is a lengthy web of errors and warnings, but there are three that stood out to me, and one in particular caught my eye. Kerbal Alarm Clock and Custom Biomes are repeatedly causing null reference errors. Those are no good, and I am not familiar enough with those addons to explain why you are getting that. Is Custom Biomes still a thing after 0.90? Contract Configurator is my bet on the culprit here though... [INFO] ContractConfigurator.ContractConfigurator: Disabled 0 ContractTypes. (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) [INFO] ContractConfigurator.ContractConfigurator: Finished Adjusting ContractTypes (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) MissingMethodException: Method not found: 'SCANsat.SCANUtil.GetCoverage'. at ContractConfigurator.ContractRequirement.RequirementsMet (ContractConfigurator.ConfiguredContract contract, System.Collections.Generic.List`1 contractRequirements) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at ContractConfigurator.ContractType.MeetRequirements (ContractConfigurator.ConfiguredContract contract) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at ContractConfigurator.ConfiguredContract.SelectContractType () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at ContractConfigurator.ConfiguredContract.MeetRequirements () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Contracts.Contract.Generate (System.Type contractType, ContractPrestige difficulty, Int32 seed, State state) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Contracts.ContractSystem.GenerateContract (Int32 seed, ContractPrestige difficulty, System.Type contractType) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Contracts.ContractSystem.GenerateContract (System.Int32& seed, ContractPrestige difficulty) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Contracts.ContractSystem.GenerateContracts (System.Int32& seed, ContractPrestige difficulty, Int32 count) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Contracts.ContractSystem.RefreshContracts () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Contracts.ContractSystem+.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 It might be nothing, but it looks mighty suspect to me. I'd ask in their thread what might be causing this error to occur. The stack trace should be very helpful to the creator of Contract Configurator.

5thHorseman has the right idea. The intention was not to dedicate any old vessel to a particular contract. It actually was to dedicate a new vessel. The root of the problem here is that new vessel state is being modified. I was aware of the issues with docking modifying the state of a vessel, and had a workaround in place. That seems to be having some trouble, but I have more solutions available to me to fix this issue. I never wanted players to have the ability to throw 300 satellites around the Mun with a few of those hive ships and be set for life with satellite contracts on the Mun. I similarly did not want the player to be en route to another mission and pick up one out of luck and/or convenience, as you outlined. If we are speaking realistically, most satellites are purpose built...custom made for a singular purpose, and if that purpose was contracted out, Company B would be very upset if you used their property for Company A. If it wasn't contracted, then it is still the property of the people that sent it up there (government, NASA, etc), and they would have built it for a specific purpose - so even if Company A sent up the original satellite, and suddenly needed it for something else, it probably won't have the capabilities to do the new task, and another one will need to be sent up anyway.

We had also considered this, but decided against it as well. Consider how this information would be conveyed to the player. Cannot use station that has been used in a station contract before. That's kind of complicated. What if I can't remember which stations I've used before? Okay, so now we need HUD elements to convey that information, and at this point a simple thing becomes more complex than it needs to be. It was definitely looked at from every angle, but ultimately we erred on the side of fun and simplicity. I am looking into some more creative solutions for this, however.

This will be hard to address without more information. Please reproduce the issue and post the log generated from the crash.

The ground waypoints have much tighter target areas because they are meant for precision vessels, like landers, VTOLs, rovers, or Kerbals. You need to be right on them for them to complete. Note that your navball icon will start flashing when you are in the target area, however, there is no navball in EVA, which probably led to your confusion. You will also receive messages when entering or leaving the target area. I do want to address this, but for now I suggest using this mod if you want more detailed waypoint distance information.

I'd actually discussed all of these solutions with my partner while we were working on Fine Print as a mod, and ultimately, killing control of a vessel or deleting a vessel from the game were things we thought just wouldn't be that fun for the player. However, the "new" requirement being subverted by docking and undocking is odd to say the least. I will be looking into that.

Ah, and this is why I wanted to close the thread a week or so after release. I've been taking it easy over the holidays though. I will be announcing a rebalancing effort soon in another thread, but for now I am going to shut this one down to reduce confusion. If you guys have feedback, please post them to the actual feedback forums. Thanks!

Holy cow! This is awesome. Great work nightingale.

You should be able to get multiple flag plant contracts on a body, but now it won't spawn them unless the plant would actually take some work. Regarding the satellite contracts, I don't see much of a problem with this. It still takes work to adjust to the new orbits, and if your satellite has that much delta-v, then work expended deserves rewards, right? The only real solution here would be to disable or otherwise take player control of the satellite away at contract completion, and I'm not much of a fan of that (see station/base contracts). Still pondering the science contracts.

No, it doesn't care what command modules you are using, only that the crew count is zero and the vessel is controllable, but yes it needs to be new and have a power source and an antenna.

Well, without a log it is hard to guess, but I only know of one instance when all contracts can disappear. Possibly two. Tell me, did you use the debug menu at all when you were acquiring these contracts? (The menu that pops up when you hit alt-f12)?

Well color me impressed!

Do you have a log? That would help us deduce the issue much faster.

They do start simpler, as you progress your space program they will open into clusters, target more planets, ask for different experiments, and have more available at a time.

The stock contracts will see the existing save data, but the problem is that the contracts themselves have changed. Some of them now expect to see new data there that wasn't there in 0.25. Luckily, Fine Print has always reverted to default values when it gets confused like this, so the game won't explode or anything, but your contracts might look a little weird. Just a warning. It's possible that you can still complete them, but do not be surprised if you cannot.