Snillum101

Any word on whether the decimal places being rounded in game is a bug or working as intended?

I'm having problems making decimal points appear in my missions I'm writing. For example if I write "maxInclination = 0.5" in my mission package, the mission controller window shows "Inclination: 0-1" in the game. I think the plugin is being too harsh with its rounding of certain objectives.

Sounds great! Keep up the good work. (btw looked at the log file and it turned out I had not put enough parachutes on my recyclable stage, oops)

Thanks for the great responses guys. I'll look at the log after my next mission and see what's what.

I wonder if anyone could explain to me how the new auto recover works. I put parachutes on my spent stages but I never seem to get any money back for them. Should I get credited during my ascent as the spent stages unload? Or does it get put back at the end of a mission? Thanks.

This mod is fantastic! My craft no longer flop around like drowning fish when attempting to dock

IMO the charging by mass thing could do with some improvement. One idea that was suggested was to still charge by mass but to use different cost/kg ratios for different types of parts.

Exactly, you pay for the cost for a more massive payload by having to build a bigger rocket.

The whole mission controller folder from the download needs to be unpacked in the GameData folder inside your KSP directory. So you should have /Kerbal Space Program/GameData/MissionController/

My beef isn't with the current method being too difficult. I have been able to design rockets that complete the stock missions within budget no problem. My issue is that the removal of individual pricing of components means that putting a few metal panels into orbit costs as much extra as putting up a large satellite. This is because the new model does not take into account if the object is a solid hunk of metal or a flight computer, it just charges for the mass of the object rather than for the object itself. In my mind it's obvious that a ASAS module should be many times the cost of a girder or metal panel due to all the electronics and whatnot. An idea that could work is reducing the cost per unit of mass and introducing a new cost similar to what was done with liquid engines. For every piece of tech you put on your spacecraft (ASAS, solar panels, probe bodies, etc) you pay an amount based on the complexity of the unit. So a ASAS module goes from a foregone conclusion because it costs virtually nothing to being an actual decision.

Yes I like the sound of that! It would be easy to rebalance the KW rocketry stuff with module manager. I think this is a really good idea.

I'm sorry to say I have to agree. I really thought the previous way of doing things was much better. I understand its difficult to balance things but the current charging by mass makes heavy simple structures wildly expensive.

I'm also having this problem. It seems to happen when I attach SRBs to decouplers. If I attach the SRB to the rocket directly the deltaV is added correctly.

Lol, just reporting a bug not expecting an immediate fix.

May have discovered a bug with the difficulty settings. I've found that when going back to my save after closing the game yesterday that my rockets were cheaper than I expected. The config screen says I have hard difficulty selected but if I select medium difficulty, save and close the config window, my rocket costs stay the same. If I re-open the config window and select hard difficulty my rocket costs jump up to more expensive values. So I guess what I'm basically saying is that the difficulty resets back to medium on game close even though the config UI says I have hard selected.

Another great update. Keep up the good work!

I like that idea. there could be several comsat parts of different weights and values. A hard mission would ask for a heavy/expensive comsat to be put into orbit.

Those changes sound great. I think it would make sense for every mission to provide a little bit of research resource and for some missions such as telescopes/space stations etc to provide research over time. I also think for balancing it might be an idea to proportionately increase the cost of payloads. At the moment when I send a satellite into orbit the main cost of the mission is the LV, I don't want LV's to be really cheap, I just think that payloads aren't valuable enough at the moment. One way I see of tackling this is to make all probe cores, batteries, solar cells etc much more expensive. This would tie in well with the difficulty setting you mentioned (i.e. easy = low probe costs | hard = high probe costs). It would IMO make it seem like you're transporting something valuable up into orbit for a company rather than useless old junk

Is there an updated list of mission categories for the new icons? I've looked through the documentation but can't seem to find one. Great changes in 0.7 btw Edit: I may have found a bug with the passive reward payment. I was testing Comsat contract V and completed the mission just fine. I then selected a ship and waited on the launch pad for 24hrs to go by. However when the countdown reached 0 on the mission screen my budget did not update by +500. Is time acceleration not allowed? Or will my budget just not update until I launch another ship?

May I suggest a feature on the GUI to track the total amount of passive income completed missions are generating? It might be nice to have a countdown timer telling you when payments are due next as well.

Agree with this, even if it was 25%-50% lower.

Maybe its a question of balance, I find my LV is almost all the cost of the mission with the payload being a very small amount.

I agree with you, though I think having the option to disable the plugin from the config menu before launch does let you test out designs without inuring any financial penalty. I myself regularly test out designs with the plugin disabled and then run the mission for real once I'm happy. I see it as using "computer simulations" to test a design before committing to build it

You make a fair point there, though part of me thinks that that responsibility sits with the individual mission package designers not to provide the user with a very restrictive campaign or no way of making an income

Really like the sound of that. I understand if it turns out not to be possible though. I also really like the idea from White Owl of having a "cooldown" on certain repeatable missions. Loving this mod