inigma

Use CKAN to search for keyword "EVA" and install EVA Parachutes and EVA Auto Equip (or something like that - I forgot what it's called.) You can use the kerbal's context menu to deploy chute or the hot key spacebar plus F I think it is. See their forum thread OP for details.

I will limit the craft to using liquid engines only, no solid fuel. Bear in mind that the Bell X-1 itself was a rocket engine which used oxidizer, so for this reason I will permit its use.

btw, I LOVE your hover program. I will be using it. You should publish that thing.

It's not a bug, but a design. The buoy drop contract works by checking that you have 2 barometers (or least it will now to fix this - it was not checking before) and that you drop both barometers and have none remaining on your craft. Your helicopter has a barometer stowed in the back service bay. Remove that third barometer and the contract will complete. I'll make sure to inform the player in the future that the mother craft should not have any barometers on board and require a max of only two on board as a safeguard in GAP 1.1.

I'll see what I can do to make our packs compatible on my end. Thanks for letting me use Eagle and Falcon.

Are you using the latest GAP 1.0.2.1 and latest Contract Configurator 1.9.3? If so, can you link me a craft file and save file?

Can you see the link i posted above?

I think you're right. I've also had the brilliant idea to make SSI do the altitude contracts and speed contracts, and use the new KAB agency to do the crew cabin testing.

Feedback requested: https://bubbl.us/?h=934b/5fc8d0/37aoS1/A8mNuU&r=1585399700 I need help figuring out the best set of requirements to open up the Mach 1 project. Should I make the Mach 1 project dependent on Aircraft Carrier Takeoff contract completion, or not? Currently it's dependent on both Carrier Takeoff, and KAB 5000m completion (and still require an unlocked jet or liquid rocket engine), but I was thinking most players will probably not do the carrier missions and will want to skip on ahead to the mach project so they can start their space programs. Thoughts? Should I leave the Carrier Takeoff requirement in or remove it?

Please submit pull requests here for the balance project: CCF Standards for Parts - Costs and Outputs

I think such will be redundant with 1.1's tutorial. Squad already has two team members dedicated full time to tutorial development per the devnotes. Not wanting to discourage, but to at least point out this may be a case of reinventing the wheel, in case someone wants to invest their time somewhere else. Well, what we really need is for someone to take the CCF Standard Career Progression and map out on the nodes what contract packs current fill in where. That way we can see what the gaps are and encourage new modders or existing contract authors to fill them in. I did have a crazy thought though: what if CCF got all of us contract pack authors together to add our individual contracts into a grand unified contract scheme, perhaps call it CCF Contracts or some such, where the goal would be to totally replace the stock contracts and expand the contract opportunities to fill all nodes with our contributions?

We don't really need a channel as i think documenting our ideas in this thread would encourage more universal participation, but if you create one please use #CCF per consensus on the project name. The CCF project is community based. Please list CCF as the author as its not any particular individual.

good catch. updated for 1.1. The only way you can salvage this is by setting up a flag near the tower anyways, fly back and land safely, and force completion of the contract by doing f12 and go to Contracts>Active and hit complete. the same was true for the next mission which I've fixed for 1.1. Go ahead and modify the landing VPG in KSP-IslandPrep with the same value. LandatIslandAirfield before you accept the contract. Hit f10 and reload to reload the contract system. You may need to cancel the contract once though if it's already offered up. To avoid this, make your change and reload contracts before you complete the landing contract.

If so it should be #CCF on same server as other ksp channels.

1. Yes. 2. Yes. Bear in mind that CCF will only list tech trees, strategy mods, and contract packs.

Cdr_Zeta, CCF is not a mod. It's a career progression map and a recommended part balance sheet. If a tech tree supports the progression, its certified. If a part mod has part costs or output values aligned with the recommended part balance sheet, it's consdered compatible. CCF does not promote any MM configs, nor require them. Tech trees may do whatever they wish to solicit adoption by modders or do the MM config work themselves (recommended). As long as the tree supports the CCF Standard Career Progression, its certified. No manpower needed except for the tech tree author. Same thing for balance mod authors.

KSP_Jack, I wanted to know what you think about GAP's progression map: https://bubbl.us/?h=934b/5fc8d0/37aoS1/A8mNuU&r=954713304 I noticed your Eagle and Falcon missions match nicely with GAP's KAB and SSI missions. Perhaps we should entertain adding requirements to check for each other's packs or maybe even a possible pack merge? I could run a check to detect if your pack is installed, and disable the the GAP KAB and GAP SSI speed missions, and allow for other contracts in my pack to work off of your Eagle and Falcon contracts. That would be the more complicated route to ensure compatibility and balance between our packs. The better way, and only if you'd be up to considering it, would be to simply code your AGIS starting contract to check for GAP's KAB-2000m and SSI-Mach4 completion. If you could split out your Falcon and Eagle contracts into a unique group that GAP could then disable upon detection, this would work overall. That, or you could simply drop your Eagle and Falcon contracts altogether. Thoughts? I really like your icons though. If anything, I could simply absorb your Falcon contracts as part of GAP. Anything's possible. I just want to know how best you'd like to approach compatibility and game balance when a player installs both our packs.

The First Flight rep and experience reward is the only boost a player gets. Other contract rewards are far less. So pick your desired pilot carefully. Another boost happens when you complete the carrier landing contract. Coast Guard contracts can be completed with stock parts. By the way, I added all KAB altitude contracts last night to GAP dev.

Re-inviting consensus makers: @RoverDude @linuxgurugamer @kcs123 @Randazzo @DMagic @legoclone09 @Nertea @Nereid @severedsolo @Valerian @CobaltWolf @theonegalen @Vesparco @tjsnh

Please lock this thread, as I've moved it to Add-On Releases: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/128056-moved-mods-please-lock-thread-community-career-framework-a-balance-mod-standards-cooperative-for-career-games-a-community-recommended-mod-list-that-commits-to-working-well-together-in-career-games/

This project has moved to: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/129805-community-career-framework-a-standard-career%C2%A0progression-and-mod-compatibility-cooperative%C2%A0for-career-games-tech-trees-contract-packs-stock-alike-recommend-standards-for-part-mods/#comment-2359045 Please update your links accordingly.

Community Career Framework (CCF) A Standards Cooperative for Career Games (Standard Career Progression and Part Balance Recommendations for Mod Authors and Players) Tech Trees | Contract Packs | Stock-alike Recommended Standards for Part Mods Greetings mod authors and players of KSP! There was a consensus developed between a number of mod authors in a previous discussion in the Add-On Discussions Forum that we want to finally introduce here. This consensus believes there should be a standard career progression that is modular and developed by consensus, and a stock-alike balanced part value recommendation set that is driven by community recommendations and thus easily adoptable by mod authors. This project aims to: 1. Offer tech trees certified with the outlined progression below. 2. Offer contract packs certified with the outlined progression below as well as overlap compatibility. 3. Offer a recommended standards list of values for part mods - keeping it as basic as possible and assuming stock values remain unchanged. 4. Allow for part mod and balance mod authors to acknowledge CCF compatibility. Essentially this would give balance mod authors a framework to be creative and offer their balance visions as separate creative mod offerings. CCF is therefore made of two parts: The Standard Career Progression - a modular career progression for career games (tech trees, strategy mods, and contract packs can certify their compliance) The Stock-alike Recommended Standards for Part Mods - a set of recommendations for part balances (part mod authors can tag their creations as compatible). Both parts will work hand in hand to give mod authors and players a set of community driven guidelines when developing or tweaking mods for the most common modded career games. Let get started! CCF Standard Career Progression: ground vehicles & boats > submersibles > aircraft > sounding rockets > unmanned rockets > probes > manned spacecraft > rover landings > manned landings > space stations > spaceplanes > bases > colonies > interstellar This progression is modular, meaning that in theory, any certified mods (tech trees, strategy mods, or contract packs) that support the framework should technically remain balanced if a player so chooses to ignore certain nodes in their career games. If players don't want to play a career game that has ground vehicle or boat parts and contracts, and want to just skip to unmanned rockets, the idea is that any CCF certified mod (tech trees, stragtegy mods, or contract packs) will still be playable and balanced with other CCF certified mods. A mod may be certified to work either by the mod author, or by the community. If by the community, then "recommend" will be listed until the mod author agrees. List of CCF Standard Career Progression Certified Mods: Tech Trees: recommend: Engineering Tech Tree by @Probus recommend: SETIctt by @Yemo Strategy Mods: recommend: Strategia by @nightingale Contract Packs: - Contract packs must have no overlapping contracts with other contract packs listed in order to be listed as certified. Giving Aircraft a Purpose (GAP) by @inigma Contract Pack: Sounding Rockets by @inigma The above listed mods are welcome to certify as CCF certified with the following badge: Stock-alike Recommended Standards for Part and Contracts: CCF Standards for Contracts - Rewards, Penalties, and Experience (TBD) CCF Standards for Parts - Costs and Outputs Any mod that meets the CCF Standards for Parts is welcome to certify as CCF compatible Thanks for reading! At anytime you disagree with these standards or anything in this project or this original post in this thread, please respond to this thread and let's talk about it! We're here to develop this project by consensus, not by fiat. Let's have fun, and let's discover what we can make together!

delete wrong forum.

I love it!. I'll be drafting a main Add-On Releases thread shortly to present our project. Thanks everyone!

Anytime your craft gets damaged and you try to run the same contract with another craft, it will probably not work since the contract assigns a unique identifier to the craft that passes the initial validation checks on launch. Essentially you've soft-failed the contract with the crash onto the shoreline rather than hard-failed it. It would be no different than a boat accident in real life just prior to landing your tourists... just be glad the penalties for hard-failure didn't kick in. Cancel the contract and retry and let me know if it works for you the second time.