Superfluous J

Why isn't there a global config option to turn off "This is the Space Center!" helpful hint screens? I know what the screen does. I don't need to see that every new career.

@BigFatStupidHead There is a problem in the new Contract Configurator update, that has a new fix that I'm testing in a few moments. Assuming that works this will be available as quick as I can make it come after that becomes official. Right now, you can accept contracts in many situations when you should not be able to which makes it very easy to progress - even by accident without intending to "cheat." If it was something that was easier to avoid I'd consider releasing, but I've decided to hold off if I can. @monstah Actually I've simplified the busy-work somewhat for the player. The "put the part on your vessel" was a bit clunky so I'm trying to make it so the contracts simply auto-complete. Literally, if you have the money you can just unlock all the parts in the game if you so choose. Of course, unless you really give yourself tons of cash to start, you'll not be starting with nearly enough money to unlock a lot of parts. However, by the time you get to orbit you'll be able to unlock enough parts to do most anything you want (in a general sense. You can unlock a nice probe core, or enough plane parts to get started there, or maybe unlock the bare minimum ISRU parts or early solar panels). Regarding cost balancing, that will be the #1 hardest part for me in this mod. I'll consider all suggestions (and I like your conditional one. It's very easy to modify one part category as they're all in separate config files so balancing in that way is trivial. It's just getting the numbers right that's the hard part ) I may - after initial release and balancing - go back to the idea of actually testing parts. However I will NOT accept any test that you can do at the launch pad for free or nearly free. For me, this mod is a way to cut out the drudgery of collecting science. I'm not going to replace it with drudgery in testing parts. EDIT: Oh, and you are correct about negative advances. You accept the contract for -18,000 funds, and that money is instantly deducted from your account. You can consider it the cost to pay people to develop the engine, or the cost to license its use. Your call.

Okay I think I got this. It was harder than I originally thoguht because even though you can remove the MENU from those parts easily, I needed to make a code change for AllYAll to ignore those parts when you used the menu on another part. Try this and tell me if it works. It doesn't change anything for anybody NOT using MOLE, and I don't think it'll fix Station Science, but it should keep the MOLE stuff from triggering. I tried to test it but am unfamiliar with MOLE stuff so I can't guarantee my test was valid at all. I'm also super unfamiliar with Github, which I'm trying to use now, so if you can't download these files let me know and I'll just put them somewhere you can: https://github.com/5thHorseman/AllYAll/blob/0.6-Beta-Release-Files/AllYAll.dll (This is the important one. It stops MOLE parts from running and has logging) https://github.com/5thHorseman/AllYAll/blob/0.6-Beta-Release-Files/AllYAll.cfg (not strictly needed for testing. This will remove the menu from the MOLE parts) If you're able to download and test the .dll file, and find it's not working, I'd appreciate getting me your output_log.txt file. I added logging in the above DLL so I'll be able to see what's happening in your particular install. If you try this and it works for you, let me know and I'll make a 0.6 release for it.

Anything big enough to leave Kerbin's SOI gets at least one docking port, unless it's the simplest "Apollo Style" mission and those generally have them because I'm leaving an orbiter anyway. For those, I generally tend to try to refuel.

As far as I know, you can't open the shielded docking port or the inline port in the VAB in the stock game (I use Tweakable Everything normally so don't even know what you can and can't do anymore, but back in the day you couldn't). I suppose I could have mounted the lander on top, facing forward with the shielded port on top, and after reaching orbit do an Apollo and flip it around. But I didn't think of that

3 reasons: That bad boy was a thing of beauty. It never was technically in orbit, if I recall. I'm pretty sure it went from flyby to suborbital in one glorious entry burn. Gotta love pre-1.0 aerodynamics. And in any case, I surely didn't launch it

This was for the "One with Everything" challenge. Gotta be the ugliest thing I've ever put into orbit. Sorry for the video link. It jumps to a few seconds before I trigger the fairings. https://youtu.be/7kG5gd-UZ54?t=34m29s

I have 4 installs (Well actually more, but 4 main ones): "Current." The one I play normally. When I do a long-running series on YouTube, it's on this save. "Testing." Sometimes totally stock, but frequently with just a few QOL mods and then a specific mod (Frequently one I'm working on) to test it. Currently this is being used for my Contract Configurator config. When I find a bug in the game, I test it here with no mods installed to see if it's in the actual game. "Stockish." This is "as close to stock as I can bear." QOL mods like KAC, KER, PN, etc. The ships I build here will work in a stock game without modification, but some of them you can't build in stock because I also remove editor offsets. "Actual Stock." This is not actually stock. It's a bare-bones install though with just 2 mods: The toolbar, and Ambient Light Adjustment. It's for doing "Stock" challenges and recording them for YouTube. I like doing stock challenges but the game is just way too dark frequently for YouTube videos.

The new "remotetech" features have a toggle. Technically both career and science mode have toggles to "turn them off". Should these things not have been implemented?

I can't speak on consoles for KSP in particular, but I can honestly say if you have a remotely decent PC and have the choice between PC an console, and you choose console, you did it to yourself. Back to the actual question, though, KSP goes on sale every few months. I personally paid full price back in 2013 and it was something like $26. I felt bad at the time when it went on sale a few days later, but really it's among the best $26 I've ever spent.

More stuff! Yay, right? I have a Requirement set up for all my contracts, that you must have the amount of money that the contract will cost you to take. Currently that's 10 times the "unlock cost" (thanks for adding that) and it works just fine, even with the negative number. I have these two clauses in each contract: advanceFunds = -@part.UnlockCost() * 10 REQUIREMENT { name = Funds type = Funds minFunds = @/part.UnlockCost() * 10 } Now this works fine. If you have the money, the contract is available to take and you can take it. It deducts your funds and accepts the contract. If you don't have the money, the contract is in the "All" tab greyed out because you don't meet the requirement. The problem occurs when you are low on funds and accept 2 contracts in quick succession. If you have, say, 20,000 funds and there are two contracts that each cost 15,000 funds, the game allows you to take them one right after the other. I don't know how much control you have over this aspect of it, but would it be possible to re-check a contract's requirements whenever someone clicks it to select it, instead of just on a timer? This wouldn't be a big deal if the game allowed you to go in the hole, but as it is currently it's easy to even accidentally cheat the system.

Congrats on TotM! I have no idea what my first screenshot ever was. I tend to delete them. The oldest one on my web server though appears to be this one, showing off a realistic starfield for the then Universe Replacer, which is now Texture Replacer if it's even a thing still. It's from July 2013, so it's from about a month after I started playing.

For some reason I thought that had to be a child parameter of other things. However, now that I test it it's a bit fidgety. It requires you to spend that time in control of a vessel, even if it's the only parameter in the contract. Time spent just sitting in the Space Center window (I understand why time in Mission control doesn't count but in the Space Center, time actually ticks) doesn't count. I understand I'm not using the parameter as it's intended, but I still wonder is there a way to make it work all on its own without having to control a ship? I tried setting the number of seconds to 0s but - while it works the same as 1s only quicker - it still doesn't auto-complete the contract. I understand that for 99% of contract ideas you want the person to be controlling a vessel, but for my purposes, having 0s auto-complete would be perfectly fine. I also tried being clever (which rarely gets me anywhere) and left off all parameters, and sure enough the log tells me a contract requires at least one parameter to function. If I'm out of luck that's fine, the part test idea works, it's just a little clunky especially early in career when you only have 2 available contracts at a time.

Another "how hard would it be..." question. The timer parameter sets up a timer, at the end of which the contract fails. How hard would it be to allow the contract, at the end of that timer, to succeed? I'm thinking: PARAMETER { name = Timer type = Timer duration = 1s timerType = CONTRACT_ACCEPTANCE failContract = false passContract = true } ...to pretty much set up a contract that automatically succeeds. Alternatively, is there a way to set up a contract that automatically succeeds? I haven't found one but I sometimes fail at clever.

Hm, I may have left it as detritus when upgrading. I usually delete the directory first but must have forgotten this time. I apologize.

I just found a small bug in KER. In GameData\KerbalEngineer\Parts\EngineerChip there are two part cfgs that define the part, part.cfg and EngineerChip.cfg This doesn't seem to cause any problems in and of itself, but it's giving my contract pack the fits because there are two defined parts with the same name.

While I still stand behind this statement, I seem to have sussed it out. I found this page that helped immensely, and finally ended up with: part = AllParts().Where(p => (p.Category() == Pods) && (p.UnlockCost() != 0)) which of course has nothing to do with the TechRequired thing but it IS a valid test.

I am terrible with Syntax, and I seem to also suck at searching the wiki. You helped me before in making a single CONTRACT_TYPE for each set of parts (propulsion, aero, pods, etc) and it works great, but it generates a contract to unlock parts that are unlocked at the start of the game (mk1 pod, flea booster, etc) and I'm trying to figure out how to exempt them from being added. The code you gave me was this, for pods for example: DATA_EXPAND { type = AvailablePart part = AllParts().Where(p => p.Category() == Pods) hidden = true } I'm trying to add a clause into that code that causes it to ignore parts with a "TechRequired" of "start". Currently, I have this: DATA_EXPAND { type = AvailablePart part = AllParts().Where(p => (p.Category() == Pods && p.TechRequired() != start)) hidden = true } But I also tried: part = AllParts().Where(p => p.Category() == Pods && p.TechRequired() != start) part = AllParts().Where(p => p.Category() == Pods && p => p.TechRequired() != start) And I even tried to split it up even though I don't know if I can just define variables willy-nilly, or even if I've got this syntax correct: noStartPart = AllParts().Where(p => p.TechRequired() != start) part = noStartPart().Where(p => p.Category() == Pods) Each attempt caused all contracts in the "Pods" category to just up and not be generated, with an error like this in the log: ContractConfigurator.ContractType: CONTRACT_TYPE 'PartPods': Values captured in a DATA_EXPAND node must be deterministic (the value needs to be fixed when loaded on game startup. ContractConfigurator.ContractType: CONTRACT_TYPE 'PartPods': Received an empty list of values when trying to do a DATA_EXPAND ContractConfigurator.ContractType: CONTRACT_TYPE 'PartPods': Error parsing title Exception: Unknown identifier '@/part'. UnityEngine.Debug:Internal_LogException(Exception, Object) UnityEngine.Debug:LogException(Exception) ContractConfigurator.LoggingUtil:LogException(Exception) ContractConfigurator.ConfigNodeUtil:ParseValue(ConfigNode, String, Action`1, IContractConfiguratorFactory, String, Func`2) ContractConfigurator.ConfigNodeUtil:ParseValue(ConfigNode, String, Action`1, IContractConfiguratorFactory, Func`2) ContractConfigurator.DeferredLoadUtil:ExecuteLoad(DeferredLoadObject`1) System.Reflection.MonoMethod:InternalInvoke(Object, Object[], Exception&) System.Reflection.MonoMethod:Invoke(Object, BindingFlags, Binder, Object[], CultureInfo) System.Reflection.MethodBase:Invoke(Object, Object[]) ContractConfigurator.ConfigNodeUtil:ExecuteDeferredLoads() ContractConfigurator.ContractType:Load(ConfigNode) ContractConfigurator.<LoadContractConfig>d__26:MoveNext() ContractConfigurator.ContractConfigurator:Update() I'm starting to think I just can't use TechRequired() to filter parts. Is this true? I don't see a list of what IS allowed to look for in the wiki, so I assumed that each thing was available. Is this not true, and if so can it be? And assuming I CAN search on it, what am I doing wrong? What syntactical mistake am I making this time?

Totally fair. I'll open an enhancement request so you don't have to remember. If it's not doable I'm cool with that, it'd just help my pack that has almost 300 contracts

Oh wow I totally forgot that engines and fuel tanks used to be in the same category.

While working on a contract pack, I separated out my parts by the categories they are in, in the part files. The categories seem to match up perfectly with their tabs in the VAB, so much that I assumed that that's what they're for. Then I noticed that a handful of parts are in the category "Propulsion", and now I'm confused. Note that there is already a category for "Engines" and another for "FuelTanks" so this is not one of those. Nor is it for jet engines or RCS or anything like that. It contains - among others - the parts: The Rhino Mk2 Bicoupler NCS Adapter S3-14400 Fuel Tank It seems on a first glance that this category is for all the SLS parts. Okay, fine. Weird, but fine. But how does the game know to put them in their correct places? The Rhino isn't in the fuel tanks tab and the 14400 tank isn't in engines. What is the propulsion category for, and why is it inconsistent with the rest of the categories? And is there an actual way to - by looking at the part cfgs - determine what VAB tab a given part will be in?

How hard would it be to add checkboxes in the "All" tab to filter out unavailable (because you don't meet the requirements) and/or completed (because you've completed the contract the maximum number of times you can ever complete it)?

I expect it's a pipe dream, but if GPO could somehow utilize this screen so you'd be able to see how fuel would flow based on your pump setup, I'd likely reach infinite contentedness.

I vastly prefer GPO Speed Fuel Pump Continued to all other options. I frequently prefer it to the stock fuel lines, even. Each tank gets a number from (IIRC) 0 to 16 and 2 buttons: Pump and Balance. If Pump is clicked in, that tank will pump fuel into all other tanks in the vessel that are lower numbered than itself. If Balance is checked, it will pump fuel into all same-numbered tanks so as to rise them up to its level. Simple to implement and use, and extremely configurable and complex in abilities.

No, no. I meant, "Don't start making a game where your genetically-defined creatures will evolve over time on a procedurally-generated world, and end up with a poor excuse for a pet simulator with none of the actual features you wanted at the start."