[1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8+] Contract Pack: CommNet Relays 2.1.0 (2019 Jan 13)

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

I just caught the contracts failing on my own save (during the course of updating to 1.3).  It shouldn't be possible for the contracts to fail (as I've added no failure condition), but the log said:

ContractConfigurator.FacilityRequirement: Contract CommNetRelayInnerPlanet: requirement Facility was not met.

I was working with the cheat menu at the time (using the orbit setter to 'poof' up some replacements for stations that would be deleted when I removed some part mods...), so I could believe that there was a stock bug or hiccup in the facility tracking system which in turn tripped the contract (if the facility level was spuriously set to 0, then the contract's requirement would no longer be satisfied, and the contract would fail).  The next release will set 'checkOnActiveContract = false' for all of those requirements, so hiccups like this don't happen again.  (You'll still have to have the minimum facility level to get those contracts, but afterwards it will assume you're good.)

[nightingale]

2 hours ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

I just caught the contracts failing on my own save (during the course of updating to 1.3).  It shouldn't be possible for the contracts to fail (as I've added no failure condition), but the log said:

ContractConfigurator.FacilityRequirement: Contract CommNetRelayInnerPlanet: requirement Facility was not met.

I was working with the cheat menu at the time (using the orbit setter to 'poof' up some replacements for stations that would be deleted when I removed some part mods...), so I could believe that there was a stock bug or hiccup in the facility tracking system which in turn tripped the contract (if the facility level was spuriously set to 0, then the contract's requirement would no longer be satisfied, and the contract would fail).  The next release will set 'checkOnActiveContract = false' for all of those requirements, so hiccups like this don't happen again.  (You'll still have to have the minimum facility level to get those contracts, but afterwards it will assume you're good.)

That facility check has has problems in the past.  Are you on the most recent CC version (there was a fix in that one)?  That being said the checkOnActive = false is a good workaround.

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

I was (am) on 1.23.1.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Kerbas_ad_astra

[nightingale]

1 hour ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

I was (am) on 1.23.1.

Yeah, figured you would say that.  Last question - which scene was it in (I know that tracking station is a problem in particular).

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

1 hour ago, nightingale said:

Yeah, figured you would say that.  Last question - which scene was it in (I know that tracking station is a problem in particular).

It was in the tracking station.  First time in the game that I went there, as it happened, and after I noticed the contract failures some time later (and cheated myself some reputation and funds accordingly) and re-accepted the contracts at Mission Control, I was in and out of the tracking station several times without any problems.

[nightingale]

23 hours ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

It was in the tracking station.  First time in the game that I went there, as it happened, and after I noticed the contract failures some time later (and cheated myself some reputation and funds accordingly) and re-accepted the contracts at Mission Control, I was in and out of the tracking station several times without any problems.

This has been properly fixed for Contract Configurator 1.23.2.

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

In the meantime, I've got an interim fix to suppress the issue from affecting my contracts.

CNR v2.0.1: "Hiccup Suppression"

• Adjusted facility requirements to suppress random failures when entering the Tracking Station.

[Tavran]

Thanks for the great contract pack! Most of these have been working great for me. Exceptions are the 'lots of dishes' contract and the lagrange point ones. Even with 32 RA-100s on a craft I don't seem to have enough to satisfy the contract. It seems like it should take 18-20? Anyone have any luck with these? 

[jlcarneiro]

Great contract pack!

I've been having a small glitch, though: I keep getting the Mun relay contract... Even after accomplishing it three times! 

Is this a known-issue? What should I do?

[DStaal]

9 minutes ago, jlcarneiro said:

Great contract pack!

I've been having a small glitch, though: I keep getting the Mun relay contract... Even after accomplishing it three times! 

Is this a known-issue? What should I do?

Based on the OP - you likely don't have full coverage of the Mun yet, as four relay sats is considered the minimum.  (This contract pack will ask for five, just to be sure.)  So, it's not an issue - it's working as intended.  You haven't fully set up the relay network for the Mun yet, so it'll keep giving you contracts until you do.

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

I've sometimes thought idly about requiring more specific orbits, such that you will get contracts to put three satellites in an equatorial orbit, one loitering over the northern hemisphere, and one loitering over the southern hemisphere, but I've had fine coverage with five relays in whatever elliptical orbits I've stashed them in, so I've not felt the itch to implement that change.

[TheCiroth]

My question is how do we calculate the relay power? I am a little confused as I have to have 900,000,000,000 power. I've slapped 15 RA-15 Relay Antenna and 15 Communotron HG-55 on it, level 3 tracking station and yet I still don't have enough com power. I am sure that I am just not reading something correctly and will feel totally silly when I am told. 

[larkvi]

I am having this show contracts for relays for every planet in the GPP system, despite never having done a flyby of any except Iota and Ceti. Is that intended?

Also, if possible, abbreviating the power to G/M would make it much easier to read. Counting zeroes is tedious.

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

On 8/21/2017 at 9:38 PM, TheCiroth said:

My question is how do we calculate the relay power? I am a little confused as I have to have 900,000,000,000 power. I've slapped 15 RA-15 Relay Antenna and 15 Communotron HG-55 on it, level 3 tracking station and yet I still don't have enough com power. I am sure that I am just not reading something correctly and will feel totally silly when I am told. 

Most antennas do not add their ranges linearly -- there's a penalty, described on the CommNet wiki page.  For most antennas, that penalty is 0.75, so stacking N antennas only increases power by a factor of N^0.75, not N.  To get to 900 Gm, you would need to use 235 RA-15 antennas (which have a power of 15 Gm each), or 19 RA-100s.  Or, get DMagic Orbital Science and use one SIGINT antenna, which has a power of 10 Tm (10,000 Gm).

4 hours ago, larkvi said:

I am having this show contracts for relays for every planet in the GPP system, despite never having done a flyby of any except Iota and Ceti. Is that intended?

Also, if possible, abbreviating the power to G/M would make it much easier to read. Counting zeroes is tedious.

The requirement to generate the planet relay contracts is simply to escape the homeworld, yes.  I could add a maxSimultaneous constraint to reduce the number of contracts offered at once, or add another constraint that planets must have been visited before contracts will be offered for them; what do you think?

As for displaying the power more neatly...that would actually require an update to Contract Configurator rather than this contract pack, but I think I can make that happen.  Thanks for the feedback.  Edit: Would you rather have the powers formatted by adding commas (i.e. 900,000,000,000) or with SI prefixes (i.e. 900 Gm, losing precision, but that's not as necessary here as it is for e.g. orbits)?

Edited September 2, 2017 by Kerbas_ad_astra

[larkvi]

On 2017-09-01 at 7:46 PM, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

The requirement to generate the planet relay contracts is simply to escape the homeworld, yes.  I could add a maxSimultaneous constraint to reduce the number of contracts offered at once, or add another constraint that planets must have been visited before contracts will be offered for them; what do you think?

Speaking for myself, maxSimultaneous makes a lot of sense. If I have a strategy for a body, it will be more likely to give me one about that body anyways, and this makes it more important to choose ones I want when they pop up.

On 2017-09-01 at 7:46 PM, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

As for displaying the power more neatly...that would actually require an update to Contract Configurator rather than this contract pack, but I think I can make that happen.  Thanks for the feedback.  Edit: Would you rather have the powers formatted by adding commas (i.e. 900,000,000,000) or with SI prefixes (i.e. 900 Gm, losing precision, but that's not as necessary here as it is for e.g. orbits)?

I strongly prefer the latter, for two reasons: 1) it corresponds with how antennas show up in the VAB (though I suppose I would need to calculate the combined value elsewhere) and 2) it is much easier to read without counting commas (still much better than counting zeros! I personally prefer the UI scaled down, so M/G is easier to read, and I imagine people with eyesight problems would similarly appreciate it). 

Thanks for looking into this!

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

4 hours ago, larkvi said:

Speaking for myself, maxSimultaneous makes a lot of sense. If I have a strategy for a body, it will be more likely to give me one about that body anyways, and this makes it more important to choose ones I want when they pop up.

Actually, the bodies are selected uniformly at random, from the set of planets with appropriate parameters (e.g. semi-major axis, gas giant status, number of relays in orbit).  As I read you, I don't think that changes your preference, but I want to be clear on how the planets are selected.

4 hours ago, larkvi said:

I strongly prefer the latter, for two reasons: 1) it corresponds with how antennas show up in the VAB (though I suppose I would need to calculate the combined value elsewhere) and 2) it is much easier to read without counting commas (still much better than counting zeros! I personally prefer the UI scaled down, so M/G is easier to read, and I imagine people with eyesight problems would similarly appreciate it). 

Trying it out, I agree -- the SI view is much neater.  That change will happen whenever Contract Configurator updates (plus some in-game time, while the contracts regenerate).

[larkvi]

15 hours ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

Actually, the bodies are selected uniformly at random, from the set of planets with appropriate parameters (e.g. semi-major axis, gas giant status, number of relays in orbit).  As I read you, I don't think that changes your preference, but I want to be clear on how the planets are selected.

Does this not interact with the Strategia strategies that make contracts for a body more likely? I have not looked at the code for either. Still, fewer would clutter the strategies less, and make we want to do them when ones I need are available.

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

4 hours ago, larkvi said:

Does this not interact with the Strategia strategies that make contracts for a body more likely? I have not looked at the code for either. Still, fewer would clutter the strategies less, and make we want to do them when ones I need are available.

Nope, zero interaction.  From my brief investigation, it may be possible for me to figure out which bodies have strategies active and weight them preferentially, but my current method is exactly as I describe it -- assemble a list of inner planets (or outer planets, or gas giants), filter out the ones with more than five relays around them, and then pick one at random (with no weighting).

I've released an update which adds limits on how many contracts of each type will be offered at once...I've never seen more than a few of each kind at once myself, but that probably depends on what contract packs you have, how they are weighted, and how many contracts are generated in total.

CommNet Relays v2.0.2: De-Proliferation

• Added 'maxSimultaneous' values for all contracts.

[Fyrem]

Just saw this mod, looks great!  - adding now!

[Fyrem]

umm, i tried something and it didnt work as expected.

I launched a frame with many docking port jr. (23 infact) into the correct orbit (got the green checks on the contract log)... and then launched up mutiple sets of ra-100's.... and docked them to the already in orbit "radar xmas tree"...

but after I hit 19 i expected the contract to end, but it didn't.. and after 23 the contract still didn't pop.  --- does the vessle have to have 19 ra100's when LAUNCHED? - it cant be built in space?

[BRAAAP_STUTUTU]

Uhm, This doesn't seem right? 1 star for a contract that pays out 1.7mil IN ADVANCE? Album https://imgur.com/gallery/F0Y64 will appear when post is submitted.

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

7.20T worth of antennas weighs a lot, if you're just using stock parts.

[Autolyzed Yeast Extract]

So does the version of this pack not matter as long as contract config itself is updated to 1.3.1, or is this pack broken

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

The features that this contract pack depends on were added in a CC version built for KSP 1.2.2.  So long as CC retains those features, this pack should remain future-compatible with updates to KSP.  Someday I might get around to implementing localization support, which will break 1.2.2 compatibility, and then this addon will be tagged as compatible with KSP "1.3+".

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

WISE FWOM YOUW GWAVE

I've finally implemented localization (and also added a 'title' field to the agent config, to reduce log file spam).  CommNet Relays 2.1.0 is here!

Edited January 13, 2019 by Kerbas_ad_astra