Contracts should use *actual* part names, not "descriptions"

[pandaman]

Essentially what this boils down to is that all contracts need to be worded clearly and accurately to avoid any ambiguity (just like RL).  That naturally includes specifying exactly which part(s) are required and what to do with them. 

[DMagic]

How about this?

It's actually fairly complex. Each part request parameter (the one asking for a thermometer above) can actually request any one of multiple parts, or, any part with one of potentially several part modules. For instance, there is a station/base part request parameter that asks for a lab using the stock lab part name (Large_Crewed_Lab), but also the lab part module name (ModuleScienceLab). So if it doesn't find the part it will instead look for a part using that module; most part requests don't seem to do this (you can check the requirements in the Contracts.cfg file).

Then there are the Vessel Systems Parameters, those give requests for specific Part Modules. But what you find in the config file or the save file is not the actual modules, but a type of module. FinePrint keeps a list of acceptable Part Modules for each type (which, again, can be found in the config file). So you have to grab all of the acceptable Part Modules for each type, then run through all of the loaded parts (I'm limiting the list to parts that have been purchased in the R&D center) and check if they have one of those Part Modules. It's not something I would want to run repeatedly, but I don't see any need for this to be run more than once per scene.

The resulting list can be quite big, but they are contract notes, so that isn't much of an issue.

The important takeaway here is that if a contract asks for a power source you just need to attach a launch clamp and drag it along to wherever you are going. 

[Slam_Jones]

On 1/14/2016 at 6:23 PM, 5thHorseman said:

-snip-

I will go to my fallback position: The game is not even remotely complete and expecting it to be so is folly.

-snip-

(Off-topic)

Seriously?  So a game can go to 1.0 "release" (and beyond) and not be even remotely complete?  What the [redacted] do Alpha and Beta signify then?  Why call it 1.0?  Sure there was a big spike in sales, but then what?  Everyone (read: the majority) plays a half-finished version of the game for a few hours and then moves on?  Is there anyone we can trust?

----------------------

(On-topic)

Agreed.  Nothing is worse than spending a long time getting your craft to where it needs to go, just to find out you have the wrong type of _________. (ISRU, etc.)

Assuming you can show/hide those descriptions in @DMagic's mock-up, that would be a nice addition.  Perhaps it only shows the relevant parts you have unlocked at the time?  Just an idea.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Slam_Jones

[DMagic]

1 minute ago, Slam_Jones said:

Assuming you can show/hide those descriptions in @DMagic's mock-up, that would be a nice addition.  Perhaps it only shows the relevant parts you have unlocked at the time?  Just an idea.

Those are only unlocked parts. If you have everything unlocked, and you have a few mods that list could get very long. If nothing else, it shows you why listing the acceptable parts in the actual contract parameter name isn't feasible.

[Slam_Jones]

4 minutes ago, DMagic said:

Those are only unlocked parts. If you have everything unlocked, and you have a few mods that list could get very long. If nothing else, it shows you why listing the acceptable parts in the actual contract parameter name isn't feasible.

 

Ah, makes sense.  I don't think it would be needed in some situations, though.  Specifically situations where any part from a category will do.  For example, if it must generate power, you really shouldn't need to list every part that can generate power, because they're all acceptable.  I think it should be more restricted to the more ambiguous contracts, like the "ISRU" from the OP.  In this case, there are two "ISRU" parts, but only one of them is acceptable.  I'd say in that case, it should be made clear.  Not so much when any part from a category could be used.  If that makes any sense

Edited January 16, 2016 by Slam_Jones

[DMagic]

11 minutes ago, Slam_Jones said:

 

Ah, makes sense.  I don't think it would be needed in some situations, though.  Specifically situations where any part from a category will do.  For example, if it must generate power, you really shouldn't need to list every part that can generate power, because they're all acceptable.  I think it should be more restricted to the more ambiguous contracts, like the "ISRU" from the OP.  In this case, there are two "ISRU" parts, but only one of them is acceptable.  I'd say in that case, it should be made clear.  Not so much when any part from a category could be used.  If that makes any sense

Yes, but deciding through code which contract is ambiguous doesn't really work.

The ISRU parameter isn't really a case where the contract needs to be made clearer, the contract just needs to be fixed. There is nothing preventing that contract from accepting either part, the differences between the size and weight between the two shouldn't really be enough to prevent that.

There is no simple way of deciding when a contract might not be clear, so the simplest method is just to list everything.

[John FX]

This would be a great amount of information to have but it would be more manageable if each section was in the form of a drop down menu. If the menu items were clickable then you could make the action be to pick up the part if you click on the name when you are in the VAB or SPH. for example if you need power you could look at the list, click on the words `OX-4L 1x6 Photovoltaic Panels` and place one on your craft.

[Elway358]

Definitely agree with this. I just had this little issue pop up for me in regards to a space station addition. It's asking me to add an "auxiliary research lab." As there is no part called that, I have to assume it wants an additional MPL added. I'm going to launch one up to see if that's the case and hope it isn't all time wasted.

Instead of "auxiliary research lab", it should say something like "additional mobile processing lab" if that is indeed what it wants and even maybe add in the addendum of "existing MPL's do not count" like they do with the must be a new created satellite for the sat contracts.

Link to my question for pic of the "auxiliary research lab" text:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/131175-what-do-they-mean-by-auxiliary-lab/

[fourfa]

Another common case of this problem we've all encountered and seen in rant threads: "the ship must be on wheels."  But aircraft landing gear don't count

[Snark]

There are contracts that actually do specify a particular piece of equipment, in which case they can just refer to it by name.

For contracts that want a category of part (e.g. "antenna"):  how about including some sort of drop-down or the like, so that people who are confident what "antenna" means don't get all the visual clutter, but people who aren't sure can expand it?

Another option:  Make the contract UI that's displayed in the vehicle editor richer.  Arrange it so that it shows the criteria for the ship as satisfied or not, and a big obvious check-or-X mark for the overall "does this craft meet all the contract requirements?" (other than the situational ones, obviously)  That way, if you have a particular contract in mind while you're building a ship, you can be sure that you've got all your bases covered before you launch it.  Yes, there would need to be a certain amount of subtlety there-- for example, a criterion may be "unmet but fixable," e.g. for "have 2,000 units of ore", there's a difference between "I have space for 2000 units of ore, but it's currently empty" versus "I forgot to put any ore tanks on."  So maybe a tri-state indicator.  Just a thought.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Snark

[chrisb2e9]

Hahahahahha...

Hahhahahah..

You think that's bad? The company that I work for has decided that when it comes to job listings. That technical and correct information is something outdated. And they have moved to having job descriptions that are vague, in the same way that the parts in KSP's contracts are vague.

For example:

"you have a history of proven results … of making the products and services you have worked on and companies you have worked for better, stronger, more loved and more purchased."

 

What does that even mean? It sounds like something that I would put on a resume just for filler to make it sound impressive.

 

I agree, I wish that when I am supposed to include a part, that it specifically told me what part to include. It's a space program. It needs to be technically correct.