[1.3.1][1.4.4][v0.5.6b] History of Spaceflight - Contract Pack for Stock/RSS/RP-0/RP-1

[theonegalen]

1 hour ago, Frylovespi said:

Hey Guys,

 Thank you so much for bringing this to my attention and I will be able to look into it soon. Cancer is a horrible beast and it has finally claimed my 2 loved ones. I will be back in early December after mourning and a vacation to fix those problems and have time to work on expanding the mod and adding a new version that includes just the highlights of all the missions launched to date. A sort of mini version of the mod for stock.

My condolences! Take the time you need, of course.

[Gordon Dry]

Actually I'm working on fixing intents and white spaces, to give all configs a convenient and consistent look.

Because that is a boring and repetetive work (although using Notepad++), the first PR will be for the stock folder.

Why?
Because it's easier to see and fix errors when the config is properly formatted with intends and line breaks.

[ragusila]

does this mod have any issues working with Principia?

 

[Gordon Dry]

What is wrong with CC? For heaven's f s.

Starting a new career, Kosmos-20 is available from the beginning ... what?

This does not make any sense.

[ndiver]

I really enjoy this mod, by the amount of mission, by the fact that i've learned a lot about the first satellites.

A small question: why do some mission have negative rewards (as Discoverer-10)? It's the ones that historically failed?

Edit on this image: it seems that all the one that historically crashed (when it was not intended) have negative reward, which is a bit frustrating, because of high number of them and repetitive aspect of these missions + impact on career.

If I could suggest improvements to the mod:
- a mission like Explorer-6 currently requires only to put the satellite in a specific orbit. However, the description of historical mission states that the mission was taking photographs. I could suggest to also require to make and transmit a scientific experiment (like status report)
- Sputnik-1 could also have a status report as requirement to validate the mission (like already have Sputnik-2, which requires any scientific experiment to be transmitted).
In reality, it's nearly all the satellite that reached orbit that could have this condition to validate the mission

Edited January 27, 2019 by ndiver
Update

[ndiver]

New post, possible bug. I'm playing with the version for KSP 1.4.x.

1) When I decline a contract (like one with negative reward, see post above), the contract is coming back few seconds later.
I simply can't skip any of these contracts. Any idea why?

 

2) contract Explorer-10:
Apoapsis: Above 180,000,000m

Problem: it's over the sphere-of-influence of Kerbin (84 000km), is it normal? I suggest either 18,000,000m (a bit further than the Mun) or 80,000,000m (just below the limits of Kerbin SOI)

 

3) Tiros 9:

PARAMETER
{
          name = Orbit
          type = Orbit
          targetBody = HomeWorld()
          minApA = 250000
          minPeA = 700000
          minInclination = 87.5
		  maxInclination = 57.5	

Apoapsis and periapsis are strange (apoapsis below periapsis), but inclinations make the contract impossible to complete as contradictory.

Edited February 21, 2019 by ndiver

[reviest]

Amazing pack for deep careers I like to play. Quick question: is there a way to expand this pack with Whitecat106's missions without breaking something? Really want to play Apollo and other contracts.

[ndiver]

New observation: the link between missions of a same program can be a bit weird.

I noticed that I made Friendship 7 (John Glenn) before Freedom 7 (Alan Shepard) and even Vostock-1 because of conditions to unlock the missions !
I'm curious to know how long duration missions (like Mariner-2 that implies to flyby Eve, meaning 200 days mission) block or unlock new contracts.

Edited March 9, 2019 by ndiver

[Aremos]

I cant complete the Discovere-9 mission

I launch my craft, get in to subotpital flight, and crash the probe afterwards. But it stay incomplete. 

What am i doing wrong?

[Frylovespi]

Hello all, sorry for not replying lately, but unexpected things kept popping up lately. I have been working on the mod in my free time, and it is nearing release status. For the RSS/RO version, every contract has been re-written with more accurate orbital parameters, including historical inclinations and maximum apoapsis and periapsis values. For the early sounding rockets missions, a minimum downrange distance traveled, and minimum and maximum weight of the craft have been added as contract parameters. More contracts have also been added. The updates can be found on the Github page or download directly here.

 

[DracoSilverpath]

3 hours ago, Frylovespi said:

Hello all, sorry for not replying lately, but unexpected things kept popping up lately. I have been working on the mod in my free time, and it is nearing release status. For the RSS/RO version, every contract has been re-written with more accurate orbital parameters, including historical inclinations and maximum apoapsis and periapsis values. For the early sounding rockets missions, a minimum downrange distance traveled, and minimum and maximum weight of the craft have been added as contract parameters. More contracts have also been added. The updates can be found on the Github page or download directly here.

 

Its great to see you here again! Hope things are getting better. Out of curiosity, what would it take to convert the RSS version into something thats SSRSS compatible? Would I be wrong in thinking that you'd just need to scale down the altitudes and distances to 1/10th their values?

[PataSolar]

Hey folks, just wondering where progression is saved? Transferred my save folder to another build and all progression has been lost, ie. the contracts I'd completed are not complete. 

[sp1989]

Hello! Is anyone having a problem with the russian progression. I cant seem to move onto the vostok missions because the R7A mission is missing? I can't seem to find it in the files and its not in the game? Am I missing something because no one else seems to bring this up. 

[RexMcMonkey]

On 8/3/2019 at 7:20 PM, sp1989 said:

Hello! Is anyone having a problem with the russian progression. I cant seem to move onto the vostok missions because the R7A mission is missing? I can't seem to find it in the files and its not in the game? Am I missing something because no one else seems to bring this up. 

I was having the same problem so I looked up the file in the github directory. It looks like it was removed from the stock version of the contract pack but the dependency for the mission was not removed from Vostok 1. Since it's just a suborbital mission, you should have no problem copying and pasting the file from the RSS files over to the stock files. Hope this helps!

[Gordon Dry]

On 4/9/2018 at 2:13 PM, Frylovespi said:

Incompatible with Kerbalism or any other historical contract pack. Do not install these mods with this History of Spaceflight or you will have issues!

This confuses me.

The first sentence is misleading or misunderstandable. Because Kerbalism is not a "historical contract pack".

If this is not what it means, what is the issue with Kerbalism then?

Edit: damn forum software

Edited August 24, 2019 by Gordon Dry

[kyococo]

I started a new game with RSS / RO versin.
Starting with "Aggregat 2" and proceeding with the mission, I stopped at "Deacon".
I tried the Contract Configurator debug menu (Alt-F10) with only Contract Configurator and History of Spaceflight.
“PARAMETER / type = DownrangeDistance” is displayed in red, and Misson with this PARAMETER is not displayed.
What should I do?

[kyococo]

20 hours ago, kyococo said:

I started a new game with RSS / RO versin.
Starting with "Aggregat 2" and proceeding with the mission, I stopped at "Deacon".
I tried the Contract Configurator debug menu (Alt-F10) with only Contract Configurator and History of Spaceflight.
“PARAMETER / type = DownrangeDistance” is displayed in red, and Misson with this PARAMETER is not displayed.
What should I do?

I was hesitant because the version of KSP was 1.6.1.
It was solved by setting RP-1.

[Lalbatros]

Good evening there,

I'm discovering the magic world of mods, so pleaaase forgive me for asking what could be a silly question... (I noticed this is a sensitive string on the thread about Kopernicus)

1) Why can't I find this mod on CKAN? Very curious to know if there's a reason other than "the author preferred it that way". I'm afraid to install it manually and then loose track of what I did/did not install manually, what should be updated, etc.

2) Does it work on 1.8.X? Again, I hesitate to try and see just because I never went through the steps of uninstalling a mod manually, and don't know how to make sure I'm not leaving stuff where I shouldn't.

(If the info was available elsewhere, just let me know how I could have been less dumb ;-) )

Cheers and thanks a TON to all modders, you rock!

[ndiver]

On 11/8/2019 at 8:50 PM, Lalbatros said:

2) Does it work on 1.8.X? Again, I hesitate to try and see just because I never went through the steps of uninstalling a mod manually, and don't know how to make sure I'm not leaving stuff where I shouldn't.

(If the info was available elsewhere, just let me know how I could have been less dumb ;-) )

I am also interested to have this answer.

I would also be interested to have the tree of missions, meaning which mission unlock which one, because I had the impression in my 1.4.5 save that some long duration probe missions (Mariner) were unlocking some manned missions, and i was obtaining some things feeling illogical in term of timeframe.

Edit: I started to do such Excel file to see how the missions are linked to each other in the version 0.5.6 (and will compare afterwards the 0.6.0). It's long to complete, but will be useful to understand the links

I already found that the mission R-7A required for  Vostok / Korabl-Sputnik-1 is missing, and it blocks behind all the Vostok missions.
Also Apollo folder is ... empt (it even disappeared in 0.6.0)

Edited November 11, 2019 by ndiver

[Morphisor]

Hey there, I am trying to see if this pack works out well for a new JNSQ career save - using BDB to actually build many of those rockets accordingly!

For this purpose I figured the stock version is needed, since JNSQ is basically upscaled and improved stock system.

Retrieving the latest master build from github, I am quickly finding however, that there's quite a few missions found in the RSS version that didn't make the cut to stock. I skimmed some of them and don't see why they wouldn't carry over?

[Morphisor]

In the meantime I have been working on some small edits to my own installed version of this mod:

• Removing cross-national dependencies - USA missions not depending on Soviet missions and vice versa. Effectively making this into a modular contracts pack so one can remove other nations' contracts without affecting the remaining ones.
• Adding missions that are present in the RSS catalog but not in the stock catalog. While doing this I noticed the opposite is also true, some missions are only present in stock version. Haven't touched those yet and as a whole it's far from done.

If anyone else is interested in these modifications and @Frylovespi is ok with it, I can supply all my changes to the Github, either for a pull request or new branch, whatever is preferred.

 

[Wackenhut]

On 2/17/2020 at 11:14 AM, Morphisor said:

In the meantime I have been working on some small edits to my own installed version of this mod:

• Removing cross-national dependencies - USA missions not depending on Soviet missions and vice versa. Effectively making this into a modular contracts pack so one can remove other nations' contracts without affecting the remaining ones.
• Adding missions that are present in the RSS catalog but not in the stock catalog. While doing this I noticed the opposite is also true, some missions are only present in stock version. Haven't touched those yet and as a whole it's far from done.

If anyone else is interested in these modifications and @Frylovespi is ok with it, I can supply all my changes to the Github, either for a pull request or new branch, whatever is preferred.

 

adapting it for JNSQ and what i read here.. yes please, would be a great contract pack to do

[Morphisor]

The scope of what I have been doing has escalated a little in the meantime.

I found a way to scale both the rewards and parameters (stuff like orbital altitudes) according to celestial body size, which means that I can now build the stock contracts to be scaled correctly to historical proportions regardless of the planet pack used.

So while applying that to the stock version I am also doing a full balance pass on stock and some assorted corrections for both versions. 

The goal is to have a fully fleshed out non-RSS experience with more logical progression and player freedom to ignore/remove nations or certain programs - like Keyhole. 

It is a lot of work however, may take some time. Watch this space!

[Morphisor]

Time for a good news update:

I have finished checking/reworking the entire USA mission catalog in the contract pack. And since I actually had brief contact with Fry a few weeks ago - before he went on a vacation - he allowed me in as contributor on the Github repo, the result of which is I just pushed the USA mission update on the new "M_dev" branch, you can pick it up here: https://github.com/Frylovespi/History-of-Spaceflight/tree/M_dev

 

Note that for the International and Soviet missions only the file positioning was changed so far, they are up next; expect another few weeks before completion however, I got more *real* work coming my way now.

 

A general outline of the changes made so far:

• Progression tree rework: US missions no longer depend on other non-US missions and individual programs have less inter-dependencies. This means that most programs can be ignored or removed from the contract pack without affecting the others if you want to; most programs branch off from the Explorer program, some from Pioneer or a launcher test. Recon programs branch off from the main but then mostly stay in their own sequence so players can ignore or remove the many repetitive missions there without issue. Once a program starts, it's almost always possible to continue through it without doing others in between. Chronological progression is still possible of course, there may just be more available to choose from at any given moment.
• Error and orbital corrections for RSS contracts.
• Additional parameters for some contracts that included additional satellites in reality and science parameters added for interplanetary missions.
• Stock version now includes fully scalable rewards and parameters: should be usable in almost any planet pack while maintaining historically accurate orbits relative to world size! Weird stuff will happen in packs that have strange dimensions (like Whirligig world) or very different homeworld position however.

Check out the included HoSf change log txt file if you're interested in the full, 600-line changelog.

Of course, while some of these intentions were shared with Fry, he has yet to view and sign off on them and it remains up to him whether to include these changes in the main branch. Until that time however, feel free to try it out and be sure to relay any feedback!

Oh I almost shamefully forgot: the stock reward structure used for scaling is courtesy of @pap1723, as seen in his well-built historical progression contract pack.

Edited March 6, 2020 by Morphisor

[Morphisor]

I can hereby happily report that I have just finished the entire rework of all the existing contracts!

That means that in addition to the US missions which I finished earlier, the International and Soviet sub-packs are now fully reworked for stock(-alike) systems!
Each of these 3 national packs can be played separately now and again care was taken to avoid Soviet missions dependencies on the very lengthy Kosmos program. Installation instructions and readme file have been updated accordingly.
The changes I commented on earlier for the US missions apply for the International and Soviet missions as well: everything should scale nicely and *should* be balanced for the contract requirements regardless of scale used.
Finally, I did a bugfix pass on the whole thing, including RSS version, which is now suitable for use also without RP-0/RP-1! All the contracts have been tested to load properly in any version. Being a very large contract pack however, there may be a few typo's or balancing issues left - please let me know if you find anything at all that could be done better!

 

As before, the whole new version can be found under the M_dev branch of the main GitHub, located here: https://github.com/Frylovespi/History-of-Spaceflight/tree/M_dev
For now it will stay there until @Frylovespi returns, hopefully will be soon!

 

All that said and done, there's a few ideas for further development of or branching away from History of Spaceflight that want to share with you:

1. Adding in post-1967 contracts from @Whitecat106's Historic Missions: currently this pack only includes missions until 1967. This means some major programs like Apollo, Soyuz and many others are still missing, which I feel is a shame. Whitecat's pack already covers most of these, but has a lot of overlap with this pack and so won't work too well together. He has been gone for some years now, and the license would allow integration of these 2 mods, so that would be the goal.
2. HoSf light version(®): a new, different version of this huge contract pack, that cuts back severely on the repetitive missions and removes the launch failures. The result would be (what's in a name) a light version of this pack that's quicker to play through. It would be a middle ground in terms of size and progression between Historical Progression and HoSf. The really interesting part would however be this: because of the size reduction, it becomes easier to do more interesting things per contract. The idea would be to add more parameters to each contract, and in particular add specific parameters for user of Bluedog Design Bureau and possibly also ProbesPlus and Tantares. This way using the excellent real-alike reproductions could be incentivized.

I would REALLY love to know what people think about these ideas, so please share your thoughts if you are interested in any of this!