[1.9.x] Contract Pack: Bases and Stations Reborn

[mor128]

Is there a reason for needing to have unlocked curved solar panels to get the "Launch a Station" Contract?

Edit: Overlooked that "any" there. I still don't get the contract because my docking ports don't seem to trigger the "part unlocked with Docking Node".

Log

Edited October 31, 2021 by mor128

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, mor128 said:

Is there a reason for needing to have unlocked curved solar panels to get the "Launch a Station" Contract?

Edit: Overlooked that "any" there. I still don't get the contract because my docking ports don't seem to trigger the "part unlocked with Docking Node".

Log

Would help to have an idea of what docking ports you have on the vessel

[mor128]

22 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Would help to have an idea of what docking ports you have on the vessel

I have the Clamp-O-Tron and Clamp-O-Tron Jr. unlocked plus a few docking ports from mods. I have no space station yet, because I don't get the contract to launch one. It says that the requirement "Must have a part unlocked with Docking node" is unmet.
Hope that helps. 

Edited November 1, 2021 by mor128

[kubi]

Hi,

 

First of all, thanks for the contracts!

To trigger the launch station contract I need the hitchhiker cabin to be researched. Stockalike Station Parts provides similar parts in the tech tree (I have kiwi tt, but does not matter).

Would it be possible to include some more parts besides the hitchhiker with _OR_ relation?

(PAS-8R 'Pier' Station Core && PAS-5 'Sunrise' Habitation Module)

(PMA-2 'Quay' Station Core && (PMA-5 'Dawn' Habitation Module || PMA-5B 'Evening' Habitation Module)

(PPD-8 'Wharf' Station Core && (PPD-20 'Shanty' Habitation Module)) //Note, that the hitchhiker cabin would belong here, but maybe better to keep it separate for stock compatibility

(SDV-3 'Minerva' Deep Space Control Module && (SDV-2B 'Titan' Compact Deep Space Habitation Module || SDV-2 'Atlas' Deep Space Habitation Module ))

 

 

 

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, kubi said:

Hi,

 

First of all, thanks for the contracts!

To trigger the launch station contract I need the hitchhiker cabin to be researched. Stockalike Station Parts provides similar parts in the tech tree (I have kiwi tt, but does not matter).

Would it be possible to include some more parts besides the hitchhiker with _OR_ relation?

(PAS-8R 'Pier' Station Core && PAS-5 'Sunrise' Habitation Module)

(PMA-2 'Quay' Station Core && (PMA-5 'Dawn' Habitation Module || PMA-5B 'Evening' Habitation Module)

(PPD-8 'Wharf' Station Core && (PPD-20 'Shanty' Habitation Module)) //Note, that the hitchhiker cabin would belong here, but maybe better to keep it separate for stock compatibility

(SDV-3 'Minerva' Deep Space Control Module && (SDV-2B 'Titan' Compact Deep Space Habitation Module || SDV-2 'Atlas' Deep Space Habitation Module ))

Yes, but please be specific about the part name, specifically, the internal name used by the game.  You can use the PartInfo mod to get that if you dont' want to dig through part files

[KawaiiLucy]

30 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Yes, but please be specific about the part name, specifically, the internal name used by the game.  You can use the PartInfo mod to get that if you dont' want to dig through part files

The pull request on github by me already has the station cores all included, but not the "and x habitation module" parameter.

[linuxgurugamer]

44 minutes ago, KawaiiLucy said:

The pull request on github by me already has the station cores all included, but not the "and x habitation module" parameter.

Is that this:  https://github.com/linuxgurugamer/KerbinSpaceStation/pull/14  ???

If so, there is a conflict with the current version, can you fix that?

Also, don't worry about the indentations, I'll take care of it if it needs it (could just be a problem with tabs and spaces)

[KawaiiLucy]

18 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Is that this:  https://github.com/linuxgurugamer/KerbinSpaceStation/pull/14  ???

If so, there is a conflict with the current version, can you fix that?

Also, don't worry about the indentations, I'll take care of it if it needs it (could just be a problem with tabs and spaces)

Yes that's it! I'll look into fixing the conflict(s) soon-ish, I am just low on time since University is taking most of it right now.  I tried fixing the indentations a while back, but I remember it was doing funky stuff, so I kind of gave up on trying to fix it.

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, KawaiiLucy said:

Yes that's it! I'll look into fixing the conflict(s) soon-ish, I am just low on time since University is taking most of it right now.  I tried fixing the indentations a while back, but I remember it was doing funky stuff, so I kind of gave up on trying to fix it.

If I get some time, I'll look, so check before working on it, if it was merged, then I was able to do it.

And like I said, don't worry about the indentations, I'll take care of that

[mor128]

On 10/31/2021 at 6:15 PM, mor128 said:

I have the Clamp-O-Tron and Clamp-O-Tron Jr. unlocked plus a few docking ports from mods. I have no space station yet, because I don't get the contract to launch one. It says that the requirement "Must have a part unlocked with Docking node" is unmet.
Hope that helps. 

@linuxgurugamerSo is there a fix for that?

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, mor128 said:

@linuxgurugamerSo is there a fix for that?

No, I haven't done anything yet

[KawaiiLucy]

So regarding the sspxr contracts: I've tested adding the new parameters for station cores, and it seems to work (at least they show up in the contract card in mission control). I was thinking though, to change the requirements to "size x core + size x habitat", instead of just "size x core". That would mean the requirement to have 4 crew capacity would be redundant, as the smallest combo already gives you 4 crew capacity. Thoughts on that?

I was also thinking to write contracts to add centrifuges and airlocks, to emphasize station construction and maintaining. But I believe there is already an "add crew capacity" contract, so I don't know if it would be worth it though, since centrifuges are habitats already. And forcing you to add a centrifuge over a habitat might take away the flexibility you have over how you design your space station.

hope that was kind of clear...

[KawaiiLucy]

@linuxgurugamer I've made a pull request to add what I discussed above. If it is too much I can modify it again to only includee station cores instead of station cores + habs. I've held back from removing the crew capacity requirement yet. And  was it the right file I modified? is there a special purpose for the cfg-disabled?

[mor128]

Ok, I looked into my problem and found what's causing it. It seems that JPLRepos Fix Stock Docking Nodes is not compatible with this contract pack at the moment.

[Gordon Dry]

2 hours ago, mor128 said:

that JPLRepos Fix Stock Docking Nodes is not compatible

which you even don't need anymore when you use

This means that the specific fix DockingPortDrift would be incompatible as well.

Edited November 14, 2021 by Gordon Dry

[SpaceWolf2021]

Could the following labs be added as possible substitutes for the stock lab? These names are taken from the PartsInfo mod

BSLcrewCabinScience from the better science labs continued mod
Either Orig Name: WBI_D2Centrifuge or Updt Name: WBI.D2Centrifuge from the DSEV mod
Either Orig Name: WBI_HomesteadMK3 or Updt Name: WBI.Homestead MK3 from the DSEV mod
wbiNautilusCentrifuge from DSEV mod
TranqulityHab from the DSEV mod
Either Orig Name: WBI_Mole182 or Updt Name: WBI.Mole182 from the MOLE mod
OrbitalColonyScienceDeck from the Orbital Colony mod
wbiCastilloObservatory from the pathfinder mod
Either Orig Name: WBI_DocSciLab or Updt Name: WBI.DocSciLab from the pathfinder mod
Either Orig Name: KKAOSS_Central_Hub or Updt Name: KKAOSS.Central.Hub from the Planetary Bases Inc. mod
Either Orig Name: KKAOSS_Science_g or Updt Name: KKAOSS.Science.g from the Planetary Bases Inc. mod
TaurusScienceBay from the SpaceTuxLibrary mod

[linuxgurugamer]

New release, 3.7.3

• Thanks to github user @TakashiSenpai for this:
  • for SSPX, adds the parameters to have a core of a certain size and a habitat in the same size ballpark
     

[DeadJohn]

On 11/27/2021 at 5:58 PM, linuxgurugamer said:

New release, 3.7.3

• Thanks to github user @TakashiSenpai for this:
  • for SSPX, adds the parameters to have a core of a certain size and a habitat in the same size ballpark

@linuxgurugamerThanks for maintaining all your mods for so many of us. I realize you can't accommodate everyone's play style, but this change removed flexibility when using SSPX with other station parts mods (Tantares, BDB, Knes, etc.).

• Before: Initial station launch contracts could be finished using any combination of mod parts. For example a Kerbin station could start with BDB parts, Mun with Tantares, Minmus with SSPX.
• After: SSPX is elevated to precedence. All 3 stations from the example must use SSPX parts to get credit for having a "core" and "habitat". If we want to mix-and-match other mods like before, then we have to completely uninstall SSPX or use alt-f12 to complete stations.

Am I understanding the change correctly? Is this contract pack consciously headed in an SSPX-centric direction? What do you think of moving the change introduced in 3.7.3 into an extra or otherwise making it optional?

[linuxgurugamer]

49 minutes ago, DeadJohn said:

@linuxgurugamerThanks for maintaining all your mods for so many of us. I realize you can't accommodate everyone's play style, but this change removed flexibility when using SSPX with other station parts mods (Tantares, BDB, Knes, etc.).

• Before: Initial station launch contracts could be finished using any combination of mod parts. For example a Kerbin station could start with BDB parts, Mun with Tantares, Minmus with SSPX.
• After: SSPX is elevated to precedence. All 3 stations from the example must use SSPX parts to get credit for having a "core" and "habitat". If we want to mix-and-match other mods like before, then we have to completely uninstall SSPX or use alt-f12 to complete stations.

Am I understanding the change correctly? Is this contract pack consciously headed in an SSPX-centric direction? What do you think of moving the change introduced in 3.7.3 into an extra or otherwise making it optional?

Not intentional at all, I'll review it.

[Stratickus]

I'm having an issue with the Launch a new Space Station mission.  According to the requirements I need either a deployable solar panel or a curved solar panel. I have multiple deployable solar panel's researched and purchased, but the contract requirements are still saying unmet. I have used this contract pack through many saves and I do not recall coming across the this issue. I have looked at and even attempted messing around with the config file myself, but no avail. 

Spoiler

https://www.dropbox.com/s/all9zrtpj63f81c/Player.log?dl=0

Unfortunately, I am not very adept at reading logs. Any help would be appreciated.

Cheers,

[linuxgurugamer]

On 9/12/2023 at 9:23 PM, Stratickus said:

I'm having an issue with the Launch a new Space Station mission.  According to the requirements I need either a deployable solar panel or a curved solar panel. I have multiple deployable solar panel's researched and purchased, but the contract requirements are still saying unmet. I have used this contract pack through many saves and I do not recall coming across the this issue. I have looked at and even attempted messing around with the config file myself, but no avail. 

  Hide contents

https://www.dropbox.com/s/all9zrtpj63f81c/Player.log?dl=0

Unfortunately, I am not very adept at reading logs. Any help would be appreciated.

Cheers,

so you have Near Future Solar installed?

This is something you should ask in the Contract Configurator channel.  It's in the file:

StationCoreCombined.cfg

It's odd, it's been working before, but you certainly have enough mods that there can be a mod conflict.  Please provide the ModuleManager.configcache file for analysis

Edited September 15, 2023 by linuxgurugamer

[Stratickus]

On 9/15/2023 at 3:03 PM, linuxgurugamer said:

so you have Near Future Solar installed?

I do. I did not think this was a conflict/issue. The way I read the config file anyway is that I only need one or the other with NFS installed.

Spoiler

REQUIREMENT
	{
		name = Any
		type = Any
	
		REQUIREMENT
		{
			name = PartModuleUnlocked
			type = PartModuleUnlocked
			
			partModule = ModuleDeployableSolarPanel
		}
		
		REQUIREMENT:NEEDS[NearFutureSolar]
		{
			name = PartModuleUnlocked
			type = PartModuleUnlocked
			
			partModule = ModuleCurvedSolarPanel
		}	
	}

 

 

On 9/15/2023 at 3:03 PM, linuxgurugamer said:

This is something you should ask in the Contract Configurator channel.  It's in the file:

StationCoreCombined.cfg

I need to bring up the NFS conflict in the CC thread? 

On 9/15/2023 at 3:03 PM, linuxgurugamer said:

It's odd, it's been working before, but you certainly have enough mods that there can be a mod conflict.  Please provide the ModuleManager.configcache file for analysis

Odd indeed. I have several personal Module Manager patches, but I havn't changed any of them that would effect solar panels or this contract pack.  I don't think.. I was hoping someone more savvy at reading log files could point me in the right direction. I suspect the issue lies in one of my personal MM patches or possibly another mod.

Module Manager Config Cache

Appreciate the help.

Cheers,

Edited September 17, 2023 by Stratickus

[Stratickus]

On 9/12/2023 at 8:23 PM, Stratickus said:

I'm having an issue with the Launch a new Space Station mission.  According to the requirements I need either a deployable solar panel or a curved solar panel. I have multiple deployable solar panel's researched and purchased, but the contract requirements are still saying unmet. I have used this contract pack through many saves and I do not recall coming across the this issue. I have looked at and even attempted messing around with the config file myself, but no avail. 

I fixed it. I kind of glossed over it when I first looked into this, but it had to do with Kopernicus. In the config file for this Contract Pack the line for the Kopernicus solar panels is blocked with the double slashes (//). Unblocking the line(s) in the config file fixes it. I vaguely remember Kopernicus renamed their Module Part name for the solar panels and I'm guessing it was blocked out in this config file while it was getting sorted out.

Cheers, 

[linuxgurugamer]

13 hours ago, Stratickus said:

I fixed it. I kind of glossed over it when I first looked into this, but it had to do with Kopernicus. In the config file for this Contract Pack the line for the Kopernicus solar panels is blocked with the double slashes (//). Unblocking the line(s) in the config file fixes it. I vaguely remember Kopernicus renamed their Module Part name for the solar panels and I'm guessing it was blocked out in this config file while it was getting sorted out.

Cheers, 

Ummm, what file did you change to fix this?

Edit:  This file:  StationMissions/StationCoreCombined.cfg

I've fixed the file and the formatting in the file, will get an updte out soon

Edited September 20, 2023 by linuxgurugamer

[linuxgurugamer]

New release, 3.7.3.1

• Fixed formatting in file StationMissions/StationCoreCombined.cfg
• Uncommented stanza in StationMissions/StationCoreCombined.cfg to allow the KopernicusSolarPanels to be used in the contract