[KSP 1.8 - 1.12+] - Probes Before Crew [PBC] Version 2.93

[Cruesoe]

4 hours ago, brispo said:

Hoping to get a little guidance as I'm having trouble with the "Explore the Mun (Probe)" and "Explore Minmus (probe)" missions.

I built a probe, flew to minmus, landed, recovered a little science, and flew back and splashed down on Kerbin, but the contract didn't complete. It appears that I got the rewards, but the contract is still showing up as active. Any ideas?

You need to check your ship type. Make sure it's the right type for the contract to complete. Was it labelled as a probe.

[brispo]

Yep it was definitely a probe. I flew the mission twice last night to be sure. I got credit for the Minmus flyby, but the Situation: Landed: under "Land on Minmus" wasn't showing as completed, even though I was sitting on it.

I can take a screenshot of the mission window while I'm landed on Minmus if that would help?

It didn't recognize when I landed back on Kerbin either. I seems that the flyby of Minmus registered, but both landings didnt (minmus and Kerbin return.)

[brispo]

So I tried another mission today, with a brand new build of a probe, and this time the mun landing registered, but when I splashed down on Kerbin, the splashdown didn't register. But what I did was, before clicking "recover vessel", I went out to the tracking station, then went back to my splashed down craft. As soon as I did that, the mission registered as completed.

Seems like it's some sort of bug for the dev to look into when they have time. Amazing mod btw I love it!

[Jognt]

11 hours ago, brispo said:

So I tried another mission today, with a brand new build of a probe, and this time the mun landing registered, but when I splashed down on Kerbin, the splashdown didn't register. But what I did was, before clicking "recover vessel", I went out to the tracking station, then went back to my splashed down craft. As soon as I did that, the mission registered as completed.

Seems like it's some sort of bug for the dev to look into when they have time. Amazing mod btw I love it!

What game version was this? PBC relies on what the stock contract system tells it, so there's not much it can do about recognizing whether or not something is landed. It could be a bug in the stock contract system or contract configurator though.
1.7.2.02556 fixed several bugs that were introduced in 1.7.1 though so if you experienced the problem in 1.7.1 or 1.7.2.02555 then I'd recommend checking if it's still a problem on 1.7.2.02556.

[brispo]

1 minute ago, Jognt said:

What game version was this? PBC relies on what the stock contract system tells it, so there's not much it can do about recognizing whether or not something is landed. It could be a bug in the stock contract system or contract configurator though.
1.7.2.02556 fixed several bugs that were introduced in 1.7.1 though so if you experienced the problem in 1.7.1 or 1.7.2.02555 then I'd recommend checking if it's still a problem on 1.7.2.02556.

Interesting suggestion. I thought I had the latest version since I just got back into the game maybe two weeks ago, but I'm on version 1.7.1.2539. I'll update to the latest version right now and see if that helps. I'll report back with me findings.

[flart]

@_Zee 
Hey, what do you have in mind about the mods,
designed for making home planet trucks before any space exploration? (OSUV, Grounded, etc)

They usually place their parts in the start node, and if you will leave that,
there are enormous amount of science in the KSC biomes available right after start of the game from the grounded manned vehicles. 
Does there a way to nerf only the KSC biomes manned science?

 

Edited June 15, 2019 by flart

[_Zee]

@brispo what Jognt said is more or less the case. Its a stock bug, that gets translated into contract configurator, that then gets translated into PBC contracts. There's nothing we as modders can do about it. Last I heard Nightingale was working on a fix but not sure if they've found one yet.

@flart I'm going to try and do my best to make sense of what you're asking... You want to know if I've accounted for the mods that add ground rovers to the beginning of the start nodes, since they can farm a ton of science from the local KSP biomes? If so, any mod that is listed in the SUPPORTED MODS list will NOT have any thing like this near the start node. My entire design definitely intends for you to earn your science trying to get into space, not dwelling on the ground. But if it's not supported yet, then it goes wherever the original author wants it. This is also why you should go VOTE in the PBC Poll if you haven't yet!!

[CoriW]

Hey does anyone know if the contract pack for PBC would work with JNSQ? Since as far as I'm aware all of the planet names remain the same, it's just that they are all natively upscaled by 2.7x. If so I'm presuming it would not however work with the newly added bodies by JNSQ as they are not in the stock game?

Edited June 30, 2019 by CoriW

[lordcirth]

Just now, CoriW said:

Hey does anyone know if the contract pack for PBC would work with JNSQ? Since as far as I'm aware all of the planet names remain the same, it's just that they are all natively upscaled by 2.7x. If so I'm presuming it would not however work with the newly added bodies by JNSQ as they are not in the stock game?

I use Sigma Dimensions on 4x scale and PBC works fine.

[CoriW]

Just now, lordcirth said:

I use Sigma Dimensions on 4x scale and PBC works fine.

I will note that JNSQ does not use any rescaling mods such as Sigma Dimensions, hence why I said "Natively" upscaled. JNSQ was designed and built at 2.7x, no scaling necessary. Though since it does work in your rescaled game then that should mean the scale of the system won't have any issues, so it's just the naming scheme as I suspected. Thanks!

[russ0133]

Trying to use this on 1.7.3 but looks like it halves my FPS every time I install it. No errors on log.

Would it be a mod conflict or version?

[CoriW]

@_Zee

Hello, I'm currently playing with JNSQ and have decided to write up some configs to integrate the new JNSQ bodies into the contract pack and science param modifiers. Looking over the contract pack I created a spreadsheet showing every reward for every scenario outlined in the contract configs so that I could visualize any patterns of how you chose the values and I now just need to figure out appropriate values for the JNSQ bodies.

My question is what method did you use for coming up with the original reward values and failure penalties? I'd like to perhaps use a similar method in order to provide some consistency to your existing values. Some of the numbers seem slightly odd like Dres which is the only body to have values not rounded to the nearest 1000 (for example Dres failures funds (crewed) is 250507) Also I've noticed that most of Jools moons (except for Laythe) have random variables applied to them, while no other bodies have this.

Here's the spreadsheet I mentioned, ignore the JNSQ tab as it's not final. I started filling out sort of randomly chosen values for the new bodies and then stopped half way through to ask in this thread.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YURPYLSa7qPejoFQG0xR3CjsnX75nf0L2GhxVrMOXsI/edit?usp=sharing

EDIT: Actually I suppose since JNSQ is 2.7x scale, that the original values may actually be too low for the upscaled bodies and may make it too difficult to progress as it will take more fuel and larger rockets to get places.. I'm still interested in your response to the above but I may have to consider a complete rebalance just aimed at JNSQ specifically. Then again I also play with Monthly Budget so funds don't really affect me in the way they do a typical player so I'll have to do some testing perhaps on a "stock" JNSQ install.

 

 

EDIT: Okay so.. I've ended up just deciding to do an entire rebalance .. If you can call it that. Basically I just wrote some formulas that look at how far away a celestial body is, in which direction it is (inward or outward) in the system, as well as whether it's a moon or not and then it does some math and spits out a bunch of values for rep rewards / penalties, fund rewards / penalties, and science reward / penalties. So yeah not sure if you'd call that a rebalance since no actual testing has been done on if the rewards and stuff seem "balanced" or not, that'll take some testing.

(I will note though for layers 1 and 2 of the missions I've left those hand written, it's just layers 3 and 4 that the above applies to.)

I've also only done this on the spreadsheet mentioned above under the JNSQ tab. I've yet to have the time to actually convert all those values into actual config files. I'll probably do that next time I have an evening to spare (no guarantees on when exactly that will be, hopefully sooner than later.

Once I've done that however I may throw together a post in the addon development forum so that I could perhaps find some volunteers willing to assist with testing the balance, since the current version was created via math I'm sure there will be some tweaking necessary. After some (hopefully) extensive testing I may contact the JNSQ guys and see if they'd be interested in having it come with JNSQ as an (optional?) patch at some point in the future.

It's funny though I've been back at KSP for over 3 months after a very long hiatus and have yet to actually play a proper game ... Just modding modding modding. And when I did try to actually play a game I got the kOS mod and then spent an entire month programming lol! I swear I tend to do this with any game I play.. Mod it more than I play it.

Edited July 18, 2019 by CoriW

[jamqdlaty]

I'm playing with Remote Tech and I find it weird that antennas that reach  inner solar system are that far in tech tree. I'd expect antennas to be a bit simpler than some other tech. I believe nuclear engine is cheaper (in terms of science) than antenna that reaches EVE at all times. I'll need to science the $#!^ out of Mun and Minmus before I even send a probe to another planet. I think antennas should come earlier in the tree.

[CoriW]

Hello again! As outlined in my previous post I've been working on a rebalance for this mod which includes compatibility with the JNSQ planet mod. I have now released a development version of the rebalanced configs for testing here.

@_Zee Not sure if you'd be interested in linking this anywhere, perhaps might be better to link in the JNSQ thread. I'll mention it there as well.

[RealKerbal3x]

Just a quick question...is the Breaking Ground DLC supported by PBC yet?

[Wyzard]

I'd like to contribute a small patch to support the MSP-3000 Material Science Pod:

@PART[MSP3000]:AFTER[MSP3000]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
	@TechRequired = miniaturization

	@MODULE[ModuleScienceExperiment]
	{
		// Same change as stock science_module, since it's the same
		// experiment
		@xmitDataScalar = 0.3
	}
}

The part is basically a mini version of the stock SC-9001 materials bay.  It's in the Miniaturization tech node, one step up from Basic Science where the SC-9001 lives, and it seems appropriate to leave it there.  But PbC changes the SC-9001's "xmitDataScalar" from 0.35 to 0.3, so this patch makes the same change to the MSP-3000.

Edited July 23, 2019 by Wyzard

[jamqdlaty]

Wanted to leave some feedback to contracts too. So - I don't think returning probes home is something that should be in basic "Explore planet" contract. I rolled my eyes a bit when I saw there's that goal to achieve in this contract. Who would do that? Why? I'll probably just remove the contract by alt+f12 after landing a probe on the planet. It's an obvious goal for crewed missions, but for probes it doesn't make much sense. I'd really prefer to have ORBIT goal after flyby and before landing instead of returning the probe home.

[Joker58th]

28 minutes ago, jamqdlaty said:

Wanted to leave some feedback to contracts too. So - I don't think returning probes home is something that should be in basic "Explore planet" contract. I rolled my eyes a bit when I saw there's that goal to achieve in this contract. Who would do that? Why? I'll probably just remove the contract by alt+f12 after landing a probe on the planet. It's an obvious goal for crewed missions, but for probes it doesn't make much sense. I'd really prefer to have ORBIT goal after flyby and before landing instead of returning the probe home.

I agree with this.  Only I suggest making a return contract by itself giving the player the option for extra funds.  Also, I think the first probe orbit of Kerbin should not have a return requirement.  Make a separate return contract as well, IMHO.

[Jognt]

Personally I'd do away with the distinction between Probes and Crew entirely at least when it comes to milestones. Though I admit that there may be cases where the distinction is important, it caused me to go "Why?! Why is this a thing?" most of the time.

[Wyzard]

Worth noting that AFAIK, humanity has never returned an unmanned probe from a planet or moon.  (There have been a few sample-return missions to comets and asteroids, but those have much smaller gravity wells.)

[Wyzard]

I tried out PbC for the first time today, in a new career game.  I have RLA Reborn (one of the PbC supported mods) installed, and I was a little surprised to find that its 0.625m "Spinnaker" LFO engine is available at "Basic Rocketry" for 5 science, but the 0.625m Oscar-B fuel tank isn't available until "Propulsion Systems", three tiers up from there, costing 90 science.  That's the same node where the stock 0.625m Spark engine comes in, so the Oscar-B tank's placement makes more sense without RLA.  On the other hand, a fuel tank is less sophisticated than a rocket engine, so it wouldn't hurt for it to be in a lower tech  node.

The RLA Spinnaker is more powerful and more expensive than the stock Spark, so if the idea is that compact engines are harder to design than bulky ones, it's actually strange for it to be available so early.  It defaults to "General Rocketry", and PbC moves it down one step in the tech tree, but I think it'd make more sense for it to be up in "Propulsion Systems" with the Spark instead.  Its description calls it a "marvel of technology" for "squeezing all that thrust from such a small engine", which also supports the idea of it being an advanced engine.

I'm going to patch the Spinnaker up to "Propulsion Systems" in my own installation — but I'll miss having it.  Early 0.625m stuff is nice, especially when starting with just the Stayputnik (an 0.625m attachment) instead of the crew pod.  My first few launches were on RLA's 0.625m SRBs (as the whole rocket, not a side booster), and that feels more plausible than 1.25m as an early experimental unmanned rocket.  (Real-world sounding rockets are often much smaller than that, in fact.)

On a related note, the 1.25m decoupler is at "Engineering 101" for 5 science, but the 0.625m one is one tier up, in "General Rocketry" for 20 science.  Compact engines are one thing, but a decoupler doesn't seem like something that's more difficult to make smaller.  PbC already brings that part way down from "Precision Engineering" (160 science — that's just ludicrous for a metal ring), but I think for my own game I'll patch it down one step further, to be in the same node as the 1.25m decoupler, so I can use it with my 0.625m SRB early-tech sounding rockets.

[garwel]

4 hours ago, Wyzard said:

Worth noting that AFAIK, humanity has never returned an unmanned probe from a planet or moon.  (There have been a few sample-return missions to comets and asteroids, but those have much smaller gravity wells.)

Actually, Soviet Luna 16, Luna 20 and Luna 24 missions returned lunar soil samples to Earth. But generally, it is a rare exception. Also, test flights of future manned vessels (from Vostok and Mercury to Orion) all take place in unmanned mode, so one could consider them probe missions.

[Wyzard]

19 hours ago, garwel said:

Actually, Soviet Luna 16, Luna 20 and Luna 24 missions returned lunar soil samples to Earth.

Ah, I didn't know that.  (I've read about Venera, which definitely did not come home, but didn't know much about Luna.)  I stand corrected.

(I should've said "returned an unmanned probe from the surface of a planet or moon", though — that's what I intended, since it was in response to that being a contract requirement in PbC.  Sorry if I was unclear.)

Edited July 25, 2019 by Wyzard

[Frag2000]

GREAT GREAT PACK ZEE!!

I was waiting for something like that for a loooonnnggg time. I am downloading this and start a new campaign right away. Thanks for the effort! I will will come back here for feedback for sure!

Small question though. In your installation procedure you said to put all folder from your zip file in the "Gamedata" folder. I noticed that your contract pack folder is inside your "ProbesBeforeCrew" folder. So it is located there "GameData\ProbesbeforeCrew\Contract Pack"

Is it fine that way? I usually put the contract packs in "GameData\ContractPacks" folder...

Edited July 26, 2019 by Frag2000

[Frag2000]

Hi _Zee,

tried to install this mod on 1.7.3 ... but I noticed that the research tree is the same as vanilla (The MK1 Command pod is still in the root). Could it be a conflict with the community tree? Is there any specific logs I should check?

 

Thanks!