Contract Pack - History of Spaceflight - V1.0

[OrbitalManeuvers]

2 hours ago, Morphisor said:

and it's worked fine for me multiple times;

Those fly'n'crash Vanguard missions have worked for me several times as well.

 

[ndiver]

11 hours ago, Morphisor said:

PartValidation parameters mean that you have to put the specified part on the vessel for the contract. It should mention it clearly in the contract; any objective directly related to the vessel will need to be performed on a vessel with the required part included.

Can you show an example?

[Morphisor]

4 hours ago, ndiver said:

Can you show an example?

Sure, here is an example of what these parameters look like in-game, when a contract is offered. Here I show the Skylab-1 contract, with BDB installed in an otherwise stock game:

 

Note that here there are several different partvalidation parameters:

• Any part with a docking module;
• Any 4 solar panel parts;
• Any science lab;
• (BDB only): a specific part, the exact name is displayed - in this case the workshop and the telescope mount both.

[ndiver]

I will install the latest version, because despite BDB 1.7, I see that:

No reference to a part despite have the parts mentioned in the .cfg files.

[Morphisor]

5 minutes ago, ndiver said:

I will install the latest version, because despite BDB 1.7, I see that:

No reference to a part despite have the parts mentioned in the .cfg files.

Looks the :NEEDS requirement of that optional BDB parameter is not being satisfied; you can see that in the log if my assumption is correct. If you check the file, it provides the exact map you need to have in your gamedata in order to trigger it.

[ndiver]

It is:

[Morphisor]

40 minutes ago, ndiver said:

It is:

That's Explorer-1 though, your previous post was Vanguard-1. Explorer-1 does work correctly?

[ndiver]

Just now, Morphisor said:

That's Explorer-1 though, your previous post was Vanguard-1. Explorer-1 does work correctly?

There was both Explorer-1 and Vanguard-1 in my previous post. Basically, I do not see mention of the needed BDB part in the contracts, whatever the contract.

[Morphisor]

39 minutes ago, ndiver said:

There was both Explorer-1 and Vanguard-1 in my previous post. Basically, I do not see mention of the needed BDB part in the contracts, whatever the contract.

Oh you're right, missed that. Still, something must be wrong in your install; it's all working as intended on my test install. Can you supply a log?

[ndiver]

3 minutes ago, Morphisor said:

Oh you're right, missed that. Still, something must be wrong in your install; it's all working as intended on my test install. Can you supply a log?

Where are the logs?
I'm testing Explorer-1 right now and this is what is going on (see no Explorer-1 probe core on the probe):

[Morphisor]

9 minutes ago, ndiver said:

Where are the logs?
I'm testing Explorer-1 right now and this is what is going on (see no Explorer-1 probe core on the probe):

There should be a ksp.log in your game's main folder and Module Manager builds its own config log as well. The main log should do, but provide the module manager log as well to be sure.

[OrbitalManeuvers]

Hiya - sorry if I've missed this info somewhere. Would your US contracts work with KSRSS? There's a whole lot of inclination going on in there ... would that have any affect on mission params or detecting goals or anything sneaky like that?

 

edit: now i think i'm asking a dumb question because how could it work at all if you don't have the same planet names in the contracts ... ?

Edited April 28, 2020 by OrbitalManeuvers
wondering aloud

[Morphisor]

7 hours ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

Hiya - sorry if I've missed this info somewhere. Would your US contracts work with KSRSS? There's a whole lot of inclination going on in there ... would that have any affect on mission params or detecting goals or anything sneaky like that?

 

edit: now i think i'm asking a dumb question because how could it work at all if you don't have the same planet names in the contracts ... ?

The contracts in the stock and pocket versions of the pack are fully scalable and compatible with any system, within reasonable deviation from the real thing in terms of size, positioning and shape. It does not need planet names since it works off the internal definitions of the homeworld and its moons for the contracts - and for interplanetary, the x-th planet from the sun is how the target planets are defined.

As for inclination, all contracts include the historical inclinations as part of the objectives. I'm not sure about KSRSS, but if the positioning is correct it should be quite natural to launch into those inclinations from the historical launch sites. Besides that, it's quite easy to manually launch into a different inclination if needed. There's no other effects due to inclination, not within these contracts anyhow.

[OrbitalManeuvers]

2 hours ago, Morphisor said:

The contracts in the stock and pocket versions of the pack are fully scalable and compatible with any system, within reasonable deviation from the real thing in terms of size, positioning and shape

OK cool - thank you for the info. I dislike career mode so I'm looking at alternate ways of (ab)using your missions. The combination of the historical missions, BDB, MLP, and KSRSS is really too good to pass up. So I think I'll look into using contracts in sandbox-ish mode, by cheating a career game to full tech at the start, and then just doing the missions in order. I think the mission system will be cool with that and still do the natural progression ... mayhaps. That way I still sorta investigate the real mission, see what vehicle was used, try to recreate it blah blah you get me. I'll call it guided multimedia historical research, instead of struggling space program because I such at managing funds in KSP.

[Morphisor]

26 minutes ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

OK cool - thank you for the info. I dislike career mode so I'm looking at alternate ways of (ab)using your missions. The combination of the historical missions, BDB, MLP, and KSRSS is really too good to pass up. So I think I'll look into using contracts in sandbox-ish mode, by cheating a career game to full tech at the start, and then just doing the missions in order. I think the mission system will be cool with that and still do the natural progression ... mayhaps. That way I still sorta investigate the real mission, see what vehicle was used, try to recreate it blah blah you get me. I'll call it guided multimedia historical research, instead of struggling space program because I such at managing funds in KSP.

That's certainly one way of doing it! The contracts *should* be balanced to able to just follow them, including the use of their proper parts with BDB and Tantares installed, without the need to resort to other actions within your career. Though it may not hurt to carry a few small experiments along on the earlier missions for some science. Still, said balance of course depends on difficulty sliders too and has not had much feedback yet, so it's much appreciated if you have any.

[OrbitalManeuvers]

8 hours ago, Morphisor said:

Though it may not hurt to carry a few small experiments along on the earlier missions for some science.

For sure. I still do whatever science is appropriate for the mission. The fake science points serve as sort of a meter of success, which I'm cool with. Of course science points are tricky to use as any sort of measure because of how drastically your installed mods can change how you earn science.

Thanks again for the input. At some point I will definitely bite the bullet and play career will send any progression feedback.

Edited April 29, 2020 by OrbitalManeuvers
typo

[betony1]

1 new issue, sorry, I haven't been playing due to being busy. On the m-dev, Stock version, as of the version 24 hours ago. In the mission Transit 4a/Solrad 3/Injun 1, there is a requirement which is impossible (unless I think, most of the tech tree is already researched): Take along a snap-3 RTG, with module: Generator, Count: At least 1. I did the rest of the mission with no problems. I Cheated the RTG part after I completed the rest. Loving this pack, Its fun and easy to play!

[Morphisor]

3 hours ago, betony1 said:

1 new issue, sorry, I haven't been playing due to being busy. On the m-dev, Stock version, as of the version 24 hours ago. In the mission Transit 4a/Solrad 3/Injun 1, there is a requirement which is impossible (unless I think, most of the tech tree is already researched): Take along a snap-3 RTG, with module: Generator, Count: At least 1. I did the rest of the mission with no problems. I Cheated the RTG part after I completed the rest. Loving this pack, Its fun and easy to play!

If I understand correctly, there's no suitable generators available in the tech tree? Maybe I'm too used to having all kinds of extra mods for that sort of thing, so could you tell me which generators you have in your install and in which tech nodes? Will have to figure out if it's an unreasonable demand in a stock(-ish) game.

Edit: had a look at what's normally available myself, stock and NFE generators are in Experimental Electrics and no sooner, which is definitely a little too late for 60's tech. BDB may include the actual Snapshot RTG at some point, but until then, I'm making these generator parameters optional. There's a few Transit missions affected and one Kosmos mission, no others from memory.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Morphisor

[Occam99]

Looks like the BDB geiger counter has been renamed to Bluedog_Geiger in the 1.7 dev branch. There is a bunch of US contracts throwing the following log errors:

bd_GeigerCounter is what the part is called in 1.6.2 Nevermind all that since I am - apparently - an idiot.

However, every contract that requires the BDB Geiger Counter is throwing this error when using the 1,7 dev branch:

Quote

 

[WRN 15:22:51.440] [R&D]: No Experiment definition found with id bd_GeigerCounter
[ERR 15:22:51.440] ContractConfigurator.CollectScienceFactory: CONTRACT_TYPE 'Vela-1A', PARAMETER 'CollectScience' of type 'CollectScience': A validation error occured while loading the key 'experiment' with value 'System.Collections.Generic.List`1[ScienceExperiment]'.

[EXC 15:22:51.441] ArgumentException: Cannot be null!
    ContractConfigurator.Validation.NotNull[T] (T val) (at <43a2e7cbd59545c6b9206fcd382ecb64>:0)
    System.Linq.Enumerable.All[TSource] (System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable`1[T] source, System.Func`2[T,TResult] predicate) (at <fbb5ed17eb6e46c680000f8910ebb50c>:0)
    ContractConfigurator.CollectScienceFactory+<>c.<Load>b__24_4 (System.Collections.Generic.List`1[T] x) (at <43a2e7cbd59545c6b9206fcd382ecb64>:0)
    ContractConfigurator.ConfigNodeUtil.ParseValue[T] (ConfigNode configNode, System.String key, System.Action`1[T] setter, ContractConfigurator.IContractConfiguratorFactory obj, T defaultValue, System.Func`2[T,TResult] validation) (at <43a2e7cbd59545c6b9206fcd382ecb64>:0)
    UnityEngine.DebugLogHandler:LogException(Exception, Object)
    ModuleManager.UnityLogHandle.InterceptLogHandler:LogException(Exception, Object)
    UnityEngine.Debug:LogException(Exception)
    ContractConfigurator.LoggingUtil:LogException(Exception)
    ContractConfigurator.ConfigNodeUtil:ParseValue(ConfigNode, String, Action`1, IContractConfiguratorFactory, List`1, Func`2)
    ContractConfigurator.CollectScienceFactory:Load(ConfigNode)
    ContractConfigurator.ParameterFactory:GenerateParameterFactory(ConfigNode, ContractType, ParameterFactory&, ParameterFactory)
    ContractConfigurator.ParameterFactory:GenerateParameterFactory(ConfigNode, ContractType, ParameterFactory&, ParameterFactory)
    ContractConfigurator.ContractType:Load(ConfigNode)
    ContractConfigurator.<LoadContractTypeConfig>d__30:MoveNext()
    ContractConfigurator.<FinalizeContractTypeLoad>d__29:MoveNext()
    UnityEngine.SetupCoroutine:InvokeMoveNext(IEnumerator, IntPtr)
[WRN 15:22:51.442] ContractConfigurator.ContractType: Errors encountered while trying to load CONTRACT_TYPE 'Vela-1A'

 

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Occam99

[Morphisor]

11 hours ago, Occam99 said:

Looks like the BDB geiger counter has been renamed to Bluedog_Geiger in the 1.7 dev branch. There is a bunch of US contracts throwing the following log errors:

bd_GeigerCounter is what the part is called in 1.6.2 Nevermind all that since I am - apparently - an idiot.

However, every contract that requires the BDB Geiger Counter is throwing this error when using the 1,7 dev branch:

 

Are you still having an issue? The latest dev version should solve any issues related to science definitions, if you don't have it yet.

[Occam99]

The issue remains. Using the latest dev builds of both History of Spaceflight and BDB. (KSP 1.9.1)

If I get a chance today, I'll try a completely clean install.

 

EDIT: I think Kerbalism is the problem - it specifically changes the bd_GeigerCounter experiment to just geigerCounter

Edited May 3, 2020 by Occam99

[Morphisor]

6 hours ago, Occam99 said:

The issue remains. Using the latest dev builds of both History of Spaceflight and BDB. (KSP 1.9.1)

If I get a chance today, I'll try a completely clean install.

 

EDIT: I think Kerbalism is the problem - it specifically changes the bd_GeigerCounter experiment to just geigerCounter

Yeah that would indeed be a problem. I'm not familiar with Kerbalism other than I know it changes how science works - I cannot officially support it myself. It should be fairly easy to fix with MM patches for those who know Kerbalism well though.

[Occam99]

I hacked the solution into the affected contracts. It's not elegant but it works:
 

e.g.

PARAMETER:NEEDS[Bluedog_DB/Parts/ProbeExpansion/JunoProbes]
        {
            name = CollectScience
            type = CollectScience
            situation = InSpaceHigh
            recoveryMethod = Transmit
            experiment:NEEDS[!Kerbalism] = bd_GeigerCounter
            experiment:NEEDS[Kerbalism] = geigerCounter
            title = Transmit the results of experimentation in high space
            disableOnStateChange = true
        }

 

[Morphisor]

4 hours ago, Occam99 said:

I hacked the solution into the affected contracts. It's not elegant but it works:
 

e.g.

PARAMETER:NEEDS[Bluedog_DB/Parts/ProbeExpansion/JunoProbes]
        {
            name = CollectScience
            type = CollectScience
            situation = InSpaceHigh
            recoveryMethod = Transmit
            experiment:NEEDS[!Kerbalism] = bd_GeigerCounter
            experiment:NEEDS[Kerbalism] = geigerCounter
            title = Transmit the results of experimentation in high space
            disableOnStateChange = true
        }

 

You know what, if really all it takes is a namechange of the defined experiment, getting Kerbalism compatibility may just be easy enough to consider doing myself after all. Can you provide a full list of the definitions changed by Kerbalism, so I can see how much work it would be?

[northern]

What are you guys using to complete the microwave data requirement? I can never seem to get it to work.

 

Is there anyway to have it so the vessels need to be named correctly as I keep completing other contracts while not even trying (sub orbital ones while on an orbital flight)

 

Love this mod btw