Contract Pack - History of Spaceflight - V1.0

[Morphisor]

@CAPFlyer Unfortunately renaming doesn't actually do anything for the contract system. With these multi-vessel missions I suspect the vessel ID gets assigned to a probe core in order of appearance/separation into separate entity. In your case the contract most likely wants another core/craft to be the solrad, and won't complete until you switch to that craft in the right orbit.  Try switching to the other cores you released in the same orbit, it should work. That's my personal experience anyhow. No real elegant way about this unfortunately.

[CAPFlyer]

I tried all 3 cores earlier and none gave me the success condition.  I'll try again now that I'm home and see though.

[Friznit]

Run into a blocker on the manned missions.  I've just completed Apollo 11, the contract ended and I got the notification but in the contracts menu it's still marked as incomplete and not selectable, though all the prerequisites are met.  The subsequent Apollo mission is therefore not selectable either.   In the persistence.sfs the contract is in the finished contracts array, so I'm not sure what the bug is - CC or the contract itself?  Is there a way to workaround using CC or editing the save file perhaps?

[Morphisor]

8 minutes ago, Friznit said:

Run into a blocker on the manned missions.  I've just completed Apollo 11, the contract ended and I got the notification but in the contracts menu it's still marked as incomplete and not selectable, though all the prerequisites are met.  The subsequent Apollo mission is therefore not selectable either.   In the persistence.sfs the contract is in the finished contracts array, so I'm not sure what the bug is - CC or the contract itself?  Is there a way to workaround using CC or editing the save file perhaps?

I have not a single clue why that would happen, sorry. To be clear - the contract was actually completed and is no longer visible in the active contracts list, in both the admin and cheat menu screens?
Do you have any errors show up in the CC debug menu? (Press alt-f10 and look for contracts marked in red text)
Otherwise maybe a log from when you ran the mission may provide some info.

[CAPFlyer]

I ran through all the cores again last night and it did finally clear.  Welp, back to the "grind".  Now that I'm into manned spaceflight, I know the difficulty is getting ready to notch up about 500%.

[Friznit]

8 hours ago, Morphisor said:

I have not a single clue why that would happen, sorry. To be clear - the contract was actually completed and is no longer visible in the active contracts list, in both the admin and cheat menu screens?
Do you have any errors show up in the CC debug menu? (Press alt-f10 and look for contracts marked in red text)
Otherwise maybe a log from when you ran the mission may provide some info.

I've tried using the cheat menu to remove the contract, re-add and then mark it completed but the follow on is still not triggering.  The only error in CC debug is for the Apollo-Soyuz mission (I've removed the Soviet mission pack, no cats in this play through).  Logs here for the record .  Is there a way to cheese it with CC?  Like, remove the dependency checks while I do the next mission?

[Morphisor]

35 minutes ago, Friznit said:

I've tried using the cheat menu to remove the contract, re-add and then mark it completed but the follow on is still not triggering.  The only error in CC debug is for the Apollo-Soyuz mission (I've removed the Soviet mission pack, no cats in this play through).  Logs here for the record .  Is there a way to cheese it with CC?  Like, remove the dependency checks while I do the next mission?

Yeah the quick and dirty workaround would be to edit out the completion requirement within the next mission in line, in this case in the Apollo XII contract. That way at least you can move on to the next one. This can be done ingame too, in the debug menu. Though then it's only temporary, but it should still get you going.

Edited November 14, 2020 by Morphisor

[eightiesboi]

First, @Morphisor, thank you. I have used both @Whitecat106's Historic Missions and @pap1723's Historical Progression and enjoyed them. The amount of work you have done to make these packs must have been enormous and was well appreciated.

Second, an observation (not a criticism) regarding the biggest difference that I noted between those other two contract packs and this one: the other authors' missions, as a general rule, had parameters that I would describe as based on the intent of the original (real world) mission planners, and your pack's parameters seems more closely tied to the outcome of those missions. As an example; in Historical Progression and History of Spaceflight, both packs note the importance of Sputnik as the first artificial satellite in orbit. However, Historical Progression is satisfied by simply achieving orbit, whereas History of Spaceflight requires the user match a particular orbit (presumably the one that Sputnik ended up in). 

Again; I am not criticizing this difference, merely pointing out that there appears to be a difference in philosophy. For the record, I think that both approaches have merit.

Which brings me to my point. With permission, I had slowly been working on a revamp of pap1723's Historical Progression. I took a long break from KSP and literally started playing again just this weekend. I would like permission to blend the two packs together; specifically, I would like to use the current coding that you have on relevant missions with the parameters from Historical Progression. I am aware that your license allows me to do exactly that without explicit permission, but I would rather pay you due respect first and ask. 

Obviously, if you want to discuss this at length, feel free to DM me. You've done amazing work and the community is better for it.

[Morphisor]

@eightiesboi Thanks for the kind words.  You're right, this pack aims at reproducing the actual flight in the most accurate way possible. I also feel that just specifying that an orbit has to be achieved doesn't represent the original mission specs well, for anything other than an equatorial low orbit. A more modular approach is of course still very much possible - for an example of this, I recommend taking a look at the contracts I built for BDB, which aim to achieve exactly that: a modular approach to a bunch of iconic mission profiles that can be applied to most bodies in a planetary system, without the requirements being overly rigid.

You are of course free to apply any material from this pack as you see fit. If you have questions or thoughts on gameplay design you'd like to share, I'd be happy to discuss them with you.

[Friznit]

Ref the Apollo XIII issue I'm having - Logs attached...hopefully with logs this time!  (Ironic that it's Apollo XIII right?)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16blSM2JyYaqJRKwopaOf2Dv7xk3tMAPS/view?usp=sharing

[Morphisor]

2 hours ago, Friznit said:

Ref the Apollo XIII issue I'm having - Logs attached...hopefully with logs this time!  (Ironic that it's Apollo XIII right?)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16blSM2JyYaqJRKwopaOf2Dv7xk3tMAPS/view?usp=sharing

What I can't quite understand about your log is the following combination of facts.

It opens with failing the Apollo-XIII contract because the completion requirement was not met - this would make sense if you manually disabled that requirement using the debug menu before, then started the mission. Upon reloading the game, the requirement will be reactivated. This seems the case here.

If I'm reading it correctly, all you did then is load up the mission control, decline a couple of contracts, and somehow (at the very end of the log) it says that Apollo-XI was completed. I therefore assume you cheated it to be finished?

Of course the interesting bit is that there's still an Apollo-XII mission in between these 2. I'd like to see what the requirement report is for Apollo-XII, given that it has 2 completion requirements (Apollo-XI and Surveyor-3).

To conclude, it's a strange order of events and I'm not any closer to a solution yet. Maybe some screenshots of the affected missions in mission control (including under the 'all' tab, where you can check the requirements are being met) and the status in the debug menu may help. 

[Friznit]

Oh yes, I was using the cheat menu to try an recreate the issue - remove the completed Apollo 11 contract, take it again, cheat complete and see if Apollo 12 triggers.  But then odd things happen - Apollo 11 is still not checked as "complete" in the Contracts menu (even though I just cheated it) and Apollo 12 cannot be selected even though all the prerequisites are fulfilled.

[Morphisor]

1 hour ago, Friznit said:

Oh yes, I was using the cheat menu to try an recreate the issue - remove the completed Apollo 11 contract, take it again, cheat complete and see if Apollo 12 triggers.  But then odd things happen - Apollo 11 is still not checked as "complete" in the Contracts menu (even though I just cheated it) and Apollo 12 cannot be selected even though all the prerequisites are fulfilled.

I just tried testing the situation out myself, using the debug menu to forcibly satisfy the requirements various missions, including the Apollo ones. Mind you, Apollo XII won't load unless Surveyor 3 is present on the surface of the Mun. But it should still say if the other requirements have been met.

The following part is of particular interest to @nightingale, I think I've uncovered a bug in the CC system, that may or not be directly related to your issue. Hopefully he can shed light on this:

In both a fully stock install and a heavily modded and progressed career install (both ksp 1.10.1 with CC 1.30.5) I was unable to even properly test the issue, because after the game starts forcibly loading in the intended contract (after disabling the requirement), a red-text nullref exception is thrown, and the contract blips out of availability. A moment later it blips back in, errors and is gone again. I reproduced this for a whole range of contracts. Even upon accepting the contract as soon as it arrives, it gets auto-declined upon removal, citing that the requirements aren't met.

I'm 100% sure cheating the contracts into availability worked before, as it was the only sane way that I could do any sort of testing when I developed this pack.

Edited November 16, 2020 by Morphisor

[eightiesboi]

8 hours ago, Morphisor said:

@eightiesboi Thanks for the kind words.  You're right, this pack aims at reproducing the actual flight in the most accurate way possible. I also feel that just specifying that an orbit has to be achieved doesn't represent the original mission specs well, for anything other than an equatorial low orbit. A more modular approach is of course still very much possible - for an example of this, I recommend taking a look at the contracts I built for BDB, which aim to achieve exactly that: a modular approach to a bunch of iconic mission profiles that can be applied to most bodies in a planetary system, without the requirements being overly rigid.

You are of course free to apply any material from this pack as you see fit. If you have questions or thoughts on gameplay design you'd like to share, I'd be happy to discuss them with you.

Awesome, and thank you! I will likely pick your brain later. And for the record, in my current play, I am using your contract pack and having a blast! You do good work.

[CAPFlyer]

I forgot to mention this - TIROS 4 has a date typo in the description.  It shows launch date of February 8, 1961.  Should be February 8, 1962.

[CAPFlyer]

Working into the KH-5 contracts (Corona 41 specifically) and it calls for the KH-4 module.  I know there's not a KH-5 module available, but the KH-5 is more similar to the KH-2 in appearance than the KH-4.  The other KH-5 contracts don't have this so I'm not sure why this one did?

Edited December 2, 2020 by CAPFlyer

[Morphisor]

4 hours ago, CAPFlyer said:

Working into the KH-5 contracts (Corona 41 specifically) and it calls for the KH-4 module.  I know there's not a KH-5 module available, but the KH-5 is more similar to the KH-2 in appearance than the KH-4.  The other KH-5 contracts don't have this so I'm not sure why this one did?

Yeah maybe that wasn't the best way to do it. I should remove that requirement.

It's only been applied to the missions also present in the pocket edition, so if you're playing regular stock that would explain why you're seeing both variants.

[CAPFlyer]

Ahh, okay.  I understand why you were doing that then.  I did find it odd to have both requirements, but I didn't think too much about it beyond maybe being something changed that you missed (there's a lot of missions, so that's a lot to keep up with).

[reviest]

It seems that I'm unable to complete the EA-1941 contract by recovering science in a probe core while playing with Kerbalism. Is this my mistake or is this expected behaviour?

This is amazing contract pack for me as I'm into historical play style and if there's nothing I can do to fix this I'll remove Kerbalism. Just wanted to ask before going forward. Sorry if this has been already answered.

 

[Morphisor]

2 hours ago, reviest said:

It seems that I'm unable to complete the EA-1941 contract by recovering science in a probe core while playing with Kerbalism. Is this my mistake or is this expected behaviour?

This is amazing contract pack for me as I'm into historical play style and if there's nothing I can do to fix this I'll remove Kerbalism. Just wanted to ask before going forward. Sorry if this has been already answered.

 

Yeah unfortunately Kerbalism changes science behaviour and does not play nice with any contract configurator science parameters. No way around that I know of.

[OrbitalManeuvers]

Normally I play science mode but giving this a try finally. Quick question ...

The inclination of the vanguard and explorer missions ... I'm guessing that's a 90 degree heading from KSC's inclination in KS/RSS? I'm using JNSQ and I feel like I'm reaching that inclination in a really clumsy way with too much non-prograde correction that make me nervous. I completed the first Vanguard and Explorer missions, and now that I see there are more coming up I'm wondering if I should just switch to KSRSS (rescaled)? Are there a lot of specific orbits in the PE pack, and would they be more natural using earth/KSC?

[Morphisor]

2 hours ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

Normally I play science mode but giving this a try finally. Quick question ...

The inclination of the vanguard and explorer missions ... I'm guessing that's a 90 degree heading from KSC's inclination in KS/RSS? I'm using JNSQ and I feel like I'm reaching that inclination in a really clumsy way with too much non-prograde correction that make me nervous. I completed the first Vanguard and Explorer missions, and now that I see there are more coming up I'm wondering if I should just switch to KSRSS (rescaled)? Are there a lot of specific orbits in the PE pack, and would they be more natural using earth/KSC?

You'll find that all the 'normal' missions are inclined to their historical specs, which is indeed less natural in any system other than KS/RSS. Personally I used Gravity Turn in Jnsq to launch to the right inclination, though it's not perfect for high inclination

[Homer_S]

I love the idea of this mod but I can't get around using it in Career mode. You end up with being able to get a rocket that is only meant to go 1000 m beyond the Karman line and it looks nothing like the original because you haven't unlocked the right parts yet. Is there an easy way to play these missions with all the right parts? I was thinking to convert this to Mission Builder format but it is not straightforward, or I haven't found the right set of instructions.

 

Homer

[Morphisor]

5 hours ago, Homer_S said:

I love the idea of this mod but I can't get around using it in Career mode. You end up with being able to get a rocket that is only meant to go 1000 m beyond the Karman line and it looks nothing like the original because you haven't unlocked the right parts yet. Is there an easy way to play these missions with all the right parts? I was thinking to convert this to Mission Builder format but it is not straightforward, or I haven't found the right set of instructions.

 

Homer

Take a look at the recommended mods in the main post, this pack doesn't work well with stock parts only.

[wolffy_au]

Let me start by saying this is one of my all time favourite KSP contract packs.

I have been obsessively playing the Soviet contracts in RSS (I had to make a bunch of modified engines and fuel tanks to get it to play nice) and I'm wondering if there is anything I can do to help create more Soviet contracts e.g. Lunokhod Ye-8? I noticed also that the Kosmos missions are bundled together but they overlap with other areas - I'd be happy to help sort them out into their respective streams.

I think I can get my head around making contracts - what's the best way to submit them back to you guys?