[0.20.2] Mission Controller v0.10 (06/24/2013) [ALPHA]

[nobody44]

Post the path to the MissionController.dll, the MissionLibrary.dll and the icons folder.

[Cheaterman]

Some people already mentioned that module manager apparently interferes badly with this mod. Just try removing deadly re-entry, remote tech compatibility pack or whatever can use module manager overrides.

[StainX]

This Mod is awesome! How could i ever play ksp without it!?

Plz, keep it up!

[adammada]

About Comsat Mission with LAN:

how to do it? I've found LAN definiton, but when should i start inclination change? Should i use MechJeb to display where in orbit i am? Or is there possible orbital maneuver to change LAN withoud after setting correct inclination?

[nobody44]

For missions with a specified LAN you have similar launch windows like for interplanetary transfers. After you have lanched it is nearly impossible to change your LAN (for more than 10 degrees). It is like going from an equatorial orbit into a polar orbit.

Sadly KSP does not provide a proper node to change the LAN :-/... that means you have to "guess". It is like an inclination change where you can't see the reference plane.

[itsme86]

About Comsat Mission with LAN:

how to do it? I've found LAN definiton, but when should i start inclination change? Should i use MechJeb to display where in orbit i am? Or is there possible orbital maneuver to change LAN withoud after setting correct inclination?

What I've been doing is just watching my latitude. What you want to do is burn north or south at the desired inclination. If I want an equatorial orbit, I burn against the direction I'm traveling. e.g. if my latitude is moving 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, 0.2, 0.1, 0.0, I burn north at 0.0. Likewise, if I'm moving from negative to positive, I burn south at 0.0. The same would work if you wanted, say a 17.5 degree inclination. You just burn at that latitude. The amount of burn is an educated guess though.

[asmi]

About Comsat Mission with LAN:

how to do it? I've found LAN definiton, but when should i start inclination change? Should i use MechJeb to display where in orbit i am? Or is there possible orbital maneuver to change LAN withoud after setting correct inclination?

The best approach is to time your launch. However, it's possible to adjust your LAN afterwards by burning NORMAL+/- at most northern/southern points of your orbit.

[TopHattedEnglishman]

I'm using the NTSpaceProgram. In mission 2 I got myself into the right orbit and completed that part of the mission. I didn't have enough fuel to land though so now it says I've completed goal 1 but not 2. Do I have to redo the whole mission (getting to the right orbit) before landing again? The window gives me no feedback when I try and do it again. That must be the case or you could just take off and hover above the ground a few metres and land again to fulfil the landing goal. I need to finish this mission to start the next one.

[nobody44]

You will have to restart the whole mission. Kinda pointless to just land on Kerbin .

I just released a new version. It should fix the incompatibility with Module Manager as well:

Newest Changes (0.7):

• added rewind option in the config window. I hope you can take a little joke
  
• added more icons (and also rescaled icons, zip is 135kb big)
  
• added longitude and latitude for OrbitGoal (for stationary orbits, try Comsat Contract VI)
  
• added recycle option for splash downs. Also changed the recycleable value to 85% for landings and 65% for splash downs (mass and construction) and 95% for fuel
  
• added overview for currently active passive missions (only visible in flight and when no mission is selected)
  
• fixed eccentricity value representation ("0-0" was shown when max eccentricity was really low)
  
• fixed F2 bug
  
• fixed absurd longitude values
  
• should be fixed: incompatibility with Module Manager
  

Edited June 17, 2013 by nobody44

[theSpeare]

Just running over it now and it's brilliant. Good work!

[asmi]

Newest Changes (0.7):

• added rewind option in the config window. I hope you can take a little joke
  

"Chicken mode"

[theSpeare]

Hey I just figured out a way you could price Kerbal deaths (if you can't find some sort of trigger in-game). You can charge a cost for crew members, maybe a ridiculous cost as well, and either mission designers can just work this into their rewards OR you can add this price to the recycle rate at the end of the mission.

Sound okay?

EDIT: So turns out you can recycle when you land on other bodies?

Edited June 18, 2013 by theSpeare

[Snillum101]

Is there an updated list of mission categories for the new icons? I've looked through the documentation but can't seem to find one.

Great changes in 0.7 btw

Edit: I may have found a bug with the passive reward payment. I was testing Comsat contract V and completed the mission just fine. I then selected a ship and waited on the launch pad for 24hrs to go by. However when the countdown reached 0 on the mission screen my budget did not update by +500. Is time acceleration not allowed? Or will my budget just not update until I launch another ship?

Edited June 18, 2013 by Snillum101

[giltirn]

"Chicken mode"

Very happy chicken here! Thanks a lot nobody44, you're a legend

[The Destroyer]

So do I just replace to update?

[theSpeare]

Is there any chance you can add a config file that lets us change and/or add the costs of resources like LiquidFuel and Oxidizer? I plan on lowering the LiquidFuel and Oxidizer to somewhat half rocket engine costs and making a mission package that has cost rewards scaled down by a lot. This way 'expendable' rockets are heavily discouraged.

[nobody44]

Hey I just figured out a way you could price Kerbal deaths (if you can't find some sort of trigger in-game). You can charge a cost for crew members, maybe a ridiculous cost as well, and either mission designers can just work this into their rewards OR you can add this price to the recycle rate at the end of the mission.

Sound okay?

EDIT: So turns out you can recycle when you land on other bodies?

I like the idea. That solves the problem with "end flight". With my method (= you pay for dead kerbals) you could always end a flight just before they die. I like the recycle idea better. It is more realistic and "forces" you to bring them back (as for now I will make this behaviour configurable, so you can deactive this feature if you want to).

Wow, damn you are right. That is of course not what I want. Fixed it right now.

Is there an updated list of mission categories for the new icons? I've looked through the documentation but can't seem to find one.

Great changes in 0.7 btw

Edit: I may have found a bug with the passive reward payment. I was testing Comsat contract V and completed the mission just fine. I then selected a ship and waited on the launch pad for 24hrs to go by. However when the countdown reached 0 on the mission screen my budget did not update by +500. Is time acceleration not allowed? Or will my budget just not update until I launch another ship?

No, there is no updated list of mission categories. I will do it now.

The reason for the skipped payment is simple: You are paid for *full* days. Say you finished the mission when the next payment was due in 6 hours. Right when you should get the payment, the satellite was working for just 6 hours, not 24. That is why you didn't get paid. Time acceleration is allowed btw.

Is there any chance you can add a config file that lets us change and/or add the costs of resources like LiquidFuel and Oxidizer? I plan on lowering the LiquidFuel and Oxidizer to somewhat half rocket engine costs and making a mission package that has cost rewards scaled down by a lot. This way 'expendable' rockets are heavily discouraged.

I am going to rework the whole cost thing. I was in contact with another user who suggested a research like resource.

My current plans for the costs:

• as someone pointed out: liquid engines (based on ISP, thrust) should cost a lot, fuel should be cheap compared to engines
  
• also SRB should cost much less (Scott Manley suggested that)
  
• and the engines in air planes should cost less than SRBs
  
• the cost factors can not be modified with a config file, but there will be three difficulties: easy (=low costs), medium (= medium costs) and hard (= high costs)
  

And now the research like resource: You will have a second resource, called "Research points". You can gather them in science missions (= space telescope or something like that), on space stations or on mining missions (there won't be many missions that will give you the chance to gather research points. A simple communication satellite is not a science mission). Those mysterious research points will limit your abilities to build rockets. Say you just started the game and you want to fly to Jool. You probably want some NERVAs on your rocket to get there. Those NERVAs have high ISP values and you don't have enough research points to build them efficiently. That means you will pay much more for those engines. Once you have enough research points, you can build everything efficiently and the costs will be the same as before.

There is one huge problem with this approach: I don't know how to balance this... my idea was to provide enough research points in the Kerbin system. But I need to find a way to calculate the research points needed for engine X.

What do you guys think?

[theSpeare]

I'm not sure about how you're going to balance them, but that sounds like a really great idea! Considering your mod is already capable of passive income, it sounds easy to just add a parallel "passive research income" from satellites/landed bases/telescopes. Your idea is incredibly exciting. I believe though that this should also be a activate/deactivate feature.

Definitely believe fuel should be much cheaper compared to engines, and that engines be very expensive. Recycling then becomes very important (challenging, but important).

I have to put forward a point for landing recycled vehicles and such - right now, for a ComSat mission of reward for 100,000 I am using a reusable launch vehicle that takes the satellite to orbit, de-orbits and lands on KSC. I save $10,000 (small percentage of total cost) which is great if you're optimistic - but this process requires going back and forth between vehicles to finish the whole mission, let alone the landing operation itself takes a LONG time. As a result, 10% suddenly becomes unattractive, and you'd rather work with expendable engines instead to save yourself some time, and farm the ComSat mission.

The Kerbal cost should be high, to make manned missions even riskier - and as you said the encouragement of returning them alive would be wonderful.

Can't wait for your updates

[Artophwar]

Awesome work. This just keeps getting better and better. One suggestion I have though is for the window to save its position between game loads. I always move my mission window over to the right side of the screen and have to do it every time I restart KSP.

EDIT: just tried Contract Mission III and noticed that the inclination seems impossible to achieve. Probably be the same for Mission VI as it uses the same number. I tried for about 15 minutes doing tiny adjustments but the closest I could get was 0.043. All the other Missions give us a 0.5 variance which works fine. These two missions only give us 0.02 variance to be successful.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Artophwar

[Snillum101]

I am going to rework the whole cost thing. I was in contact with another user who suggested a research like resource.

My current plans for the costs:

• as someone pointed out: liquid engines (based on ISP, thrust) should cost a lot, fuel should be cheap compared to engines
  
• also SRB should cost much less (Scott Manley suggested that)
  
• and the engines in air planes should cost less than SRBs
  
• the cost factors can not be modified with a config file, but there will be three difficulties: easy (=low costs), medium (= medium costs) and hard (= high costs)
  

And now the research like resource: You will have a second resource, called "Research points". You can gather them in science missions (= space telescope or something like that), on space stations or on mining missions (there won't be many missions that will give you the chance to gather research points. A simple communication satellite is not a science mission). Those mysterious research points will limit your abilities to build rockets. Say you just started the game and you want to fly to Jool. You probably want some NERVAs on your rocket to get there. Those NERVAs have high ISP values and you don't have enough research points to build them efficiently. That means you will pay much more for those engines. Once you have enough research points, you can build everything efficiently and the costs will be the same as before.

There is one huge problem with this approach: I don't know how to balance this... my idea was to provide enough research points in the Kerbin system. But I need to find a way to calculate the research points needed for engine X.

What do you guys think?

Those changes sound great. I think it would make sense for every mission to provide a little bit of research resource and for some missions such as telescopes/space stations etc to provide research over time.

I also think for balancing it might be an idea to proportionately increase the cost of payloads. At the moment when I send a satellite into orbit the main cost of the mission is the LV, I don't want LV's to be really cheap, I just think that payloads aren't valuable enough at the moment. One way I see of tackling this is to make all probe cores, batteries, solar cells etc much more expensive. This would tie in well with the difficulty setting you mentioned (i.e. easy = low probe costs | hard = high probe costs). It would IMO make it seem like you're transporting something valuable up into orbit for a company rather than useless old junk

Edited June 18, 2013 by Snillum101

[nobody44]

Awesome work. This just keeps getting better and better. One suggestion I have though is for the window to save its position between game loads. I always move my mission window over to the right side of the screen and have to do it every time I restart KSP.

EDIT: just tried Contract Mission III and noticed that the inclination seems impossible to achieve. Probably be the same for Mission VI as it uses the same number. I tried for about 15 minutes doing tiny adjustments but the closest I could get was 0.043. All the other Missions give us a 0.5 variance which works fine. These two missions only give us 0.02 variance to be successful.

I will open an issue on github for the positioning.

It is possible. Try to adjust your inclination every 90° in your orbit (basically in the corners of a square).

Those changes sound great. I think it would make sense for every mission to provide a little bit of research resource and for some missions such as telescopes/space stations etc to provide research over time.

I also think for balancing it might be an idea to proportionately increase the cost of payloads. At the moment when I send a satellite into orbit the main cost of the mission is the LV, I don't want LV's to be really cheap, I just think that payloads aren't valuable enough at the moment. One way I see of tackling this is to make all probe cores, batteries, solar cells etc much more expensive. This would tie in well with the difficulty setting you mentioned (i.e. easy = low probe costs | hard = high probe costs). It would IMO make it seem like you're transporting something valuable up into orbit for a company rather than useless old junk

I don't know how to increase the value of payloads without editing the part.cfg from *all* parts...

Here is a current spreadsheet for the engine costs, unfortunately on google . Keep in mind that fuel (both liquid and solid) will be much cheaper. SRBs will not be affected, besides the lower costs for solid fuel. Upper ~8 engines are stock engines, the next ~10 engines are from KW Rocketry. Airplane engines will also be much cheaper. Didn't work on a formular so far.

If you have any other formular, please let me know .

[King Jareth]

Only glanced at the table (stock part because I dont use KW) but the numbers seemed okay, I was about to suggest a factor of ISP and Thrust...

[BlazingAngel665]

Keep in mind that fuel (both liquid and solid) will be much cheaper. SRBs will not be affected, besides the lower costs for solid fuel. Upper ~8 engines are stock engines, the next ~10 engines are from KW Rocketry. Airplane engines will also be much cheaper. Didn't work on a formular so far.

I had a thought for the problem. Instead of telling everyone to build there own payloads that end up being too cheep for balancing issues, maybe have some parts made that are specifically designed to make the missions more challenging. Like for the comsat missions actually have a 'comsat' part. This would also help with doing multiple missions at once. Also can you make "recycle" into an "end flight" type button that deletes the craft?

[veryinky]

just tried Contract Mission III and noticed that the inclination seems impossible to achieve. Probably be the same for Mission VI as it uses the same number. I tried for about 15 minutes doing tiny adjustments but the closest I could get was 0.043. All the other Missions give us a 0.5 variance which works fine. These two missions only give us 0.02 variance to be successful.

I've put up 6 satellites with Contract Mission III so it's not impossible, though I use RemoteTech mod gives me a lot of practice placing satellites in geostationary to create a useful com network.

I would like it if missions had additional part requirements though, especially the com network ones. Like a dish an a couple antennas to make something that'd look like a comsat.

Personally I did change Mission VI, increasing it's payment to 200,000 since it's more difficult than III. I also made the desired longitude random with:

minLongitude = RANDOM(-179, 179.4)

maxLongitude = ADD(minLongitude, 0.5)

Since the mission repeats and as it was asking for every satellite to be placed at the same longitude.

[veryinky]

Like for the comsat missions actually have a 'comsat' part.

An example of this would be the NT mission pack who's "commercial comsat" missions require 4 antenna and 1 dish while the "lander probe" missions require the com parts and one of each sensor.

Considerably heavier than just an octo-core.