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

[theSpeare]

Haven't had a chance to try it out yet but what're the new cost factors for fuel and engines? (and between difficulties)

EDIT: LOVING the new prices now. Much more realistic feel. Wonderful job.

Edited June 20, 2013 by theSpeare

[espm400]

I may not be new to this game, but recently I've been striving for a little more realism and structure (and please don't take this as a slight towards any mod I might mention here), but damn, I just made the mistake of installing this, FAR, and RemoteTech, all in one go. Can you say 'game changing?' Couple this with my lack of experience with tiny rockets (I'd have to say my norm was around 700t), and you have a recipe for a complete head scratcher... Awesome mod, don't get me wrong, but I've got the RemoteTech mod telling me I can't launch probes until I have ComSats, FAR flipping my rockets when I'm too aggressive with my gravity turns, and now it's costing me a bloody fortune. Oh well, I guess this is what I needed, fresh start, learning atmospherics and cost effectiveness all over again. Guess this is why I love mod friendly games...

[nobody44]

Is there any reason I am not completing this mission?

I can: It was a small change for the maximal apoapsis value. I didn't think that someone was using it this way (I like to set the minimal eccentricity to 1 for an escape trajectory).

I will fix it: maxApa < 0 means escape trajectory (apoapsis *must* be negative of course), maxApa > 0 means the apoapsis *must* be positive.

Example:

maxApA = 100000

The old behaviour was that an escape trajectory would suffice this requirement, because the apoapsis is negative (-10000 < 50000). The new behaviour is, that this will not suffice, because the maxApA value is positive.

I fixed it right now. I got some new icons from bac9, and I will probably release a new version this evening.

FYI: I am working on marker for landing areas .

Unfortunately the performance suffers from that marker. If anyone is willing to help me (and knows 3D stuff), please let me know .

Haven't had a chance to try it out yet but what're the new cost factors for fuel and engines? (and between difficulties)

EDIT: LOVING the new prices now. Much more realistic feel. Wonderful job.

Liquid fuel: 0.4 per unit (to make airplanes less expensive than rockets)

Mono propellant: 5 per unit

Solid fuel: 1.5 per unit (solid fuel is a bit less expensive than Oxidizer, *but* you don't have to pay for engines)

Xenon: 10 per unit

Materials: 1 per kg mass (= mass of the vessel)

Oxidizer: 2 per unit (to make rockets more expensive than airplanes)

Factors for liquid engines: 1 (for liquid engines only. Formular for *one* liquid engine: (ISP(VACUUM) - 200)^2 * MAX_THRUST / 1000.0 + mass

This is for medium. Easy = 0.65 * medium. Hard = 1.5 * medium.

I may not be new to this game, but recently I've been striving for a little more realism and structure (and please don't take this as a slight towards any mod I might mention here), but damn, I just made the mistake of installing this, FAR, and RemoteTech, all in one go. Can you say 'game changing?' Couple this with my lack of experience with tiny rockets (I'd have to say my norm was around 700t), and you have a recipe for a complete head scratcher... Awesome mod, don't get me wrong, but I've got the RemoteTech mod telling me I can't launch probes until I have ComSats, FAR flipping my rockets when I'm too aggressive with my gravity turns, and now it's costing me a bloody fortune. Oh well, I guess this is what I needed, fresh start, learning atmospherics and cost effectiveness all over again. Guess this is why I love mod friendly games...

Nice to hear .

Edited June 20, 2013 by nobody44

[theSpeare]

Your equation for liquid engines was perfect, you deserve many many kerbal points for this. Also loving the insurance cost for Kerbals - it's really shifting my preference for probe missions (I'm also using RemoteCommand, which makes things complicated for probe missions).

Also does your "time required" goal for your missions calculate it based on MET? Because if so then can you set goals like "land here with a probe and leave for a year", allowing you to switch to other missions and have that timer still going? You could then go back and resume the rest of the mission.

Another idea (possibly getting too complicated) but if you repeat the same mission over and over again, reward should decrease by a given factor (appointed by the mission designer) with a given cooldown period.

What's in mind for the future versions (apart from your research points idea)? And what are the markings for

Edited June 20, 2013 by theSpeare

[Snillum101]

May have discovered a bug with the difficulty settings. I've found that when going back to my save after closing the game yesterday that my rockets were cheaper than I expected. The config screen says I have hard difficulty selected but if I select medium difficulty, save and close the config window, my rocket costs stay the same. If I re-open the config window and select hard difficulty my rocket costs jump up to more expensive values.

So I guess what I'm basically saying is that the difficulty resets back to medium on game close even though the config UI says I have hard selected.

[nobody44]

Your equation for liquid engines was perfect, you deserve many many kerbal points for this. Also loving the insurance cost for Kerbals - it's really shifting my preference for probe missions (I'm also using RemoteCommand, which makes things complicated for probe missions).

Also does your "time required" goal for your missions calculate it based on MET? Because if so then can you set goals like "land here with a probe and leave for a year", allowing you to switch to other missions and have that timer still going? You could then go back and resume the rest of the mission.

What's in mind for the future versions (apart from your research points idea)? And what are the markings for

Only the mission, that is currently selected, is checked. So it is not possible to check for missions that are not selected. This would require user input ("Watch this mission in the background") and would complicate *some* things. For those kind of missions I would suggest a client controlled mission with a one year lifetime.

About the current development:

• markers for landing areas as you might have seen in my previous post in this thread
  
• a better stock mission package
  
• I am not sure if other developers would like to support my plugin, but I would like to see some mining support. Like "Mine Kethane *where you want* and sell it". My plugin offers a public interface for other developers, but I am not sure *if* they are willing to support my plugin . Also there are some issues with that idea: Where can you sell the kethane? Right on the spot? Build one miner and you have infinite money. Only on Kerbin? Makes mining on distant planets unprofitable, mining on Mun and especially Minmus would be unbalanced. Only on vessels that have that *huge* part (something like a stock market part)? Make a base on Minmus and infinite money. You see, there are *some* issues to solve. *And* I am thinking about (again) to include this in my own plugin. That means that the Kethane developer would *not* need to do anything. Pros: One solution for all (easier to balance). Cons: *I* have to support multiple resources, if there are more than the Kethane resource.
  

The research points must be balanced of course. I (we ) need to find a way that it does not stop progress ("uhh... I have to grind those research missions") and that it is not to easy (enough research points for everything after 5 missions).

May have discovered a bug with the difficulty settings. I've found that when going back to my save after closing the game yesterday that my rockets were cheaper than I expected. The config screen says I have hard difficulty selected but if I select medium difficulty, save and close the config window, my rocket costs stay the same. If I re-open the config window and select hard difficulty my rocket costs jump up to more expensive values.

So I guess what I'm basically saying is that the difficulty resets back to medium on game close even though the config UI says I have hard selected.

Yes, you are right. Fixed it. (you will have to wait for the next release or start compiling the code by yourself )

Edited June 20, 2013 by nobody44

[adammada]

As i understand, your plugin uses now own formula for part costs.

Could you then display true part costs in editor? It could be done like that:

		foreach (AvailablePart ap in PartLoader.fetch.loadedPartsList) {
			ap.cost = getPartCost(ap); // I think its cost, but maybe money or something in here
		}

[nobody44]

As i understand, your plugin uses now own formula for part costs.

Could you then display true part costs in editor? It could be done like that:

		foreach (AvailablePart ap in PartLoader.fetch.loadedPartsList) {
			ap.cost = getPartCost(ap); // I think its cost, but maybe money or something in here
		}

Does that change the values permanently?

[theSpeare]

I can help with balancing or ideas with research in about a week. I think research is definitely the most exciting. You should look into finding other goals you can add into mission design.

Can I ask (along with the passive mission progress thing you added) that you add maybe a list somewhere of all the 'client-controlled' missions out there and how much more time before their lifetime ends? Obviously not a high priority problem.

The mining thing is a bit hard to think about, but I'm sure we'll come to some solution. I always justified Kethane as a good way to reuse vehicles - or make missions cheaper. The selling part should require your own plugin. I would say have a 'part' that has to always be in orbit - you can sell fuel or kethane or other things. The moment you sell it, you'd just remove the amount from the vessel and add the cost. I think the solution of using the part would be more effective, and all you'd have to balance is the prices for each. The advantage for the player is you'd make a lot of money, but the kethane is lost - how're you going to refuel your ship for another land-and-mine operation? You'll have trade-offs and you're more likely to sell off surplus kethane (as you would if you were farming or something).

I would GLADLY write missions for this plugin. As of this week and early next I am very busy (exams - this mod is the only thing that's gotten me still hooked to KSP at the worst time, so I blame you!) but I'm already thinking about writing a package (or at least an expansion package for the stock) based on repeatable mission contracts that you can SOMEWHAT grind for money, simulating more of a commercialized mission-control. It's my belief that this (at least if you're interested) forces you to think about your launch costs and all the ways you can increase revenue via redesign and flight protocol.

[ialdabaoth]

Does that change the values permanently?

Well, permanently for that game session.

[adammada]

Yes. I used similar approach for setting part count. And somwher in "on unload" i was setting it back for 999. You would have to remember starting values and set them back when needed.

[nobody44]

Yes. I used similar approach for setting part count. And somwher in "on unload" i was setting it back for 999. You would have to remember starting values and set them back when needed.

And when (in the Awake method?) do you modify the costs?

[adammada]

I used scenario module so it was started only when scenario was started, it was OnLoad (if i remeber correctly). I think that you could set it when somebody selects mission, and revert when deselects. Or something similar.

[theSpeare]

Just noticed a bug: I sent out a satellite into geosync under one of the ComSat contracts and waited for its lifetime to expire. The parameters for that mission aren't really randomized, so when the lifetime ended, I picked it up and just repeated the mission again and pretty much collected the reward.

I guess it's fair? You do have to wait quite a bit to use it again, but it's a free flow of cash without new launches or anything.

[Snillum101]

Yes, you are right. Fixed it. (you will have to wait for the next release or start compiling the code by yourself )

Lol, just reporting a bug not expecting an immediate fix.

[nobody44]

Just noticed a bug: I sent out a satellite into geosync under one of the ComSat contracts and waited for its lifetime to expire. The parameters for that mission aren't really randomized, so when the lifetime ended, I picked it up and just repeated the mission again and pretty much collected the reward.

I guess it's fair? You do have to wait quite a bit to use it again, but it's a free flow of cash without new launches or anything.

This is an issue I have not addressed so far. There is a combination from clientControlled and repeatable, that cause this issue (actually, it is just clientControlled). But basically it is not *that* absurd. They pay you for the communication with the satellite afterwards, not only for the satellite itself.

I am working on it . In the future:

client controlled = true and repeatable = true: You can repeat the mission with a different vessel

client controlled = true and repeatable = false: You can *not* repeat the mission with any other vessels

/Edit:

Actually, I am thinking about a new mission field that permits such missions (clientControlled, repeatable with the *same* vessel)...

Edited June 20, 2013 by nobody44

[theSpeare]

Yeah I can accept it. It can be considered free farming but hey, it's a 365 day wait (which is quite long at full warp anyway). Maybe someday when Squad implements some sort of part deterioration system this'll be fixed lmao

I wouldn't consider this a top issue - you should continue working on all the other features that you find more exciting/interesting. But first of all you deserve a break or something, this roll-out of new features has been both awesome and fast. Hit me up if you need ideas or suggestions for balance or something

[SchroedingersHat]

Liquid fuel: 0.4 per unit (to make airplanes less expensive than rockets)

Mono propellant: 5 per unit

Solid fuel: 1.5 per unit (solid fuel is a bit less expensive than Oxidizer, *but* you don't have to pay for engines)

Xenon: 10 per unit

Materials: 1 per kg mass (= mass of the vessel)

Oxidizer: 2 per unit (to make rockets more expensive than airplanes)

Factors for liquid engines: 1 (for liquid engines only. Formular for *one* liquid engine: (ISP(VACUUM) - 200)^2 * MAX_THRUST / 1000.0 + mass

This is for medium. Easy = 0.65 * medium. Hard = 1.5 * medium.

Firstly, awesome mod.

Secondly a suggestion/request. The fuel costs make any kind of SSTO or reusable vehicle a terrible choice.

Would it be possible to add some kind of development cost?

Set some kind of flag whenever a vessel is saved.

Whenever it is launched with Mission controller active, the flag is cleared. If the flag was set, there is some extra cost to the launch because this is a prototype.

An even more complicated (and probably unworkable) scheme would involve an individual flag for each part. It is set when the part is placed or moved in the VAB and cleared when the vessel is launched containing that part. This would further encourage reuse and standardized launch vehicles and such.

Edited June 20, 2013 by SchroedingersHat
typo

[veryinky]

I don't think it's a problem as I think of them as service contracts. I launch them under Contract VI for the 100,000k$ then when the year is up I recontract them for 55,000k$ under Contract III.

Have to pay for launches that aren't part of the mission list somehow. For example; my 100 ton lifter (2.5 orange tanks) costs 600,000 k$ while the 300 ton space station I'm sending to Duna orbit will cost is 2.7 million to launch. My deep space exploration ship "Von Braun" (crew of 5 to 9, with ioncross crew support supplies for 10 years) cost me 1.5 million to launch and I plan on launching 3 more of these to explore the entire solar system. My Laythe colonization project (which will include a large orbital fuel depot) will might run into the tens of millions.

[theSpeare]

Secondly a suggestion/request. The fuel costs make any kind of SSTO or reusable vehicle a terrible choice.

I've finished one or two launch vehicles that deorbit and land back on KSC for high recycling returns - the new fuel to engine prices is actually much better for reusable vehicles.

[FeepingCreature]

From the fact that quickload does not reset your Controller state I assume that you do not approve of the way Quicksave/Quickload currently functions. Be that as it may, it is in the game and as such it would be nice if you could support it as it is. Maybe add an option to "restore state on quickload"? Thanks.

[veryinky]

Secondly a suggestion/request. The fuel costs make any kind of SSTO or reusable vehicle a terrible choice.

Are you sure? Fuel costs in the latest version aren't much compared to the vehicle.

I've got a reusable vehicle that sends a 1.5 ton probe into near orbit (3900dV), fuel costs are under 2100k out of the 15400 of the launcher and I recycle it for 6000ish k$ when it usually lands on the continent east of KSC.

It's pretty simple too, lv-45 under a rocko-16, flat octo probe core, z-100 battery and 2 radial parachutes. Get the probe into a circular orbit, switch back to the launcher and watch it land on it's engine. Switch to the probe and complete the mission.

Would be nice to get the full cost back for a vehicle if it lands at KSC itself.

[theSpeare]

I think there should be a slight cost for the small refurbishments required on recycling the vehicle, right now I think the recycling rate is perfect.

[SchroedingersHat]

I've finished one or two launch vehicles that deorbit and land back on KSC for high recycling returns - the new fuel to engine prices is actually much better for reusable vehicles.

I think I'd messed up updating or forgotten to restart when I downloaded the new version (came here to post something along the lines of what the update is but read that there were changes) or something. The new fuel prices are far more reasonable than I thought, well done.

[nobody44]

Firstly, awesome mod.

Secondly a suggestion/request. The fuel costs make any kind of SSTO or reusable vehicle a terrible choice.

Would it be possible to add some kind of development cost?

Set some kind of flag whenever a vessel is saved.

Whenever it is launched with Mission controller active, the flag is cleared. If the flag was set, there is some extra cost to the launch because this is a prototype.

An even more complicated (and probably unworkable) scheme would involve an individual flag for each part. It is set when the part is placed or moved in the VAB and cleared when the vessel is launched containing that part. This would further encourage reuse and standardized launch vehicles and such.

I think the most expensive parts are recyclable. If you have a working SSTO (I never built one), could you give it to me so that I could test it?

About the development cost: Someone in this thread suggested a similar idea, and I am "working" on it . Working = thinking.

I don't think it's a problem as I think of them as service contracts. I launch them under Contract VI for the 100,000k$ then when the year is up I recontract them for 55,000k$ under Contract III.

Have to pay for launches that aren't part of the mission list somehow. For example; my 100 ton lifter (2.5 orange tanks) costs 600,000 k$ while the 300 ton space station I'm sending to Duna orbit will cost is 2.7 million to launch. My deep space exploration ship "Von Braun" (crew of 5 to 9, with ioncross crew support supplies for 10 years) cost me 1.5 million to launch and I plan on launching 3 more of these to explore the entire solar system. My Laythe colonization project (which will include a large orbital fuel depot) will might run into the tens of millions.

The ComSat Contract III will be removed soon, because of Contract VI. So you will have to readjust your satellites into the right orbit.

There will be missions that will include those kind of missions (with proper reward), but for now you are right.