(KSP 1.10 + 1.12 ) Mission Controller 3.2.0 (Final Version) (Updated 6/25/2021)

[Apollo13]

Continuing discussion on the Satellite Repair bug. Although I have a persistent.sfs file of the mission, I do not have the MCE savegame. Here are some screenshots of the mission:

1. Showing the contract has all parts completed, except repair

2. Repair parts loaded to MC Panel

3. EVA, ready to repair

4. Parts were consumed during repair

However, no MCE dialog popped-up to say mission complete. The MCE mission description still appeared like the first image. This was all done in one session: from launch to repair without even a quicksave.

[amo28]

For anyone else struggling with the high prices of jet engines when using AJE, I've discovered a solution that I hadn't seen mentioned here.

In the MCSettings.cfg file, you need to add Kerosene to the list of propellants under the ModuleEngines or ModuleEnginesFX section -- otherwise MissionController will treat the jet engines as nuclear engines and apply pricing accordingly.

I say ModuleEngines or ModuleEnginesFX based on whether or not you're using ModuleEnginesFX or HotRockets or any of those mods that convert that module.

Since I use HotRockets, my MCSettings.cfg looks like this:

                ModuleEnginesFX
		{
			//special handling
			atmoRatio = 0.2
			ispOffset = 200
			power = 2
			scalar = 0.001
			gimbalFactor = 0.2

			// list propellants here, and what multiplier to apply if the engine uses them
			// (cumulative)
			[B]Kerosene = 0.05[/B]
			IntakeAir = 0.05
			KIntakeAir = 0.07
			FSCoolant = 0.06
			SolidFuel = 0.05
			XenonGas = 1.0
			LqdMethane = 0.4
			Aluminium = 0.3			

			// if no propellant in above list found, and if IspV > 800  and V< 1999 The Nuke Mult Is applied, over 4999 and handed off to futureEngines.
			nukeMult = .9
			//This value is for Future type engines were ISP is over 2000.  Figure best way to handle this situation nomrmal engines usually don't go this high, but if they do can cause low cost
			//In engines that are only 1001-2000 ISP.
			futureEngines = .0007

			// end special handling
			effScalar = 0.00025
			effPower = 0.25

			costAdd = 50
			costMult = 0.5
		}

This brought my AJE modified jet engines from about 600,000 to about 20,000.

Also, I noticed a few requests for RSS Missions. I've made a starter mission package for myself that I think fits the bill, though I haven't tested each one.

Send me a PM if something doesn't work or you'd like to see a mission added. Download here.

[malkuth]

Continuing discussion on the Satellite Repair bug. Although I have a persistent.sfs file of the mission, I do not have the MCE savegame. Here are some screenshots of the mission:

1. Showing the contract has all parts completed, except repair

http://i.imgur.com/heL15vR.png

2. Repair parts loaded to MC Panel

http://i.imgur.com/rlipEkb.png

3. EVA, ready to repair

http://i.imgur.com/R3ttdAl.png

4. Parts were consumed during repair

http://i.imgur.com/68rFIGe.png

However, no MCE dialog popped-up to say mission complete. The MCE mission description still appeared like the first image. This was all done in one session: from launch to repair without even a quicksave.

Hmmm, when I get some time I will check it out.

[malkuth]

Oh in such a goofball I think I know why the repair mission broke. When your on Eva do you get the Eva warning about not able to finish mission?

The last update I added the double payment for Eva fix, and did not write an exception for repair goal.

For a quick fix you can add this to the contract.cfg file that stores all base missions for contracts.

evaNotAllowed = false

You add this right to the repair goal brackets inside.

Not home right now to fix this so not much I can do. And it's a pain to type on phone.

[PTNLemay]

I noticed that in the game you can research tech specific to the mod, but it doesn't give a clear description of what those techs do... I can guess what vehicle recycling and efficient fuels do, but what are Construction 1 and Construction 2? Do you have a detailed MC tech tree posted somewhere?

Also, sorry if I'm missing something terribly obvious but... what's the difference between contracts and missions? They seem to generally be the same thing at first glance.

[malkuth]

With research there is an a description built in to research tree. If yoy look all way to end you should see an "i" press that and you get description.

Mission are pre defined set objectives.

Contracts are completely random generated missions more in line of what we are going to get in ksp .24.

Also with missions you can select what you want when you want. Contracts are only available when a company offers you one. Again random.

[Apollo13]

When your on Eva do you get the Eva warning about not able to finish mission?

I receive no warning or error message.

For a quick fix you can add this to the contract.cfg file that stores all base missions for contracts.

evaNotAllowed = false

You add this right to the repair goal brackets inside.

I'll give this a try. Thanks

EDIT: I just determined I am not using the latest version (0.69); I'm using 0.68. So, the EVA double-payment fix would not apply. I'll try 0.69 as well.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Apollo13

[malkuth]

Dev Update # 2 (for Testing a Pre Release)

For all interested I updated the Dev Version that I released a a few days ago with the Fix to repairMissions mentioned above, this is a direct fix to the mission and does not require you to edit any mission files. Any current mission files edited will not be effected by this change, so its safe to keep them this way.

This also includes the Apollo style mission addition released in Dev Update #1.

Download .Dll to replace Old MCE .dll

[UAL002]

I just did an orbital research contract that was supposed to last "1 day" I had assumed a 6 hr kerbal day but it was in fact 24 hours. Is there a way to make this more clear? Just make it say 24hrs maybe? or convert to kerbal time?

PRE Dev version mind you.

[malkuth]

I just did an orbital research contract that was supposed to last "1 day" I had assumed a 6 hr kerbal day but it was in fact 24 hours. Is there a way to make this more clear? Just make it say 24hrs maybe? or convert to kerbal time?

PRE Dev version mind you.

Pretty sure the actual countdown that is on the mission is realtime. I will see what I can do though.

[UAL002]

And obviously I should state that my game was set for kerbal time.

[malkuth]

And obviously I should state that my game was set for kerbal time.

It's ok, I think when .23 came out I started experimenting with the times, and then forgot about it. The countdown time is realtime though and will make it more clear in future.

[Apollo13]

Continuing the Repair Mission bug discussion: I used vers 0.69. I made the change to MCcontracts.cfg. I received no error message during EVA.

MCE still failed to indicate the mission/contract was completed.

Here are the KSP and MCE savegames. The satellite to repair is Satellite Repair Target 3.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6pyr4gvioyp7jdt/MCE_Career.zip

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qb4qgyhe3c2qh5u/Rick%20career%20%28CAREER%29.sp

And, I previously mentioned; this is a small thing. After I complete the mission, I manually update my money and science values in the respective files. Secondly, with the advent of KSP 0.24, this issue goes away, because you're removing these missions from MCE.

Again, thanks for a great mod that truly enhances gameplay. Hopefully KSP 0.24 Career wll live up to these standards.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Apollo13

[Dunbaratu]

Wold it be possible to weigh the duration of the orbital probe contract missions such that they tend to shorten the duration if the body being orbited is small?

When it's a mission to orbit a tiny moon like Bop, with a small sphere of influence, the game's time limit max cap at those low altitudes makes it really slow to try to time warp through 5 days of wait.

[Apollo13]

Wold it be possible to weigh the duration of the orbital probe contract missions such that they tend to shorten the duration if the body being orbited is small?

When it's a mission to orbit a tiny moon like Bop, with a small sphere of influence, the game's time limit max cap at those low altitudes makes it really slow to try to time warp through 5 days of wait.

Set your Kerbal Alarm Clock for 5 days. Then, go to Space Center and 10k/100k time warp. At end of 5 days, go to Tracking Center, and "fly" your mission. Your five days will have passed and you'll get paid.

If you don't user KAC, then just time warp for the five days at the Space Center. As you know, vers. 0.23.5 provides time warping from the Center.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Apollo13

[malkuth]

Continuing the Repair Mission bug discussion: I used vers 0.69. I made the change to MCcontracts.cfg. I received no error message during EVA.

MCE still failed to indicate the mission/contract was completed.

Here are the KSP and MCE savegames. The satellite to repair is Satellite Repair Target 3.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6pyr4gvioyp7jdt/MCE_Career.zip

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qb4qgyhe3c2qh5u/Rick%20career%20%28CAREER%29.sp

And, I previously mentioned; this is a small thing. After I complete the mission, I manually update my money and science values in the respective files. Secondly, with the advent of KSP 0.24, this issue goes away, because you're removing these missions from MCE.

Again, thanks for a great mod that truly enhances gameplay. Hopefully KSP 0.24 Career wll live up to these standards.

Have you tried the new dev version. I actually did a successful repair mission in that and got paid with the changes I made.

[Dunbaratu]

Set your Kerbal Alarm Clock for 5 days. Then, go to Space Center and 10k/100k time warp. At end of 5 days, go to Tracking Center, and "fly" your mission. Your five days will have passed and you'll get paid.

If you don't user KAC, then just time warp for the five days at the Space Center. As you know, vers. 0.23.5 provides time warping from the Center.

I've been burned enough times with MCE failing to recognize that I'm still on the same mission when I leave the craft and return to it that I'm always afraid now to try going to the tracking center as it will "forget" that it's the same craft as the one that started the mission when I return to it.

[malkuth]

Version .70 Released

1. Changes: Fixed an issue with Multi Vessel landings. In the old way MCE worked you could not really do Apollo style landings very well because MCE tracks mission completed goals with Vessel ID's. If you did Mission objectives with a Command Vessel, then separated a separate landing vessel to do the landing, MCE would not accept goal, because the Landing vessel has a different ID then the Command Vessel. This update fixes the issue, you now have a new option in Settings that allows you to turn Off and On the new Multi Vessel Landings. It comes with a price though and is the reason you can select it in settings. If you have Multi Vessel landings set to TRUE, then while you land its important not to switch to a new vessel that is already landed. If you do, you will get an instant Mission Objective complete. If you don't plan on doing Multi Vessel landings keep setting set to False.

2. Fixed an issue with the Repair Goal not working. Last update I added a EVA check and forgot to include the Check for repair goals. This resulted in not being able to do Repair Missions.

3. Added new descriptions for Settings options. Press the i key to see what that option does. Does not include the cheat menu options... sorry. lol.

With this update I will discontinue the download for the Dev Test Version .dll. For those that have the Test Version of .dll the .70 adds the ability to select Multi Vessel Landings in Settings. And some minor other changes.

thanks everyone. Keep reporting anything you find, If I can get MCE stable before .24 comes out.. Will help a lot with that update! The reason I want to keep fixing mission problems is that I'm thinking of keeping a Classic MCE missions setting in .24 and beyond. Maybe.. Not sure.

[malkuth]

I've been burned enough times with MCE failing to recognize that I'm still on the same mission when I leave the craft and return to it that I'm always afraid now to try going to the tracking center as it will "forget" that it's the same craft as the one that started the mission when I return to it.

The only time that should happen now is if mission has a docking mission or EVA mission and in that case those objective have to be already done. If they are next in line then no effect since they are not done yet. All other objectives are saved to your .sp with Vessel ID intact. Even the new update .70 the Mission Objective is saved to current playing Mission, even though it skips vessel IDs with landing goals if you have Multi Landing Vessel set to true.

You should have 0 issues when doing that during a Obital Research mission objective. It's how I tested the Time Saving feature that was added many versions ago for you could do this very thing.

the only exception to this is the BootLeg missions. These are not my missions and I'm removing them from MCE soon. Most the missions I wrote are very Friendly in these terms. Including all contract missions are perfectly safe!

Edited June 10, 2014 by malkuth

[Dunbaratu]

The only time that should happen now is if mission has a docking mission or EVA mission and in that case those objective have to be already done. If they are next in line then no effect since they are not done yet. All other objectives are saved to your .sp with Vessel ID intact. Even the new update .70 the Mission Objective is saved to current playing Mission, even though it skips vessel IDs with landing goals if you have Multi Landing Vessel set to true.

You should have 0 issues when doing that during a Obital Research mission objective. It's how I tested the Time Saving feature that was added many versions ago for you could do this very thing.

the only exception to this is the BootLeg missions. These are not my missions and I'm removing them from MCE soon. Most the missions I wrote are very Friendly in these terms. Including all contract missions are perfectly safe!

Thanks. I'll be giving 0.70 a try probably later today. I hope it will be compatible with an existing save game and not require that I start over.

[malkuth]

Thanks. I'll be giving 0.70 a try probably later today. I hope it will be compatible with an existing save game and not require that I start over.

Never. its only a .dll change. I been playing the same game since version .60

[Dunbaratu]

As a general design idea for the future, what do you think of this idea for a different way to do the prerequsite system? (I realize this would be a big change but I'm talking about pie-in-the-sky future ideas here).

Right now, if mission B requires mission A as a prerequisite, then you MUST perform exactly mission A, even though there may be other missions that provide similar experience. This makes it so that if person A designs a series of missions in a pack, and person B designs a series of missions in a pack, then you pretty much have to stay on one mission pack's path or the other mission pack's path and can't easily mix and match them.

If mission pack A has a few "orbit minmus, crash into minmus, land on minmus, land on minmus and return to kerbin" missions, and mission pack B has similar missions, mission pack B is unaware of the fact that you've already done a lot with minmus in mission pack A. It still requires you to do all of mission pack B's minmus missions to fufill the requirements because it doesn't know what you did in mission pack A.

What I'm proposing is a change where the prerequisites of a mission are NOT "did you complete the exact mission named foo", but rather "did you accomplish the following mission goals before?" followed by, for example, a minmus orbitgoal, a minmus landininggoal, and so on.

That would make it easier for different people to submit different missions to a large pile of interoperable mix-n-match missions. The idea would be that instead of just tracking "did you perform a mission with this name before?", the game would track the mission sub-goals that were accomplished as part of the mission. "you've done an orbitgoal with body=Mun and a nocrewgoal." "You've done an orbitgoal with body=kerbin and min periapsis=80,000 and max excentricity=0.01"... and so on.

Then people who want their missions to have prerequisites could put in prerequisite queries that don't name specific missions but instead name mission goal queries that have to find a match in the campaign save's history somewhere, for example, "to perform this mission, you must first have completed an orbitgoal with body=Mun, max apoapsis < 60000, and at least one crew member.".

[guto8797]

Hello! I keep close tabs on this mod, and i just want to ask two things:

-How does the mod fare right now with reverting missions, quicksaves, KerbalConstructionTimer?

-Are you planning (and i hope so), to keep this mod active after 0.24, as an improvement over eventual gaps left by squad?

Thank you in advance

[malkuth]

Hello! I keep close tabs on this mod, and i just want to ask two things:

-How does the mod fare right now with reverting missions, quicksaves, KerbalConstructionTimer?

-Are you planning (and i hope so), to keep this mod active after 0.24, as an improvement over eventual gaps left by squad?

Thank you in advance

Ksp has its own revert button, and believe magico added fuction to work with MCE revert button KerbalContstructinTime.

Yes I will support MCE after .24. What that will bring changes in my mind every single day. LOL. Only time will tell. But most likely will be more additions to the economy and adding my own versions of KSP Contracts using the new .24 system. I hope I can convert most of my custom missions like repair and Orbital research to the new .24 system.. Should be able to since these are just Part Modules that are made to work with MCE system.

I have already plans on adding 2 new part modules for future missions. Still rough ideas but 1 is a Science Module for station that will bring in science over time. Pretty simple model of x amount of new resource will convert to Science. And you can keep suppling the station module with supply missions.

2nd one is to introduce some sort of Money making Station Module that might have to do with space Tourism. So like science.. Be bring x amount tourist (most likely a resource) to station for x amount time, gain money somehow.

Also coming up with an idea to expand the Kerbal Hire system by adding the Training system I always wanted. So example would be only pilot can fly Pod, only commander can command 2+ man pod. Pilot would require a certain amount missions to qualify, then a Pilot upgrade to make pilot (money). Command same idea.. More mission and more money.

I already have idea on how to disable rockets that don't meet requirement for you can't launch without having pilot, or commander in 2+ man pods.

This would make your kerbals even more valuable.. And losing one, say a commander would be painful.

The idea is that Jeb starts as commander, and bill and bod are just pilots. After that everyone you hire is Trainee and has to be upgraded.

Edited June 10, 2014 by malkuth

[malkuth]

As a general design idea for the future, what do you think of this idea for a different way to do the prerequsite system? (I realize this would be a big change but I'm talking about pie-in-the-sky future ideas here).

Right now, if mission B requires mission A as a prerequisite, then you MUST perform exactly mission A, even though there may be other missions that provide similar experience. This makes it so that if person A designs a series of missions in a pack, and person B designs a series of missions in a pack, then you pretty much have to stay on one mission pack's path or the other mission pack's path and can't easily mix and match them.

If mission pack A has a few "orbit minmus, crash into minmus, land on minmus, land on minmus and return to kerbin" missions, and mission pack B has similar missions, mission pack B is unaware of the fact that you've already done a lot with minmus in mission pack A. It still requires you to do all of mission pack B's minmus missions to fufill the requirements because it doesn't know what you did in mission pack A.

What I'm proposing is a change where the prerequisites of a mission are NOT "did you complete the exact mission named foo", but rather "did you accomplish the following mission goals before?" followed by, for example, a minmus orbitgoal, a minmus landininggoal, and so on.

That would make it easier for different people to submit different missions to a large pile of interoperable mix-n-match missions. The idea would be that instead of just tracking "did you perform a mission with this name before?", the game would track the mission sub-goals that were accomplished as part of the mission. "you've done an orbitgoal with body=Mun and a nocrewgoal." "You've done an orbitgoal with body=kerbin and min periapsis=80,000 and max excentricity=0.01"... and so on.

Then people who want their missions to have prerequisites could put in prerequisite queries that don't name specific missions but instead name mission goal queries that have to find a match in the campaign save's history somewhere, for example, "to perform this mission, you must first have completed an orbitgoal with body=Mun, max apoapsis < 60000, and at least one crew member.".

I'm still up in the air If Im going to keep the mission system once .24 comes out. Again it changes everytime in my head what I want lol. I was thinking of maybe keeping them alive by having a classic MCE mission system.

But the real plan is to make mission using the new contract system in KSP .24. And convert most of my custom missions that use Part Modules to the ksp contract system.

I also might just take MCE .70 and convert it to work for KSP .24 Sandbox only!

Then continue on with a gutted MCE with new ideas for .24 Career mode. That way people can play the old MCE if they wish in sandbox still.

I guess I should be asking what everyone else would like? I know a lot of people use MCE only in sandbox.

Edited June 10, 2014 by malkuth