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

[Hades]

Don't know whether it's something on my side, but insurance costs don't get subtracted from my budget when I launch(I do however get the insurance money I set in the settings "back" when I recover the capsule with kerbals in it). I'm using the .18 release. Apart from that, sometimes when a rocket is not supported by a clamp and is not stable on the ground when loaded to launch, Mission Controller doesn't charge me the cost of the rocket. I experienced it when I put procedural wings on the base of my rocket with the wings extending below the engine(so it basically stood on the wings).

Anyways, thanks for the mod. While the costs can be a bit wonky(especially with mod parts, for example the B9 sabre engines), it made me design my rockets more carefully. I'm having quite a lot of fun.

[Ratzap]

And yes oxidizer is expensive. Very expensive in fact. Not 10 times though.

All I can do is report what I see when I build something. Tanks have capacity for both in the correct amounts, it's not like I have tanks full of just oxidizer. So when it says 9k for fuel and 91k for oxidizer, all I can say is it's 10x more.

[malkuth]

All I can do is report what I see when I build something. Tanks have capacity for both in the correct amounts, it's not like I have tanks full of just oxidizer. So when it says 9k for fuel and 91k for oxidizer, all I can say is it's 10x more.

Yup completely understand what your trying to say.. But let me try to help with some of the numbers that MC does.

In the game in the fuel tanks the amount of Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer is not a 1 to 1 basis.. There is always more Oxidizer then liquid fuel.. For instance a RockoMax X-200 Fuel tank has Liquid Fuel of 1440 and Oxidizer of 1760. Now for the math.

Liquid Fuel Is Calculated at multiplier of 0.7 and oxidizer has Multiplier of 6 so Basically Multiplier * Amount in this case .7 * 1440 and 6 * 1760. Will give you the cost.. Not including the cost of the tank which is 220.

The multipliers have never been touched since I started working on MC.. Its the way Nobody had it set up. At first I didn't like it either.. But it soon has grown on me and I have left it alone. Not saying that we won't adjust it eventually though.

Nathan has redone how parts are calculated but I still believe that fuels use the standard old way of calculations.

I know its expensive and doesn't seem right.. But I adressed this problem before I started and the consensus was to leave it alone for now. (not everyone, but most) So Thats what I choose to do.

Nathan did manage it most situations to make it for the actual part cost is more then Fuel.. (not by much) But I have still found that in situatuions were your bringing a lot of fuel into space that still might end up being fuel is more expensive.. which makes sense really since most of these are fuel trips to Stations..

[malkuth]

I suggest everyone sets Kerbal Insurance to 0 for now. Im trying to figure out why this is not working correct.

[malkuth]

New Version Out This one has the fix for the Insurance Not being Charged and some other minor fixes.

Changes In .18.1

1. Fixed Kerbal Insurance not being Charged on launch. (thanks Nathan)

2. Fixed Some Decimal Issues and Rounded off the Orbits. (orbits Only)

3. Fixed the Civilian Space Program Missions Governments Contracts. Medium, heavy. Passive Missions should now show up.

4. Increased the Payouts in a few of the Civilian Space Program Missions including the Government Ones.

[Ratzap]

Thanks for the explanation. Really all it is is a set of numbers and basically just means that payload weight should be a deciding factor in deciding how much payout a mission gives right? Fuel/Oxy being one of the larger factors, the more you have to heave up, the higher the payout needs to be to cover it.

That said there may be cases where Ion drives would be much more cost effective, I'll need to think about that when designing.

[merchant_mariner]

Great work on the mod, its amazing to see how quickly you're adding new features. When you update to a new version though, could you add a link to the release notes on the first page?

[malkuth]

Great work on the mod, its amazing to see how quickly you're adding new features. When you update to a new version though, could you add a link to the release notes on the first page?

Yup. I made the Text A Little bigger for it doesn't get so lost.. But I usually put the release notes in a Code Tag on the first page. Made it a little bigger now for you can find it a little easier.. I know the first page is kinda busy.. Maybe I should trim it up a little bit?

[malkuth]

So a question to everyone. What do you think about making the Config Button only available in the Space Center Overview Screen? I'm trying to think of ways of cleaning up the main window. What about making the Package selection button also only available in Overview? That would make it for you can only select missions in the overview.. (thinking that might be to annoying)

I could try some other type of buttons for them to If need be.. Hmmm.

[Ratzap]

For me, missions from launchpad or space center and the config from launchpad or space center are the places that matter. Test flights then flip to normal when relatively confident it'll work.

[Ph34rb0t]

So a question to everyone. What do you think about making the Config Button only available in the Space Center Overview Screen? I'm trying to think of ways of cleaning up the main window. What about making the Package selection button also only available in Overview? That would make it for you can only select missions in the overview.. (thinking that might be to annoying)

I could try some other type of buttons for them to If need be.. Hmmm.

Well, here's a suggestion for a complete revamp (a bit over the top maybe):

Do away with the introduction and description texts after a mission is made active and only display any goals needed to fulfill (and autohide finished major goals). The only button should be a "Cancel"/"Finish" button.

In VAB, display only mission and spaceship parameters (cost!).

Have a popup list all expenses and incomes after cancelling or finishing a mission.

Also, I'd modify the mission selection process. When no package is active, begin by offering the user a package selection screen. When a package is active, display the currently available missions (maybe divided into "Completed"/"Repeatable"/"Available") and have a button to change the complete package.

In space-center view, you could offer the real deal like current stats or maybe a quick toggle between mission and flight test mode, etc...

Complex answers for simple questions, lol

[Snillum101]

Well, here's a suggestion for a complete revamp (a bit over the top maybe):

Do away with the introduction and description texts after a mission is made active and only display any goals needed to fulfill (and autohide finished major goals). The only button should be a "Cancel"/"Finish" button.

In VAB, display only mission and spaceship parameters (cost!).

Have a popup list all expenses and incomes after cancelling or finishing a mission.

Also, I'd modify the mission selection process. When no package is active, begin by offering the user a package selection screen. When a package is active, display the currently available missions (maybe divided into "Completed"/"Repeatable"/"Available") and have a button to change the complete package.

In space-center view, you could offer the real deal like current stats or maybe a quick toggle between mission and flight test mode, etc...

Complex answers for simple questions, lol

I definitely like the sound of the popup box detailing profit/loss at the end of a mission. If possible this should be made to include income from recycled vehicles as well.

[Ratzap]

I'm repeating the missions with remote tech and deadly reentry at the moment, one thing I just noticed is the only way to make Kerbolo II pay more than the vehicle costs is to 'cheat' and boost like crazy before you lose contact. Putting a 0.5 or 1 tonne sat antenna on it just makes it cost a fortune in fuel to get out of the Suns SoI.

[Snillum101]

Hi guys I wonder if anyone could offer any advice. I'm designing a mission that requires you to land a rover on the Mun. I want the player to land at certain coordinates and then drive the rover a little ways to some different coordinates to complete the mission. Do you think that a second landing goal would work for the driving objective? just with different x y coordinates?

I realise that other people may have created similar missions in their mission packs that I could look at, but I'm trying to not get tempted to follow someone else's style or plan

[HoneyFox]

Hi, i come to ask if it's possible for you malkuth to provide some interface for other mods to interact. Like some interface of Get/SetAdditionalCost(int value), GetTotalCost() ... etc. so that other mods can acquire the Mission Controller's instance (maybe it's a singleton?) and then call the interface to get the total cost of a rocket / set the additional cost value. Thus other mods can have more complicated/dedicated calculation of the money you pay for this rocket.

[NathanKell]

Honeyfox, nobody44 was (is) apparently working on just that.

Snillum101, that sounds like it would work.

[Ratzap]

Costs for jet engines are huge atm, like 30,000 to 220,000 each. They really need a mark down to something realistic, they are good for Kerbin boost in packs then rocket from 35km or so but can't use them in missions at that price

[Neowulf]

May I make a suggestion? "Data" as a resource and mission objective.

A new part, the Data Aggregation Node (DAN), a dedicated sensor processor and scientific relay. It collects information from active sensors to create Data, and sends that data back to mission control using an antenna.

To use it you build a craft with atleast one sensor of some sort, an antenna, and a DAN (in addition to the normal command, manuvering, and power generation). When on the target body you activate your sensors and start data collection on the DAN, which will generate data at a rate based on the number and type of sensors active on the vessel. Then deploy an antenna and begin transmitting the data back to mission control, at a rate based on the size of the largest active antenna and the range to mission control. To accommodate differences in data generation and use, and possible power constraints preventing sending data as it is generated (both generating and sending data requires a lot of power), the DAN contains a data storage buffer (possibly add a battery-like buffer addon part).

Sensors from mod parts could be determined by reading the module definitions of a part, picking out all the stock sensor types plus any mod sensors like kethane-based ones, cameras, and even lazor systems. Some sensors (like cameras) would be useful in multiples, but with some (like temp, pressure, and gravity) you would only get duplicate data so multiples would be worthless.

As a mission objective it could be setup that a certain amount of data must be sent from the surface or orbit of a certain body, maybe even add target coordinates and a range so the explorer vessel must be within a certain range of a target point for the data sent to be counted. And constraints on the sensors used could be added, like needing the full suite of stock sensors active for sent data to count or only cameras can be active while the data is sent.

Yes it allows someone to game the system to a degree by generating data quickly with a bunch of sensors then shutting down all but the required one when sending, but the data buffer should be small enough to prevent that to a degree.

This also allows for generic repeatable "Get X kerbytes of <sensor> data from <location/orbit height> on <planet/moon>." missions, so a well designed rover could be reused to generate an occasional influx of cash by getting more data, without incurring launch expenses.

[Snillum101]

Honeyfox, nobody44 was (is) apparently working on just that.

Snillum101, that sounds like it would work.

Great thanks.

[ryebred]

I am having a problem with this mod. I first started doing the stock missions and it worked well until I started getting toward the end of the mission list and then I would complete all objectives but would not get the finish mission button. I noticed there was an update earlier this week so I deleted the mod directory and installed the latest version. Then I tried to do the first commercialization of space mission and docked with my space station with two kerbals aboard and returned to kerbin and all goals were marked as completed but again, I am not getting the button to complete the mission. I tried deleting the directory again and reinstalling but once again I am unable to complete the first mission. Any idea what is going on here and how to fix it?

[HoneyFox]

Honeyfox, nobody44 was (is) apparently working on just that.

Snillum101, that sounds like it would work.

Oh, that would be great. Thanks.

[Leonon]

Costs for jet engines are huge atm, like 30,000 to 220,000 each. They really need a mark down to something realistic, they are good for Kerbin boost in packs then rocket from 35km or so but can't use them in missions at that price

The trick is to make the jet stage recoverable every time. Here's how my launches typically go.

(Mods Used)

Deadly Reentry 2.3

Engineer-Redux-v0.6.1.1

ISA MapSatX4r1

Mechjeb2-2.0.9.0

Mission Controller Extended 0.18.1

ScaledSpaceDumper.dll (fix for ISA MapSat)

RemoteTech1 0.5.0.1

RemoteTech Probe Compatibility

Mechjeb controls where the craft is pointed, I control everything else.

\/Those thumbnails are links. Click them to see my wonderfully cluttered interface with lots of information.\/

There's the whole thing in the VAB. The stack design is slightly more dV efficient than traditional asparagus staging and reduces drag. There's a 48-7S engine with a cubic octagonal strut on it for the rocket stage. More realistically you could use 24-77 engines hooked to the sides.

This is the highest temperature any part got on this particular launch.

Here it is just after it left the atmosphere. I stuck to 5 degree pitch from about 25km to get the apoapsis up that high. This means the rocket stage loses no dV to drag and gives me plenty of time to control the jet stage after I decouple at apoapsis.

After decoupling and getting the rocket stage's periapsis above atmosphere I'm free to controll the jet stage's reentry and landing.

On this reentry I burned retrograde to slow sideways movement and get it to land where I wanted. I use ISA MapSat to make sure the jet stage lands instead of splashes down when it's coming down on the night side. It usually has enough fuel left to fly to land if it needs to.

After recovering the jet stage this particular launch only cost 13557 Kerbucks. The orbiting rocket stage has enough dV to do just about any mission, though this particular launch is missing some parts required for some missions.

I'm repeating the missions with remote tech and deadly reentry at the moment, one thing I just noticed is the only way to make Kerbolo II pay more than the vehicle costs is to 'cheat' and boost like crazy before you lose contact. Putting a 0.5 or 1 tonne sat antenna on it just makes it cost a fortune in fuel to get out of the Suns SoI.

Kerbolo II is definitely not balanced properly to match other missions. It should be around 150000 Kerbucks like the Duna mission since they have fairly similar dV and part requirements.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Leonon

[Ratzap]

Nice one Leonon, I simply didn't even think of landing/recovering the jet stage. I'll ask you since you use jets, is there any reason to flameouts? I've tried adding or removing intakes, various throttle settings, complete shutdown and restart etc. I know they will flameout at altitude anyway due to lack of oxygen but the altitude it happens at isn't consistent.

[p1t1o]

Costs for jet engines are huge atm, like 30,000 to 220,000 each. They really need a mark down to something realistic, they are good for Kerbin boost in packs then rocket from 35km or so but can't use them in missions at that price

The trick is to make the jet stage recoverable every time. Here's how my launches typically go.

I agree, the price of jets should be adjusted, even with TOTAL recovery, you only get 85% back. If you dare to use a single SABRE-M (costs over 1.2million...) that means it will cost you upwards of 200K at least!!

I know the SABRE is a super awesome engine, but for that price I can launch a fleet of boring disposable rockets. Flying and recovering spaceplanes is fun, but THE RENT IS TOO DANG HIGH!!

[Leonon]

Nice one Leonon, I simply didn't even think of landing/recovering the jet stage. I'll ask you since you use jets, is there any reason to flameouts? I've tried adding or removing intakes, various throttle settings, complete shutdown and restart etc. I know they will flameout at altitude anyway due to lack of oxygen but the altitude it happens at isn't consistent.

More intakes and more speed helps. My craft's jet stage has 8 ram intakes on the side attached to cubic octagonal struts. Lowering your throttle makes the engines take less air to run, though very high up it becomes pretty much impossible to manually get the throttle in the tiny sweet spot between "throttle off" and "flame out". Being pointed closer to the direction you're moving also helps.

Mechjeb can handle auto throttling to prevent flame outs and I'd suggest using it since it can handle the fine throttle control all the way out of atmosphere. If you're not using MechJeb keep the throttle open all the way until you flame out. After flaming out right click the engine to see its status and lower throttle until it starts back up, then move the throttle up a little. Keep flaming out, restarting, and adding a little throttle until you can't get it to start back up. It's possible to keep raising your orbit with jet engines all the way out of atmosphere with Mechjeb but even without it you can keep your orbit from degrading until you're so high that drag isn't going to slow you down very much. Around 60km is how high you should get before you stop using the jet. If you're using more than one jet engine this method won't work though since you'll end up spinning out when one engine flame outs before another.

I just tried launching my craft completely without Mechjeb and managed to get it to orbit using 17.6 more seconds of fuel than my launch above.

Also, note that my craft's winglets are set so they hit the ground instead of the engine. If the engine is landed on it tends to break off. You can still recover the broken off engine, but if you land on it hard enough it will explode and be unrecoverable.