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

[Ratzap]

Version Updated Mission Controller Extended V 0.20.2

1. Added a fix from Majir's For KSPADDON. Since MC now uses KSPADDON it could of caused incompatibility with other mods using the same start up.. With Majirs fix this stops that from happening.

Do you happen to remember where you got that or saw it? I'm in the middle of writing a plugin based on KSPADDON...

[malkuth]

Do you happen to remember where you got that or saw it? I'm in the middle of writing a plugin based on KSPADDON...

Here you go.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/45107-KSPAddon-bug-causes-mod-incompatibilities

[CreationMe]

Testing this mod now with a friend and for some apparent reason it charges me absurd amount of money. 3 times my total craft costs for example. Is there something I am doing wrong? or is this a bug or something? I am playing the NTSpaceProgram missions. Any help would be really appreciated =]. Or is this fixed by the update? Seriously downloaded it shortly before the update

[malkuth]

Testing this mod now with a friend and for some apparent reason it charges me absurd amount of money. 3 times my total craft costs for example. Is there something I am doing wrong? or is this a bug or something? I am playing the NTSpaceProgram missions. Any help would be really appreciated =]. Or is this fixed by the update? Seriously downloaded it shortly before the update

It matters what you have kerbal insurance set to.. If you have crewed vessels you get charged the extra money for kerbal insurnace per kerbal.. So if its set to 10,000 you will be charged 10,000 X amount of kerbals.. .. You can set this to 0 in the kerbalnaugt window.

[Mecha Pants]

Is it a Manned mission? It could be that it's charging you crew fees, I think the default is something like 50k per crew member.

Edit: Ninja'd!

[malkuth]

Is it a Manned mission? It could be that it's charging you crew fees, I think the default is something like 50k per crew member.

Edit: Ninja'd!

Default is 20,000.

[CreationMe]

Mmmm quotation doesn't seem to work for now. Anyway, it was a non manned flight. However, after I updated it I haven't experienced it yet. I only tested it for 20 min so I can't really tell if it's fixed. I'll report back whenever it occurs again.

[NathanKell]

DoctorJon, while I eventually plan to put all constants in a config file for easy tweaking, for now you can grab the source, go to MissionControllerCalcs.cs, and change the coefficients at the bottom of the file, then recompile.

But yes, considering that capsules have (almost!) never been reused, and the shuttle has to be so refurbished as to defy imagination after each flight (and that's a land landing!)....the recycle costs are pretty generous by RL standards. But, true, this isn't RL.

[Ratzap]

Here you go.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/45107-KSPAddon-bug-causes-mod-incompatibilities

Thanks, I wondered why KSPClock was disappearing.

[Energywelder]

Hi, I love this mod, but it seems to me that no matter what setting, it is always on "hard", I never seem to be able to keep costs down to anything reasonable, for instance, I just tried sputnik II (which in real life was the Russians launching a dog into space) and I had 20k worth of parts, but 28k worth of fuel? Nuh-uh, that formula needs to be adjusted. And when I got to the apoapsis to burn, I discovered my probe module had run through all of it's electricity and could not turn to face prograde, and when I went to restart the flight, I got deducted another 48k? I was suddenly down to 300$ and absolutely screwed. And then when I went to go back to VAB, I didn't have the money to launch. Something needs to be adjusted. Could test mode be "Easy mode" and just tune up the prices to 4x what they are now, so a test doesn't cost 2.5k but 10? And then normal is reduced by half to 20k a launch (and doesn't bankrupt you) and then idk what to do with hard, some people are masochists that way, LOL.

BTW: Cheat, launch in test mode, and right before touchdown, switch to real mode and get paid

[NathanKell]

Post a picture of your rocket. Sounds like you're massively overengineering things.

[Senshi]

I love that you continue working on this great and most awesome mod.

I encountered an issue when using Firespitter's propeller mod: Every one of his engines that uses electrical charge is associated with an obscenely high cost (in the multi-billions). I'm not sure if this is supposed to prohibit electrical propulsion entirely (I doubt it, why would you want to limit that) or it's the new resource those engines use (FSCoolant). I assume it's the latter, and probably being an undefined resource it apparently gets associated with ridiculous/infinite costs instead of zero.

If my assumption is true: How can I define resource/fuel costs on my own? It looks like that is hardcoded right now. Would it be possible to extract those costs into a .txt file to make it easier to customize?

[NathanKell]

What's their Isp? Pretty sure that's why. It's nothing to do with resources.

It's probably because they have jet-like Isp, but don't use IntakeAir, which is how I detect jets.

(I use nobody44's engine cost code, which is, roughly, (Isp-200) squared, times thrust. So high Isp = massive cost.)

Per above posts, I do plan on exporting all cost constants to CFG so you can edit them, yes.

[Senshi]

You are spot on: The E-engines have ISP valuse of 3000/3000 - 3500/3500, whereas all the "liquid" engines have common jet values in the area of 2000/500.

A regular liquid prop engine costs 670K. ISP atmo: 2000, vacuum: 500. Thrust: 45.

An electric prop engine costs 5.216.774K. ISP atmo: 3000, vacuum: 3000. Thrust: 50.

And yes, they do not use IntakeAir. Their intake resource is "FSCoolant" which is very similar to regular IntakeAir. It simulates the cooling effect of the airstream: No cooling -> electric engine overheats and fails.

Sorry I missed your comment regarding the cfg export, even if it's just four posts above me. Stupid me.

Keep up the good work! The campaign still is fairly easy as long as every launch goes ahead as planned, but a single mishap now puts a proper dent into the space program. Also, the costs for parts seem mostly plausible, I catch myself tinkering a lot more in the VAB/SHP trying to optimize costs vs "comfort" and safety.

One thing confused me, though: Why is the OKTO-2 command pod almost twice as expensive as the regular OKTO and HECS ones, despite being smaller and lighter? Currently the tiny OKTO2 is fairly unattractive, as it offers much less nice attachment space than its bigger brothers. The weight benefit is kind of neglectable.

[NathanKell]

No problem! That wasn't me being sarcastic, apologies if it came across that way.

I'll add a fix so that it'll detect FSCoolant and divide cost by, say, 4000? Jets and KethJet have a divisor of 20, but geometric progression and all...(that'll yield approx 1300 for that engine, which is perfectly in line since small jets cost like 2800).

I need to add a check for VelocityCurve as well as AtmoCurve too.

Ooh, quick fix. If you want to do this before I push the new version. Change atmocurve so the key = 1 Isp stays as it is, but change key = 0 Isp to key = 0.001 Isp, and add a new key = 0 1 )

That should bring the cost down dramatically! (Change the 1 to something greater if it brings it down too much)

Note that ingame it will say Vacuum Isp = (whatever you set key = 0 newLowIsp to), but your performance won't actually change I don't think (unless you run your props at like 25km altitude!)

Thanks! Do our best.

And you answered your last question: "despite being smaller and lighter"--that's why. Miniaturization costs money.

For most parts with modules, I pass the cost to a multiplier that divides performance by mass and multiplies by a normalizing factor. That's why Octo tanks are cheaper, per unit of LF/Ox contained, than regular tanks--they're less efficient. It's so overpowered parts get overpowered prices (especially for mods).

Same for the command pods--you pay a premium for lighter.

You can solve the attachment problem by putting an octo strut under it, BTW--and you'll still be approx half the mass of the other probe cores. On tiny satellites (remember, the attempted first US satellite was only 6.5 inches in diameter!) that makes a big difference. And tiny satellite means less launcher cost, and bigger return on investment for most MC missions.

[DaliPotter]

I have a problem with the docking goal in mission. When I have only one Clamp-o-tron in the ship, and I dock, the docking goal is True. But when I have several Clamp-o-trons, and I dock in one of them, the docking goal in still False, and I don't know how to achieve it. Thanks for helping me.

[Senshi]

Okay, your line of argument regarding miniaturization makes sense. The overall costs definitely increase a lot for every kg of additional payload due to the launcher costs, as should be expected.

Thanks for your hotfix suggestion. key = 0 1 still made it cost 10.000K so I reduced it some more. It's near impossible to get to high altitude on Firespitter's props alone (as should be...), their already low thrust scales very badly with velocity (0.2 at 425, 0 at 500). It'd also take ridiculous amounts of intakes to provide the required air.

The E-engine is by design very much the same as the liquid equivalent (mass, thrust etc.), except it uses lots of electrical charge instead of fuel. Dividing by 4000 would still mean a cost of ~1300K. I think it should arrive at ~700-750K at the most, maybe it should even be cheaper, considering a simple low-efficiency E-engine is very easy to construct. The biggest costs come from providing the energy for the engine, which currently is much more expensive than liquids (batteries, RTG, solars...). If the costs scaled with the energy needs (making more electricity-efficient engines more expensive), that wold be a perfect fit.

[buzuc]

First of all: Thanks a lot for this mod. I'm having a lot of fun and I'm making a lot of money aswell!

BUT, I'm currently on the "Commercialisation of space" missions and I'm stuck on 08 - Kerbal X Hotel division.

The previous mission (07 - Open for business Sorta...mAybe) is noted "Mission already finished" but when I select 08, it keeps telling me that I have to finish Mission 07 before...

I even redid mission 07 but no change. Is it a bug? and is there a way to fix it?

Thanks

[buzuc]

I found the "bug"

The mission name is not spelled correctly in the parameters:

In the definition of mission 08 :

requiresMission = Open For Business Sorta.... Maybe

instead of

requiresMission = [b]07 - [/b]Open For Business Sorta.... Maybe

[malkuth]

I found the "bug"

The mission name is not spelled correctly in the parameters:

In the definition of mission 08 :

requiresMission = Open For Business Sorta.... Maybe

instead of

requiresMission = [b]07 - [/b]Open For Business Sorta.... Maybe

Ill fix it up for the next version.. For now you can just fix it yourself and you should be able to do the next mission... But you will have to also change the name in the Campaign save file.

[malkuth]

I have a problem with the docking goal in mission. When I have only one Clamp-o-tron in the ship, and I dock, the docking goal is True. But when I have several Clamp-o-trons, and I dock in one of them, the docking goal in still False, and I don't know how to achieve it. Thanks for helping me.

Hmmm, Ill have to take a look at this one. Never tested with more then one docking port on board.. The whole Docking is decided by the Kerbal Space Program Event OnPartClamp... So that event might be bugged.. But Ill check it out.

[DoctorJon]

MCE has started doing weird things with my costs. Now when trying to launch a rocket with a cost of 22561 (no kerbals, just a probe) it's taking out 67263, and if I hit rewind it gives me back 16815. I have no idea how these numbers are related, but I know the previous version wasn't doing this.

Edit: Does MCE play nice with procedural fairings? Does the cost of the fairings change with their size?

Edited September 25, 2013 by DoctorJon

[Kalista]

I've also seen weird things with launching space planes. Most of the time it deducts the correct cost other times i can launch my planes at no cost at all (all these planes are atmospheric and aren't designed to go above 25km). Using the KIS mission pack tho I've seen it do it without it.

[Reddragon]

I have a problem too. The windows don't appear when I want to open them. the first I used the mod everything worked but after the first mission there was this bug. Same happened after reinstalling the mod except I couldn't do any missions.

Edit: I found the bug. When I press middle mouse button the selected window disappears and won't open again. Strange.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Reddragon

[ShimmyTheJJ]

I wanted to take the time to say how awesome this mod is. It really has helped me create a structure to my space program, since the pure sandbox environment of vanilla KSP hadn't been driving me to anything specific lately. So to you and the original mod maker: Thanks for making such an awesome mod.

I do have another question though, which I wasn't able to find. How does the clientControlled parameter work when defined in a mission. Does it take away your ability to control the vessel when you finish the mission? I don't particularly understand what the documentation means when it states the client will take over.

What I have in mind for a mission is one that when you complete, you will be prevented from completing any other missions in the future. Is this currently possible at all?