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

[malkuth]

OH ****!!! Think about this picture, guy. Maybe you'll solve this disappointing problem.

To be honest there is nothing wrong with mc in this situation. . Sorry to say that I can't predict your vessel breaking and not being able to complete the 2 crew objective. If I made the missions 2 easy then they would not be fun. The 2 crew requirement is meant to make you think about your vessel. . And with .21 this requirement is even easier with crew control.

Unless I'm copletely incorrect about what's wrong with the picture. Which could be since I'm on my iPhone squinting to see it.

[p1t1o]

3. Has any built a refuel base to help with missions?

Thanks!

3. You'd still have to pay for the fuel, so not sure it'd help much. What'd really help is Kethane mining--you don't pay for that fuel.

It helps for those times when you don't quite have enough fuel for a given task, or if you accidentally use too much. I make sure mine is stocked with plenty of monopropellant because Im prone to using too much, especially if docking is involved.

It can mean the difference between a scrubbed mission and success. Also, keeping it stocked (using a reusable tanker SSTO) is a fun thing to spend my extra cash on. I do also plan on a Kethane mine/base/station at some point too, maybe involving an extraplanetary launchpad...

[Ph34rb0t]

My space program is running well. I'm achieving my goals - while being waist-deep in red ink. So it's basically working like any other government-sponsored space program.

Suggestion for future versions:

Campaign-based interest rates (lower for the stock campaign, higher for commercial spaceflight campaigns) or user defined interest rates at least. 25% is very steep and does not support my "better safe than sorry" overengineering. *Cough*

[fattony4200]

You're welcome!

Admittedly that does seem a little excessive, though. :} What are its stats? Still haven't gotten around to installing B9.

Stats from the SPH are as follows. I can grab the config file for the part if you want. It's a two mode engine so this isn't the whole story.

Engine Max Power: 640

Engine Min Power: 0.00

Isp at Sea Level : 1600

Isp in Vacuum: 1805

Propellants:

-LiquidFuel 1.0

-IntakeAir 13.0

flameout Threshold: 0.10

Output at Full Power

-ElectricalCharge 60/min

Thrust Vectoring enabled

Vectoring Range = 1.00

Mass 6

Dry Mass 6

Drag 0.2

Max Temp 3600

Impact Tolerance 7

[esinohio]

Doesn't the indicator at the top of the screen go from meters to km, and Mm ? That's all I was saying, should have left out the feet example sorry Was just confusing since some of the objectives do have it labeled I'm guessing then those are just the cosmetic touches when it gets closer to being finished.

[TinyPirate]

Hmm. Sub-goals could be the issue, and because I flip between two ships in orbit - the launcher and the satellite - I might be getting the sub-goal twice. Yeah. I will try a non-sub goal focused mission tonight.

[Sandworm]

It is extremely hard to write missions, or code, to handle multiple ships and all the conflicts they create. I say drop the obsession with recycling vessels. All of the mission packages so far produced offer more the enough rewards without recycling. It's a nifty feature, but just that. Trying to author mission, let alone a plugin, that can accurately account for multiple falling objects created by the player, in atmo, is a monumental task give how KSP actually works. I'd much rather see that energy put into comparability/communication with other mods, or perhaps craft file mandates. Those would add new functionality beyond giving the player a few bucks for slapping a parachute on dropped stages.

The short version of recycling: make chutes work negative 11,000K. Done.

[NathanKell]

fattony4200, I bet the issue is you're getting charged for a jet (which is itself quite expensive) AND a rocket engine. So compare its cost to, say, a skipper and three (?) turbojets.

[malkuth]

It is extremely hard to write missions, or code, to handle multiple ships and all the conflicts they create. I say drop the obsession with recycling vessels. All of the mission packages so far produced offer more the enough rewards without recycling. It's a nifty feature, but just that. Trying to author mission, let alone a plugin, that can accurately account for multiple falling objects created by the player, in atmo, is a monumental task give how KSP actually works. I'd much rather see that energy put into comparability/communication with other mods, or perhaps craft file mandates. Those would add new functionality beyond giving the player a few bucks for slapping a parachute on dropped stages.

The short version of recycling: make chutes work negative 11,000K. Done.

Think nathans point with the Recycle options now was to fix a fundamental flaw in the old version. And try to overcome something that was always keen to exploits.. and since .21 totally broke the Check that use to stop this exploit to an extent.. The whole system had to be redone.. (since there literally is nothing in the code to replace EndFlight).

Now your right about the missions though.. Being an Mission author also.. I use to try to make complicated missions.. But you and me both no that its almost impossible to make these types of missions without having the user rip his hair out of his head. And I find Nobody original missions more suited toward fun game play then even mine.. Now that I see the code.. I can understand why nobody has kept his original missions simple.. They work... But thats about it.. Any more complicated and things tend to break.. Or the user doesn't understand what needs to be done.

We will start to work on the missions soon. First we needed to fix the recycle and add back in hardmode.. I added that back because its what Nobody originally intended for MC.. And what a few others asked to get back. Once we get these out of the way we can look at ways to make the missions work better.. Including maybe a Mission Editor.

[HoneyFox]

For the excessive cost for MechJeb(and for some other parts that has very low mass), I think the issue comes from the way you cost them. There is some code inside the project like "cost += ... / part.mass;" which actually makes the MechJeb controller hilariously expensive. One way i want to suggest to avoid that issue is, to have some clamp operation on part's mass. Like:

cost += ... / Mathf.Clamp(part.mass, 0.01f, 10.0f);

So the part's cost will not be too expensive (max 100x) nor too cheap (0.1x).

There maybe other better ways to tune it.

[NathanKell]

Honeyfox, good point on clamping min-mass parts. I don't particularly want to clamp the top end, because I want vacuum-tube-built probes to be cheap.

I do that kind of divide a fair amount--for tanks, for example, for engines, for generators--because I want people to pay extra for efficiency. But you're right that in this case there should be a clamp.

(For the record, the game totally can and is displaying MJ's mass, it's just displaying it in engineering notation, 1E-5 = 1 * 10^-5 = 0.00001).

Regarding recycling: I'm basically done with recycling code as of the forthcoming update; the one other thing I want to add is support for mothership launches (i.e. a plane takes a rocket or spaceplane up high, releases it, and you control the newly-released craft). And I definitely had to convert recycling code to work with the new 0.21 recover functionality.

I know nobody44 was planning mod integration; the next couple things I'm looking at are saving space program data to the SFS file (like Kethane is doing now), so it's saved and reloaded on game saves and reloads (i.e. exit, revert, quicksave and quickload), and adding an OR for goals, using the submissiongoal functionality it should be pretty easy.

(That will, for example, allow 1xcommDish OR 1xRTDish1 OR 1xRTDish2 or whatever.)

That will also allow seamless integration of mod/non-mod support--you could, for example, require either a bunch of IonCross O2, or some extra monopropellant (or whatever, of equivalent mass and cost).

[Leonon]

In the included Civilian Space Program mission package the Commercialization of Space missions and Kerbal X missions (15-21) orbit time in their descriptions doesn't match the orbit time they actually require. They also have minimum periapsides but no maximum apoapsides and so don't technically require orbit, only a flyby. Raising the required time to what it says in the description would fix that though.

I'd just fix it and upload a copy myself but I don't know if it's supposed to be Kerbin days (6 hours) or IRL days.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Leonon

[malkuth]

For the excessive cost for MechJeb(and for some other parts that has very low mass), I think the issue comes from the way you cost them. There is some code inside the project like "cost += ... / part.mass;" which actually makes the MechJeb controller hilariously expensive. One way i want to suggest to avoid that issue is, to have some clamp operation on part's mass. Like:

cost += ... / Mathf.Clamp(part.mass, 0.01f, 10.0f);

So the part's cost will not be too expensive (max 100x) nor too cheap (0.1x).

There maybe other better ways to tune it.

Read what Nathan said.

Edited August 9, 2013 by malkuth

[malkuth]

Ill look at the missions in the next update.. Try to fix them more.. Ive been playing with the numbers.. And I actaully reduced the Time, because they use to be crazy.. And it would take hours to finish them.. LOL..

[NathanKell]

malkuth, check my post right above yours. It's not an error, it's just showing in engineering notation.

[TinyPirate]

Thanks for the advice! Must resist my spergy desire for high efficiency!

[malkuth]

malkuth, check my post right above yours. It's not an error, it's just showing in engineering notation.

Oh ok. Will do.

[malkuth]

In the included Civilian Space Program mission package the Commercialization of Space missions and Kerbal X missions (15-21) orbit time in their descriptions doesn't match the orbit time they actually require. They also have minimum periapsides but no maximum apoapsides and so don't technically require orbit, only a flyby. Raising the required time to what it says in the description would fix that though.

I'd just fix it and upload a copy myself but I don't know if it's supposed to be Kerbin days (6 hours) or IRL days.

Looked at this but Im not sure anything is wrong.. When you have a Min Periapsis you have to actually orbit to get the lower end to the correct height. And Since All I really want you to do in that mission is to orbit.. Then setting it like this seems to work. I would only use AP if I wanted you to have a specific height range.. Which I do not. As Long as your past the PE your good to go.. This way give you room to do what you need.

The hours I will fix though.

[NathanKell]

I _think_ on a flyby periapsis will be positive and apo will be negative. I think you'll need a min Pe _and_ min Ap.

But don't quote me. Haven't actually played in...a while.

[malkuth]

New Version Up And Running .17

1. Hardcore Mode added. Its back.. Hard Mode for Mission controller. But instead of Making Parts more expensive Hardcore mode Reduces mission payouts by 40%

2. More Auto Recycle fixes. You now get little messages that tells you how much you received and what was just Recycled. Same rules apply for Auto Recycle..

(a) falls below 25km above Kerbin and is therefore destroyed by the game but

( has 70 drag per ton (0.14t of stock parachute per ton of dry vessel mass)

then it will be recycled at 0.60 * sum(cost of parts in it). Note that a Mk16 parachute, which masses 0.1t and has drag coefficient of 500, yields 50 drag (0.1 * 500); the stock drogue yields less because its Cd is lower.

NOTE: Kerbals will NOT be recovered this way! This is only for spent stages, etc. You MUST ride down manually any craft containing crew or they will be lost.

3. Recycle-on-recover. The traditional way of recycling is gone and we're now using stock KSP recover functionality. When you go to the tracking station and select a vessel, the amount for which you can recycle it will appear in the MC main window. When you click recover, it will be recycled. Here you will get 0.85 * part cost if it is landed, and 0.65 if it is splashed down (landed on water).

4. Some more UI changes And added messages about what’s going on in the editor.

5. Other small fixes with Part Calculations and prices.

As always you can download the new version on front page.. I will add the download to SpacePort also.

Older Version as always will also be available just in case.. Check the bottom front page for older versions.

[TinyPirate]

Awesome work!

[NathanKell]

Note: In tracking station, if you have MC main window open and click on a craft, you will see the amount for which you can recycle that craft on recovery in the MC window.

This should work for anything, debris included.

[Artophwar]

I was wondering if its possible to have the MC windows keep their position between game loads. I always have to move the windows back to where i like them. It is not the end of the world or anything but it would be nice not to have to do that everytime.

[Skiftcha]

i'm currently trying to complete ComSat V. all the values are good to complete it except of inclination. it says "0 - 0: 0". i understand that it should be 0 - 0.2, but how can i know what is my current inclination? it says 0, but it can be 0.3 and i don't know do my actions make this number better or worse.

[Ratzap]

This mod is fabulous. I'm finally using odd bits and pieces of parts, I have to think about cost and not just throw a ton of fuel and engines at everything. I'm going through the stock missions and definitely doing the rest. Keep it up!

And as I say that I hit a bug. Doing Vostock II in the stock set I fluffed the landing messing around so I went up and did it again. The mission controller is saying all green but the finish mission button is not available. I can't finish that one off and it won't let me go forward either.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Ratzap