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

[malkuth]

I've noticed a lot of missions leave out some steps. If you make a user contract that has all the steps, you can yield a good bit more.

Landing on the Mun (even though a Kerbin orbit is implied, as well as the transfer and orbit of the Mun) it's less valuable by itself than a contract that stipulates those necessary steps.

Thats the secret to User contract missions, the more steps you take the more money you make. But if you just want a quick hop to mun you can do that too.

[malkuth]

malkuth, I'm having a difficult time understanding what is being tasked in one of the early BSP missions: Under Planet Orbitals, Refueling. It states:

First, I don't have any kind of station in orbit. So, I assume I must build and launch one? Does it need to have a capacity of 3,000,000? If I need to launch one, that will cost considerably more than the payout for a successful mission.

Second, what does "confirm large stores" mean? What is the specific task? What action need I do to satisfy the mission requirement?

Sidebar: the payouts for missions are too low. Quite often, they don't cover the cost of even the cheapest rockets to accomplish the mission. As a gameplay rule for me, I double the cash payouts (but not the Science payouts). You may wish to revisit the formula for cash payouts.

I think this is the first one correct?

If so, you might be confusing a decimal with comma.

The mission reads like this.

liquid fuel minamount 3000

monopropellant minamount 1500

in game it might read like this since MCE uses Decimals

3,000.00

1,500.00

A lot of the orbital missions are meant to supply your existing stations with fuel, and kerbals.

Edited May 21, 2014 by malkuth

[Apollo13]

in game it might read like this since MCE uses Decimals

3,000.00

1,500.00

Ahh..., thanks. In game it actually reads as 3,000.000 (yep, three decimal places to the right)

EDIT: just found/looked at .MPKG file and saw this:

OrMissionGoal

{

description = Confirm large stores of liquid fuel or monopropellant for transfer to station.

ResourceGoal

{

name = LiquidFuel

minAmount = 3000

}

ResourceGoal

{

name = MonoPropellant

minAmount = 1500

}

}

Should have looked there first. LOL Edited May 21, 2014 by Apollo13

[malkuth]

Alright did some quick edits and found a way to add ModuleEngineFX to Assited Rocket Landings for anyone that already downloaded .68 you can get the new .DLL In this link. For all others that are just downloading MCE its included in .68 as a hotfix.

The New .dll HOTFIX for those already downloaded. just replace the old .dll file with this new one in the MissionController folder in gamedata.

[Motokid600]

Are Apollo style mission just impossible with all the current mission sets? I took the large manned Mun landing mission and changed the crew capacity to 2 so it'd work with Denny's LEM. Everything went fine. Landed, completed the objective, took off, docked, ditched the lem

, went home.. but when landing back on Kerbin the final objective did not complete. Why? Because the craft that completed the landing was ditched in Munar orbit? I use this Apollo method for all manned missions so.. is MCE simply not going to work for me? Because it seems all MCE missions ( random, stock, bootstraps ) require direct descent/ascent craft to complete the objectives.

[malkuth]

Are Apollo style mission just impossible with all the current mission sets? I took the large manned Mun landing mission and changed the crew capacity to 2 so it'd work with Denny's LEM. Everything went fine. Landed, completed the objective, took off, docked, ditched the lem

, went home.. but when landing back on Kerbin the final objective did not complete. Why? Because the craft that completed the landing was ditched in Munar orbit? I use this Apollo method for all manned missions so.. is MCE simply not going to work for me? Because it seems all MCE missions ( random, stock, bootstraps ) require direct descent/ascent craft to complete the objectives.

If the ship ID is changing then it won't work no. Its the only way to keep track of whats been done and with what. Its not so much a limitation of MCE but a limitation on how Kerbal Space Program works.

What missions are you doing, I can, or you can add the independent ID to landing goals and it should be fine Apollo style. Only issue is that this causes other issues might not notice right off.

Also I made a suggestion a few pages back on making custom missions that will work Apollo style. takes about 1 min to make a custom mission with Custom Contract maker in game.

Copy and paste this code and replace this mission 9 - Early Manned Missions Landing Mun in the randompack with this version. This is in the RandomMission package.

Mission
{
    name = 9 - Early Manned Missions Landing Mun
    description = Our Early Years are all about the learning of Rockets.  Today It's time to land on the Mun.
    category = MANNED, LANDING
    reward = 230000
    scienceReward = 5
    repeatable = true
    packageOrder = 9

	LandingGoal
        {
            body = Mun
	    vesselIndenpendent = true
        }
	LandingGoal
        {
            body = Kerbin
	    vesselIndenpendent = true
        }
}

Any other missions that are simlur can have the same thing added. Only vesselIndependent = true was added to landing goals. Again this could cause other issues, like when you jump out of the vessel with a kerbal it will record it as another seperate mission being done, just with the kerbal. Thats why I don't include this code in the Normal Release.

You should only really have to add it to kerbin landing, because with a two goal mission like this. It does not matter what vessel is recorded with the mun landing. The problem will happen when you hit kerbin landing and not using the same vessel as Mun landing. So adding vesselIndenpendent = true will fix that issue for kerbin.

Also I added this to the Known Issues with the workaround for later refrence.

Edited May 21, 2014 by malkuth

[Nerei]

Got a problem with Mission controller extended on linux 64 bit. When I add it to the game it pretty much turns the game into a slideshow for crafts that otherwise performs fairly well. It does not appear to be a conflict with other mods as I have been able to reproduce it without other mods installed. Removing toolbar seems to make it go away but not knowing how the mod loads I might just be killing it entirely doing that.

[malkuth]

Got a problem with Mission controller extended on linux 64 bit. When I add it to the game it pretty much turns the game into a slideshow for crafts that otherwise performs fairly well. It does not appear to be a conflict with other mods as I have been able to reproduce it without other mods installed. Removing toolbar seems to make it go away but not knowing how the mod loads I might just be killing it entirely doing that.

Slide show usually means your getting massive Errors in the log file.

Can you show me the output_log.txt located in \Kerbal Space Program\KSP_Data folder.

Or at least tell me what the massive list of errors is.. Its a huge file, but the repeated list of errors should be very noticable.

Its best to use output file, because in game will not tell you whats causing it.

yeah you need toolbar to navigate the menu system.

Edited May 21, 2014 by malkuth

[Motokid600]

Thanks Mulkuth and sorry I had completely forgotten about that post awhile back. I'll try that out.

As for an ultimate solution to vessel id issue.. you know the mod SelectRoot? Can this mod be built into MCE so that when I hit "Control From here" it switches the main root vessel to the appropriate one? This way the LEM for instance can complete the landing objective then when docking to go home I hit "Control From here" on the CM and the Kerbin landing objective can now be completed.

Either incorporating SelectRoot or if the stand alone mod can support this mid-flight root part change that'd be great. Idk what the status of SelectRoot is however it hasn't been updated since .22.

Then .. would this even work with MCE? If SelectRoot could work mid flight..

[malkuth]

Thanks Mulkuth and sorry I had completely forgotten about that post awhile back. I'll try that out.

As for an ultimate solution to vessel id issue.. you know the mod SelectRoot? Can this mod be built into MCE so that when I hit "Control From here" it switches the main root vessel to the appropriate one? This way the LEM for instance can complete the landing objective then when docking to go home I hit "Control From here" on the CM and the Kerbin landing objective can now be completed.

Either incorporating SelectRoot or if the stand alone mod can support this mid-flight root part change that'd be great. Idk what the status of SelectRoot is however it hasn't been updated since .22.

Then .. would this even work with MCE? If SelectRoot could work mid flight..

SelectRoot does something totally different. It's an editor feature for you can change which part of the ship is the main Hook for all the other parts.

The ID of vessels are stored in flight. And every single vessel gets an ID. Your Apollo lander has one ID when its all together, the minute you disconnect the Lander from the CM the Lander gets a different ID (Because your lander has another Different Pod so gets new id). When you connect them back the lander reverts back to the CM ID. When you dump the Lander, you still keep the CM ID for the CM and the lander you dumped gets its old ID back.

[Darkstar One]

I'm too stupid. Where to put the optional mission files? And yes I read the manual, and the readme - and I'm totally embarrassed to ask

[Nerei]

Slide show usually means your getting massive Errors in the log file.

Can you show me the output_log.txt located in \Kerbal Space Program\KSP_Data folder.

Or at least tell me what the massive list of errors is.. Its a huge file, but the repeated list of errors should be very noticable.

Its best to use output file, because in game will not tell you whats causing it.

yeah you need toolbar to navigate the menu system.

I can offer you a player.log which from what I can tell is the linux equivalent of the output_log file. I it just hidden way better than the output_log file

http://pastebin.com/ZpSBZ35W

I did not notice anything particular in the file but I do not know what to look for either

The reason I mention toolbar is that removing it fixes the problem just as well as removing the mission controller folder and there appears to be some mess with the toolbar and mechjeb that causes performance spikes like these.

I have messed a bit more around with it and it feels a bit weird.

The problem appears to be tied to the number of parts. The z-map satellite does not appear to have any major problems, but the z-map satellite with boosters for a total of 150 parts pretty much makes the game crawl.

It is also just the mouse rotation that causes it, keyboard rotation works fairly well. Insanely enough mouse rotation appears to work way better with the debug window open. with it open it can handle close to 650 parts quite well all things considered. Without the debug window open mouse rotation with that craft is roughly at 1/4 fps.

If nothing else I might have found a workaround for the problem for now

[malkuth]

I'm too stupid. Where to put the optional mission files? And yes I read the manual, and the readme - and I'm totally embarrassed to ask

All the mission files are called FileName.mpkg and are located inside the \Kerbal Space Program\GameData\MissionController\Plugins\PluginData\MissionController folder.

Some of the optional files are pretty old and might not work well with the new campaign system in kerbal space program. Mostly because of part availability.

[malkuth]

I can offer you a player.log which from what I can tell is the linux equivalent of the output_log file. I it just hidden way better than the output_log file

http://pastebin.com/ZpSBZ35W

I did not notice anything particular in the file but I do not know what to look for either

The reason I mention toolbar is that removing it fixes the problem just as well as removing the mission controller folder and there appears to be some mess with the toolbar and mechjeb that causes performance spikes like these.

I have messed a bit more around with it and it feels a bit weird.

The problem appears to be tied to the number of parts. The z-map satellite does not appear to have any major problems, but the z-map satellite with boosters for a total of 150 parts pretty much makes the game crawl.

It is also just the mouse rotation that causes it, keyboard rotation works fairly well. Insanely enough mouse rotation appears to work way better with the debug window open. with it open it can handle close to 650 parts quite well all things considered. Without the debug window open mouse rotation with that craft is roughly at 1/4 fps.

If nothing else I might have found a workaround for the problem for now

Hmmmm don't see anything strange from MCE from that file, MCE even changed all prices correctly and had no errors, after that not to many reports from MCE. Is it possible the mods you have installed including Toolbars might be lagging your system down? I know in windows that if KSP goes over 3 megs of ram bad things happen. Not sure about linux though.

[Nerei]

I only ran with toolbar when I made those tests so interaction with other mods should not really be an issue. The save was also new so that should also eliminate some problems.

I guess Mission controller could interact with toolbar in some way to cause the problem. Another thing is the debug log appears to disable part of the GUI (mission controller buttons does not work and the vehicle cost/total cash reserves disappear) so if the problem is to be found in the GUI that might explain why it works better with that open.

It appears to be a linux specific problem as I have tried copying my gamedata folder over to a windows install and after stripping KW and B9 parts (to make it work on a 32bit app) it ran just fine.

I'm running the 64 bit linux version so memory is not really an issue. It can use say 10GB memory just fine

[Psawhn]

After I used KSP's revert option too often and lost all my money, I edited my persistence save file to change the lines CanRestart and CanLeaveToEditor to False, which completely removed the option to revert flight. This left Mission Controller's revert as the only way to reset, ensuring I couldn't accidentally throw away money. Is this something you'd be able to include in Mission Controller by default?

==========

I've also been mulling over the oft-discussed problem, where Apollo-style landers can't complete objectives because they have different vessel IDs, which is primarily a problem due to the data model, right?

It's probably not worth the effort with contracts and budgets coming in the next stock KSP, but would changing the data model potentially solve this problem? The system I've got in mind is described as this:

-Vessels have a reference to point to a mission. (Instead of the current system, which is the other way around)

-Multiple vessels can share the same mission.

-Each vessel can only have a single mission assigned.

-Missions are "infectious": docking or decoupling will spread the mission to all affected vessels.

-- In case of a conflict of missions (docking to a vessel with a different mission assigned), one mission must be overwritten either automatically or by player choice.

-Vessels store knowledge of which goals it has completed, which is also infectious. (To help prevent exploits)

-The mission also stores knowledge of sub-goals and mission completion. (For garbage cleanup of completed missions and to also prevent exploits)

I think there are two very clear advantages to such a system.

Firstly, it allows more complicated mission profiles. Apollo-style missions with a separate lander are feasible. As are even more complicated profiles: For example, an SSTO Spaceplane can lift off from Kerbin, dock with an orbital hub in low orbit, which spreads the mission to a nuclear Munar shuttle which then heads to the Mun, the shuttle docks with a station in Munar orbit and spreads the mission to a lander, which lands on the Mun and completes the mission.

Secondly, this should better allow for concurrent missions. It would allow players to continue their space program while a probe is en route to Eve on a 6-month Rockomax contract, for example.

The main disadvantage is that the system must be made more complicate in order to prevent exploits or bugs. In the SSTO-example, suppose the final goal was to take off from the Mun and land on Kerbin. The player shouldn't be allowed to simply switch to the SSTO craft and land it immediately after the Mun landing without any flight back. Or for the case of optional goals which yield more money, the player shouldn't be able to repeat the same goal with dozens of sub-craft (or even debris!) for completing the optional goal multiple times. In addition, both the space stations and the Nuclear Kerbin-Mun shuttle will have residual pointers to the mission even after it's completed, so the mission should store its completion state in order for garbage cleanup to remove the old reference the next time focus is assigned to these vessels.

I have absolutely no expectation that you'd incorporate these changes into the mod ("Hey, I'm new here, but I'm going to tell you to change your entire back-end data model!" ), but I'm more curious what your thoughts on this kind of system would be.

No disrespect to any of your work intended. The development and maintenance of mods like these represent a significant investment of effort, and I've already enjoyed the mod significantly.

[malkuth]

After I used KSP's revert option too often and lost all my money, I edited my persistence save file to change the lines CanRestart and CanLeaveToEditor to False, which completely removed the option to revert flight. This left Mission Controller's revert as the only way to reset, ensuring I couldn't accidentally throw away money. Is this something you'd be able to include in Mission Controller by default?

==========

I've also been mulling over the oft-discussed problem, where Apollo-style landers can't complete objectives because they have different vessel IDs, which is primarily a problem due to the data model, right?

It's probably not worth the effort with contracts and budgets coming in the next stock KSP, but would changing the data model potentially solve this problem? The system I've got in mind is described as this:

-Vessels have a reference to point to a mission. (Instead of the current system, which is the other way around)

-Multiple vessels can share the same mission.

-Each vessel can only have a single mission assigned.

-Missions are "infectious": docking or decoupling will spread the mission to all affected vessels.

-- In case of a conflict of missions (docking to a vessel with a different mission assigned), one mission must be overwritten either automatically or by player choice.

-Vessels store knowledge of which goals it has completed, which is also infectious. (To help prevent exploits)

-The mission also stores knowledge of sub-goals and mission completion. (For garbage cleanup of completed missions and to also prevent exploits)

I think there are two very clear advantages to such a system.

Firstly, it allows more complicated mission profiles. Apollo-style missions with a separate lander are feasible. As are even more complicated profiles: For example, an SSTO Spaceplane can lift off from Kerbin, dock with an orbital hub in low orbit, which spreads the mission to a nuclear Munar shuttle which then heads to the Mun, the shuttle docks with a station in Munar orbit and spreads the mission to a lander, which lands on the Mun and completes the mission.

Secondly, this should better allow for concurrent missions. It would allow players to continue their space program while a probe is en route to Eve on a 6-month Rockomax contract, for example.

The main disadvantage is that the system must be made more complicate in order to prevent exploits or bugs. In the SSTO-example, suppose the final goal was to take off from the Mun and land on Kerbin. The player shouldn't be allowed to simply switch to the SSTO craft and land it immediately after the Mun landing without any flight back. Or for the case of optional goals which yield more money, the player shouldn't be able to repeat the same goal with dozens of sub-craft (or even debris!) for completing the optional goal multiple times. In addition, both the space stations and the Nuclear Kerbin-Mun shuttle will have residual pointers to the mission even after it's completed, so the mission should store its completion state in order for garbage cleanup to remove the old reference the next time focus is assigned to these vessels.

I have absolutely no expectation that you'd incorporate these changes into the mod ("Hey, I'm new here, but I'm going to tell you to change your entire back-end data model!" ), but I'm more curious what your thoughts on this kind of system would be.

No disrespect to any of your work intended. The development and maintenance of mods like these represent a significant investment of effort, and I've already enjoyed the mod significantly.

Well the problem stems from Kerbal Space Program only has 1 way to track a vessel and what it is. Thats Vessel ID's. Every vessel in game gets a vessel ID. When a vessel docks with another vessel they combine into 1 vessel ID. And when they seperate they both become 2 different ID's. So MCE uses these ID's to keep track of what Missions have been done by what vessel and what objectives are also done by this vessel. The system is great most of the time because the player can run multiple missions at the same time. For instance using your example, player can launch a vessel to Jool. MCE records any objectives for that jool mission for that vessel ID.

Player now wants to run a mission to his space station in Kerbin Orbit. Player deselects Jool mission and runs the Space Station mission, finishes it.. Maybe he runs 3 other short missions and finishes it. The jool vessel is about to get into Jool orbit. Player loads the mission back and loads the vessel. MCE will continue from where the player left off because the Vessel ID is saved for the jool mission under this players vessel. MCE see's that the player already did such and such missions and is ready for next objective which is orbit duna. Player orbits duna and finishes objective and mission and gets paid.

This is how it works right now most of the time in game, as long as player vessel ID never changes.

Where things go wrong with apollo style missions.

Player with same jool mission loads up the mission and the vessel. Player is to land on tylo. Player enters tylo with same vessel hes been using the whole time. But his lander is a completely separate vessel with its own pod (this is important). Player is in tylo and seperates the lander from the rest of vehicle. The new lander now gets assigned a brand new vessel ID because the Command vessel still retains its old ID (its still a playable craft because it has its own pod). The the players new craft with completely new ID doesn't register with MCE as completing any of the objectives before hand. So MCE thinks this is a new Vessel doing the mission over so its waiting for this vessel to complete the objectives before getting to Jool.

Thats the nut of it. This can be bypassed by using the VesselIndependent = True value in MCE for the landing goal of tylo. What this means is that once whatever vessel lands on tylo the mission objective will record for any vessel, even an EVA kerbal. Once the player goes back to the command pod, nothing matters anymore because the command pod has the old Vessel ID and can complete the rest of mission without VesselIndependent.

the problem now is that since basically the Landing value for Tylo is never really recorded (thats what vesselIndependent does by the way) the player now has to finish the rest of this mission in one play through without leaving, or the landing on tylo will reset.

Thats about it.

As for a new system, I have thought about doing a tagging system. Once a vessel launches its actually tagged. And any vessel that is Undocked from it gets the same tag. And MCE tracks the mission objectives using this tag. Its a lot of work though and something that might be trying once I have to completely recode the whole Mission System. Which might be the case for KSP .24.

[Psawhn]

Well the problem stems from Kerbal Space Program only has 1 way to track a vessel and what it is. Thats Vessel ID's. Every vessel in game gets a vessel ID. When a vessel docks with another vessel they combine into 1 vessel ID. And when they seperate they both become 2 different ID's. So MCE uses these ID's to keep track of what Missions have been done by what vessel and what objectives are also done by this vessel. The system is great most of the time because the player can run multiple missions at the same time. For instance using your example, player can launch a vessel to Jool. MCE records any objectives for that jool mission for that vessel ID.

Player now wants to run a mission to his space station in Kerbin Orbit. Player deselects Jool mission and runs the Space Station mission, finishes it.. Maybe he runs 3 other short missions and finishes it. The jool vessel is about to get into Jool orbit. Player loads the mission back and loads the vessel. MCE will continue from where the player left off because the Vessel ID is saved for the jool mission under this players vessel. MCE see's that the player already did such and such missions and is ready for next objective which is orbit duna. Player orbits duna and finishes objective and mission and gets paid.

This is how it works right now most of the time in game, as long as player vessel ID never changes.

Where things go wrong with apollo style missions.

Player with same jool mission loads up the mission and the vessel. Player is to land on tylo. Player enters tylo with same vessel hes been using the whole time. But his lander is a completely separate vessel with its own pod (this is important). Player is in tylo and seperates the lander from the rest of vehicle. The new lander now gets assigned a brand new vessel ID because the Command vessel still retains its old ID (its still a playable craft because it has its own pod). The the players new craft with completely new ID doesn't register with MCE as completing any of the objectives before hand. So MCE thinks this is a new Vessel doing the mission over so its waiting for this vessel to complete the objectives before getting to Jool.

Thats the nut of it. This can be bypassed by using the VesselIndependent = True value in MCE for the landing goal of tylo. What this means is that once whatever vessel lands on tylo the mission objective will record for any vessel, even an EVA kerbal. Once the player goes back to the command pod, nothing matters anymore because the command pod has the old Vessel ID and can complete the rest of mission without VesselIndependent.

the problem now is that since basically the Landing value for Tylo is never really recorded (thats what vesselIndependent does by the way) the player now has to finish the rest of this mission in one play through without leaving, or the landing on tylo will reset.

Thats about it.

As for a new system, I have thought about doing a tagging system. Once a vessel launches its actually tagged. And any vessel that is Undocked from it gets the same tag. And MCE tracks the mission objectives using this tag. Its a lot of work though and something that might be trying once I have to completely recode the whole Mission System. Which might be the case for KSP .24.

Thanks for replying.

I'm sure you've gotten tired of having to repeatedly explain the limitations of the current system with respect to Apollo-style missions . Although I didn't realize that MCE was already able to track multiple concurrent missions, so thank you for explaining that.

Your tagging system is exactly what I was trying to get at with my proposal. And I fully agree that it's a daunting task, especially with 0.24 looming over the horizon.

Again, thanks for your time.

[Drew Kerman]

Advanced Jet Engine really throws MCE out of whack I think somehow, not really sure why but the costing goes through the roof. I beleive I noted this before but if there was a response I apologize for not seeing it.

[BioHaZarD.PT]

I spotted a problem in the Propulsive Landing algorithm. When there are several engines present it fails to take them all into account when calculating TWR. It seems to only be considering one engine, which alone might not have enough power for 1.5 TWR. Example below (using Saturn 1B from FASA).

[Warning]: Starting Propulsive Landing Algorithm for ModuleEngine

[Log]: ModuleEngine ISP Is: 350 thrust is: 190

[Log]: No ModuleEngine found to run ISP and Thrust Values

[Log]: No ModuleEngine found to run ISP and Thrust Values

[Log]: No ModuleEngine found to run ISP and Thrust Values

[Log]: No ModuleEngine found to run ISP and Thrust Values

[Log]: No ModuleEngine found to run ISP and Thrust Values

[Log]: No ModuleEngine found to run ISP and Thrust Values

[Log]: ModuleEngine Using propellant LiquidFuel(mass: 3.23999997586012)

[Log]: ModuleEngine Using propellant Oxidizer(mass: 3.9599999704957)

[Log]: DeltaV available: 1169.06659720756(Mass ratio: 17.749999910593 / 24.9499998569489, TWR 1.09004335424489)

[Log]: Delta V id not pass to allow Propulsive Rocket Landing

[malkuth]

Yeah that is a limitation of how Nathan wrote it. It will take the engine with the most twr and skip the others. I figured this might cause problems with mods with multiple engines. Not only that but if u have 1 engine a moduleenginefx and one just moduleengine the program will only count the fx engine right now. Just for you know.

[slaintemaith]

I'm not even sure I have license to send private messages on this forum, so here's the dropbox link for the issue with repair contracts.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ncyo4snt72jh29/Kerbal.zip

[diomedea]

Well the problem stems from Kerbal Space Program only has 1 way to track a vessel and what it is. Thats Vessel ID's. ...

Where things go wrong with apollo style missions.

...

Malkuth, I have to thank you for explaining so clearly (probably, again) about vessel ID's with MCE (thanks Psawhn as well for asking). I had a failed Apollo-style mission because of the very reason you show (MCE mission description actually said to land the CSM, out of a CSM/LM configuration, of course I believed that description to be in error...); then I kept having doubts about running multiple missions at once (believing Vessel ID could be mismatched again). Until now, you finally made it clear .

[malkuth]

I'm not even sure I have license to send private messages on this forum, so here's the dropbox link for the issue with repair contracts.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ncyo4snt72jh29/Kerbal.zip

Hi, loaded up your game and I was able to get the repair vessel to load into the system. I used the debug tool to actually run the program, but usually you have to wait 24 hours in game for the automated system to run. You have 4 vessels in space and I think 3 of them have the repair part on them.

What I did notice and totally forgot about is that the Single Mission Repair Mission in random contracts does not work anymore and all repair missions are now done from the contracts missions instead so I will have to make sure to delete that mission in random missions (randommissions mission package) next version.

So things seem to be fine on my side with MCE. Have you tried the debug tool yet? Its the Find Vessel Repairs button and if you have the bebug menu open you will be able to see MCE choosing one of your satellites in space.

Also note the automated system is completely halted until you finish or dismiss your current contract, right now your contract is locked in place which actually stops the whole system from running every 24 hours in game.

And last note when testing the automated system it runs like this.

If you use time compression in the spaceCenter view or any other screen you must go to another screen for the time acceleration to take effect. In the case of MCE it only checks at a scene change and is not monitored real time.

Edited May 22, 2014 by malkuth

[malkuth]

Malkuth, I have to thank you for explaining so clearly (probably, again) about vessel ID's with MCE (thanks Psawhn as well for asking). I had a failed Apollo-style mission because of the very reason you show (MCE mission description actually said to land the CSM, out of a CSM/LM configuration, of course I believed that description to be in error...); then I kept having doubts about running multiple missions at once (believing Vessel ID could be mismatched again). Until now, you finally made it clear .

Yup most of the time MCE will keep track of a mission. The only exception is when vessel ID changes, or your mission has an EVA goal in it. Because EVA is considered yet again another new vessel (actually don't even get a ID for this) we had to come up with a way for EVA goal to be recorded and hence VesselIndependent was born. Now you know the rest of the story. LOL.