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

[guto8797]

The idea of the crew is great, even combines with my Mission Logs (i use the notes mode too keep mission logs and crew ranks and capacities makes the game so painfully long), but i love the training idea. Could be very expanded later on. Engineers to fix the DangIt issues, Medics to heal kerbals, Scientists, E.t.c. So much possibilities.

What turned me away from the mod was the fact that quicksaves or reverting was severelly borked, i might give it a shot now.

[Apollo13]

1. ComSat Contract IV reward should be 100000, not 10000 in stock.mpkg. ComSat III is 95000 and ComSat V is 110000.

2. In ComSat III, what is "LAN"? I googled that in terms of satellites and found nothing.

[Apollo13]

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

I use MCE in Career extensively.

[diomedea]

2. In ComSat III, what is "LAN"? I googled that in terms of satellites and found nothing.

Longitude of Ascending Node. One of 6 Orbital elements used to specify the orbit of an object in space.

[malkuth]

1. ComSat Contract IV reward should be 100000, not 10000 in stock.mpkg. ComSat III is 95000 and ComSat V is 110000.

2. In ComSat III, what is "LAN"? I googled that in terms of satellites and found nothing.

Easy fix, you can use txt editor to add the extra 0. I will fix it on my side asap though in the meantime.

[Apollo13]

Easy fix, you can use txt editor to add the extra 0. I will fix it on my side asap though in the meantime.

Thanks. I already fixed it in previous version. Just thought you'd want to know for future updates.

Longitude of Ascending Node. One of 6 Orbital elements used to specify the orbit of an object in space.

Thank you. I added a rep to your profile.

So, to set a specific LAN, you must start from a perfectly flat (inclination=0.00) orbit. As you approach the required LAN point, you must then accelerate north to immediately tilt the orbital axis. If you miss the LAN you want/need, you must then flatten your orbit and try again. Is this correct?

Edited June 10, 2014 by Apollo13

[diomedea]

So, to set a specific LAN, you must start from a perfectly flat (inclination=0.00) orbit. As you approach the required LAN point, you must then accelerate north to immediately tilt the orbital axis. If you miss the LAN you want/need, you must then flatten your orbit and try again. Is this correct?

The easiest way I know to set a specific LAN is indeed to start from a flat (incl=0) orbit. When a vessel burns in the normal direction along its orbit, it changes the orbit inclination making it raise at the longitude 90° next from the burn (if burning +normal; the inclination raises at the opposite longitude if burning -normal). The ascending node is more or less positioned where the burn is with a +normal, 90° before that point where the orbit is raised. Then, to set the LAN at a specific point of the orbit, the vessel must burn +normal at that longitude.

Looking at the figure n that wiki page I linked, you see the ascending node in red, where the inclination angle is drawn. The point where the orbit is raised is 90° beyond that, and would appear placed more or less where orbit meets the violet line (actually, that violet line is the periapsis distance, not related to the LAN in any way).

If starting from an already inclined orbit, one should figure how burning normal will alter the orbit inclination: it will also make the LAN rotate if the burn is done at a point different from where the orbit is raised the maximum (from the reference plane).

However, in KSP I can't find easily the Reference direction (AKA the direction of the Vernal point), that is the origin from where the LAN is measured. The Vernal point in KSP has no feature to make it recognizable, and is just an internal frame reference for positions of objects in game.

So, to make a specific LAN, my suggestion is to start with a very slightly inclined orbit, use one of the many tools that give orbital parameters (e.g. Kerbal Engineer Redux, or MechJeb, or VOID) to read the current LAN, and calculate from that where the LAN you need would go (so, if you read LAN=30°, and the desired LAN is 90°, that means it is 60° CCW on the orbit from where the Ascending Node is placed now). Then, set to burn +normal at the desired LAN (or, 60° beyond the current LAN n that example). That should do the trick.

Edited June 11, 2014 by diomedea
corrections (was tired and put a mistake in)

[Apollo13]

@diomedea: thank you for that info. I'll put it to use.

[BioHaZarD.PT]

I updated to .70 and immediately noticed the rocket I was using got more expensive. I tracked it down to the parachutes, which are expensive again. Compared the MCSettings.cfg with the old one and this is the problem:

		ModuleParachute
		{
			costMult = .10
		}
		RealChuteModule
		{
			costMult = .10
		}

In the previous version it's massCostMult = .25 on both.

Also, wasn't the Kerbin Crater mission fixed at some point? Currently the Longitude range is valid for the whole planet, *except* the crater.

[gescheit]

Description of the MCE-RoverResearch has mistake. description = This is used for Rover Research Mission in Mission Controller Extended. When you get into orbit that the current mission has assigned to you, press the Research Button to Start. And vice versa in MCE-OrbitalResearch part.

[malkuth]

I updated to .70 and immediately noticed the rocket I was using got more expensive. I tracked it down to the parachutes, which are expensive again. Compared the MCSettings.cfg with the old one and this is the problem:

		ModuleParachute
		{
			costMult = .10
		}
		RealChuteModule
		{
			costMult = .10
		}

In the previous version it's massCostMult = .25 on both.

Also, wasn't the Kerbin Crater mission fixed at some point? Currently the Longitude range is valid for the whole planet, *except* the crater.

Have not changed any of those Parachut values in a long time. And the crater Mission was fixed long ago to. Been what I have been using all the time and the parachutes are very cheap. Of course you can change them if you wish. I also checked my Github page and I haven't updated MCSettings for 21 days.

Also the Crater landing should have these values now, I just checked the download and its updated.

maxLongitude = 170

minLongitude = -170

Edited June 11, 2014 by malkuth

[malkuth]

Description of the MCE-RoverResearch has mistake. description = This is used for Rover Research Mission in Mission Controller Extended. When you get into orbit that the current mission has assigned to you, press the Research Button to Start. And vice versa in MCE-OrbitalResearch part.

Thanks changed them up.

[malkuth]

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.

Thanks for these I will make a hotfix for this. The RSS one is real important since I don't play RSS I can now see some of the values for maybe I can change some things to make MCE more friendly with RSS with contracts!

Do you know of anyplace to get the max and min orbits of the planets for RSS?

Edited June 11, 2014 by malkuth

[guto8797]

Apoligies milord for perstering thee again. I, however, must ask thee a question: How do Quicksaves work with MCE? Are they usable? Or every time I screw something up must i use the MCE button, situation that would be inconvienient, as to restart a whole Duna mission because of a tiny mistake is infuriating. Thank thee in advance

EDIT: Also, i had one idea, and i would like to hear your opinion on it. I am no coder, but should this work it could be very beneficial to apolo style mission. What about this: Every time you undock from a ship, lets say ID 0001, the undocked vessel gets his own ID and also a backup "Son" ID. Lets say you launch a lander from vessel 0001, it's id would be: 0002 (own id) ; S0001. Upon checking for landing goals MCE would look at the ships ID and Son ID. WOuld this be doable or a good idea?

Edited June 11, 2014 by guto8797

[malkuth]

Apoligies milord for perstering thee again. I, however, must ask thee a question: How do Quicksaves work with MCE? Are they usable? Or every time I screw something up must i use the MCE button, situation that would be inconvienient, as to restart a whole Duna mission because of a tiny mistake is infuriating. Thank thee in advance

EDIT: Also, i had one idea, and i would like to hear your opinion on it. I am no coder, but should this work it could be very beneficial to apolo style mission. What about this: Every time you undock from a ship, lets say ID 0001, the undocked vessel gets his own ID and also a backup "Son" ID. Lets say you launch a lander from vessel 0001, it's id would be: 0002 (own id) ; S0001. Upon checking for landing goals MCE would look at the ships ID and Son ID. WOuld this be doable or a good idea?

Well MCE is pretty much Quicksave safe as long as your smart about it. Examples.

When I quick save I do it right before a main MCE objective. So If I mess up I go back to where I started before everything bad happened, and nothing is out of line. But say you have 5 objective mission (pretty rare in my work) and you do 3 objectives, and then messed up on the 4th. But you for some reason didn't quick save until before the 1st objective. What would happen is that when you loaded your quick save you MCE proggress would still be done up to objective 3. This is not really bad, because you can just get back to objective 3 and continue from there!

The best thing about quicksaves is that it saves your vessel IDs.. So they never change. So complete safe to use for MCE.

As for your 2nd question. Totally possible yes. But is it worth the work since .24 is coming out and the mission system in MCE will be obsolete? Anyway .70 fixed most the issues (ie its a hack but works) with Apollo style missions so I'm not going to worry about it for now.

[guto8797]

I might be missing something, but how do you make rockets actually cost something if you use KerbalConstructionTimer? It overrides the regular Launch button.

[malkuth]

I might be missing something, but how do you make rockets actually cost something if you use KerbalConstructionTimer? It overrides the regular Launch button.

Yes, but once you launch vessel and push space bar you get charged. KCT doesn't overwrite that. So basically go through whatever it is KCT does to stop you from launching at certain time, then you should be droped on the launch pad as normal. At this point MCE will take over and charge you once you push the space bar.

MCE does not charge you when you go to launch pad, only when you actually launch.

[guto8797]

Yes, but once you launch vessel and push space bar you get charged. KCT doesn't overwrite that. So basically go through whatever it is KCT does to stop you from launching at certain time, then you should be droped on the launch pad as normal. At this point MCE will take over and charge you once you push the space bar.

MCE does not charge you when you go to launch pad, only when you actually launch.

Thank you once again. Also i want to report the (not sure if intended) rather high price on realchutes. around 1k per chute, if i recall correctly, might be 2k, kinda heavy on early finances (As i like to put chutes on every stage for KCT )

[malkuth]

Thank you once again. Also i want to report the (not sure if intended) rather high price on realchutes. around 1k per chute, if i recall correctly, might be 2k, kinda heavy on early finances (As i like to put chutes on every stage for KCT )

I will check it out.

Edit unless he updated and changed something again these are the cost of my RealChutes in my game.

Realchute Cone Chute = 313

Double cone = 366

Radial = 157

Stack = 312

And I doubled checked again and My version of MCSettings.cfg is same one as packaged with .70. So Im not sure whats going on.

But anyway I just kind of snuck a small update to MCSettings.cfg file from AMO28 into the .70 version in my dropbox version that fixes the high cost of Jet engines from the AJE mod. but thats only thing changed. Might want to download it and see if it helps. If not then maybe another mod is changeing the values of chutes that you are using?

Make sure you don't have double copies of MCSettings in your MCE folder, or that the newer version hasn't been copied with a (1) tag at the end. (the whole windows doesn't copy over thing when it ask)

Edit again.. Of course those are the default values, I enlarged the Stack to its biggest size and still only 783.

Edited June 11, 2014 by malkuth

[guto8797]

WELL. STRAP ME TO A BOOSTER AND FIRE ME AT THE KRAKEN CAUSE I AM UTTER STUPID.

Turns out. 2x symetric radial parachutes have a fitting price Thank you for your... contribution. (get the reference?)

EDITZ: Just a side note, probably related with another mod, but i am getting a "argument is out of range" error at "asteroid capture". It is not punctual as far as i have seen, nor have i even touched asteroid captures, just letting you know.

Edited June 11, 2014 by guto8797

[UAL002]

Malkuth, since you're the current frontrunner for authoring/keeping alive a mission control mod, has Squad approached you for input in any regard, in terms of implementing your missions into their system or tailoring their system with any pointers from you? Just curious, becasue if they didnt they missed a golden opportunity. keep up the great work.

[malkuth]

Malkuth, since you're the current frontrunner for authoring/keeping alive a mission control mod, has Squad approached you for input in any regard, in terms of implementing your missions into their system or tailoring their system with any pointers from you? Just curious, becasue if they didnt they missed a golden opportunity. keep up the great work.

Nope, they might not know the mod exist. Not sure, but never been approached about any questions that I know of. Not sure how much they follow mods to be honest.

It makes me sad to say this but MCE is really not that popular of a mod, It didn't even get a mention in the Best Mod Voting that was on Reddit a few ago. Or maybe it is popular but one of those things were people don't notice it as much as say a Texture mod or Pretty part mod.

Don't have any numbers on my dropbox, but curse is only at about 1000 downloads, and the old SpacePort I don't think ever hit 13,000.

I do keep in mind though, that at some point MCE was in pretty bad shape with Missions not being complete and other issues, so its understandable why it was not very popular. But I'm pretty dam happy with .70 and where it has gone. I have now moved on to getting MCE ready for .24. My first stage is getting ranking system installed, and testing ways of disabling vessels.

Also its been about 1 year now since I started working on MCE and took it over. Come a very far from that first day where I did not know anything about Programming.

Edited June 11, 2014 by malkuth

[UAL002]

Its rough, I'll admit, and it seems wonky with DarkMultiplayer. Hell, a coworker friend of mine who plays got it in a MODPACK I made him. First thing he complained about. To hell with him, he's a dolt, he doesn't even like career mode. It's all about immersion for me. I'm really liking the contracts system, as it doesn't allow me to spam missions for money and some are worth a handfull of science too which is nice, then other are science motherload and it's all chance. Personally I think that should be your focus. Hell, make it the core and get rid of the other style missions outside a basic start up program to get you going like you have with "Stock". I'm thinking the mission package needs an overhaul yes, but in due time, lets see what .24 brings and how many headaches it causes you.

In conclusion, I say focus on refining the contracts system and add as much reasonable randomness you can without it being to restrictive and make it fun. I think this mod will take off with some polish and trimming of excess.

Cheers. Keep up the great work.

[Apollo13]

Malkuth, I'm glad you made/tookover this mod. I use it extensively. It adds fun, variety, and challenge to the game. Like UAL002, I wondered if Squad had approached you to integrate some of MCE's ideas into 0.24.

I know you've mentioned that you'll stripout a bunch of the missions when 0.24 arrives. Perhaps, MCE can exist along side KSP's official contract and budget system. That is, meld MCE contracts in with KSP's.

Not sure how much they follow mods to be honest.

Squad is aware of the modding community. First of all, they've made integration of mods easy. Secondly, every Monday, Squad highlights a specific mod, Modding Mondays.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Apollo13

[malkuth]

Its rough, I'll admit, and it seems wonky with DarkMultiplayer. Hell, a coworker friend of mine who plays got it in a MODPACK I made him. First thing he complained about. To hell with him, he's a dolt, he doesn't even like career mode. It's all about immersion for me. I'm really liking the contracts system, as it doesn't allow me to spam missions for money and some are worth a handfull of science too which is nice, then other are science motherload and it's all chance. Personally I think that should be your focus. Hell, make it the core and get rid of the other style missions outside a basic start up program to get you going like you have with "Stock". I'm thinking the mission package needs an overhaul yes, but in due time, lets see what .24 brings and how many headaches it causes you.

In conclusion, I say focus on refining the contracts system and add as much reasonable randomness you can without it being to restrictive and make it fun. I think this mod will take off with some polish and trimming of excess.

Cheers. Keep up the great work.

Hope my post didn't sound bitter, because I'm really not. I just figured the squad guys are real busy and don't really have time to play many mods or enjoy them. MultiPlayer is wonky yes. I have heard some reports about it. I love the contract system I hardly myself play any of the missions anymore, only for testing purposes. By what I have read about .24 contract system I will be able to make my own Base Contracts for it, and thats the plan. First thing will be to convert the repair mission, orbit research and rover Research missions to .24 versions. And maybe if I have to add some of the other Objectives to the system if they are missing.

We will see when .24 comes out, what I can do with it.