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

[malkuth]

if you guys are having issues with the mass, you can now change the MAX mass in the config file if you wish (not the minimum though). These three values are what your looking for.

contracSatelliteMaxAMassTrivial = 4
contracSatelliteMaxMassSignificant = 6
contracSatelliteMaxMassExcept = 7

Going to lower them in the next version again, looking at the New box sat and actually might add Repair Part to it if I can with Module Manager also. And have it as an option for repair missions, instead of using the MCE Repair Panel.

[malkuth]

Version 1.01 Released

1. Added ability to edit all mass values for contract satellite missions in the settings file. Included an quick explanation of what everything does in the download.

2. Fixed the issue with ComSat Contract Orbit Being instantly finished without being in orbit.

3. Added Kibble to Custom Supply Contracts.

4. Added a license file to download. Not sure why this was an issue with Moderators since the file is clearly available under the download section (And always HAS BEEN Edited to be MORE clear). Including the source code!!. Hopefully this makes you happier now.

[Empiro]

I like the mass requirements because then you can't just re-use the same tiny satellite over and over again.

However, maybe a more natural way would be to add a few special "instrument" parts that don't do anything but just have mass, kind of like the rover research parts? They can have all sorts of odd sizes and attachment points. The satellite contracts could ask you to bring a particular part into orbit, and you can treat it like a "test part" contract that temporarily adds the part to the builder and removes it after to avoid cluttering up the part lists after you complete the contract.

[veryinky]

I also like the mass requirements, though past 4 tons it should be called a space station. This is what I sent up for a contract requiring 2.81 to 4.11 ton "satellite", if a kerbal is ever stranded in geostatonry orbit opposite of KSP, they're all set.

And I like Empiro's idea of requiring satellites to bring up a "test part", presumably out of the science category.

[Apollo13]

@malkuth: thanks for the new update and info on the configs file. Speaking of which, "contractName = Deliever COMSAT Satellite" still misspells "Deliver".

[veryinky]

Couple minor things, when a kerbal dies it should be "will be remembered" instead of "will be remember". And when hiring a kerbal, it should say "he will serve" instead of "he will server".

Also, could it be possible to remove the "maximum" from electric charge requirements of satellites? I understand the minimum but some comsats need a lot of charge for power during the darkside.

An other suggestion would be optional requirements of monopropellant and RCS on satellites, for stationkeeping.

[malkuth]

Thanks guys I will fix the names for next release.

The idea for satellite parts that add weight is pretty cool idea. Might be interesting to expand this to have the satellite actually do something when in orbit.... Hmmmmm.

[Advacar]

Yeah, I'm really in favor of a couple of "packages" that you need to get up there, rather than basic weight. Things like Satellite TV transmitters or spy cameras or things like that. Just to make it more "realistic".

I don't really need them to do anything, but the extra little role-playing would be nice.

[mic_e]

This request will probably not be met with much love, but...

I'd prefer if the mission payloads were actually company-designed/built instead of KSC-designed/built.

The player should be provided with a 'dummy' payload part that has the appropriate mass, instead of being given craft mass/electric charge requirements. You could use three parts, "Small satellite bus", "Medium satellite bus" and "Large satellite bus", that are only visible while a contract is accepted. The Player will still be allowed to add their own parts, such as Apoapsis Kick Motors, or even their own payloads, but the contract payload itself should be useless to the player, and probably not even have a control source/battery.

Blowing up the payload on launch should also be _bad_; e.g. you could make the dummy parts immensively expensive, and give precisely their cost as the advance payment and failure penalty.

On a completely unrelated note: I think the geosynchronous missions should have a maximum eccentricity/minimum periapsis altitude constraint. Right now, I'm just launching to 70x5667 orbits, which technically also fulfill the constraint.

And one last thing: You should take a look at how Fine Print displays target orbits. It's awesome, and a cooperation between your mods may yield fantastic results.

Edited August 29, 2014 by mic_e

[autumnalequinox]

Malkuth thanks so much for bringing back the supply missions!!! they have been a life saver for $fundage$ in my strapped program. Does the config allow the addition of other resources? Such as Community Resource Pack resources?

[malkuth]

No not right now but i could see what I can do about adding some sort of config for it.

For now you can just give me what you want added and I can add the resource to next version.

[Alvin853]

I have a question about the part cost scaling: does it also scale resource cost? I have a lot of parts that are meant to be launched empty (resource mining) that are extremely expensive right now.

[malkuth]

Ksp combines both parts and resources at loading. So yes. But the resource cost itself is not multiplied only with the part.

So if another mid is searching for price of resources from the config file then that price is not multiplied. At this time no way that I know of to seperate the two values, without using modules.

In game if you use tweaks to unload resources you will be all set and get your full refund.

But mods like debrefund this is an issue.

Edited August 31, 2014 by malkuth

[Alvin853]

Ksp combines both parts and resources at loading. So yes. But the resource cost itself is not multiplied only with the part.

So if another mid is searching for price of resources from the config file then that price is not multiplied. At this time no way that I know of to seperate the two values, without using modules.

In game if you use tweaks to unload resources you will be all set and get your full refund.

But mods like debrefund this is an issue.

See the problem is: I have a 1000 cost storage unit that holds 100,000 worth of resources when filled up. So 6x part cost puts the storage unit at 606k, and then removing the resources in the VAB leaves me with an empty 506k container, which is 506x up from what it was.

[tygoo7]

Why are snacks not available for the Supply mission?

EDIT: Oh, I just realized that there are only resources you add to the mod so far. In that case can I request Snacks to be in it too?

Edited August 31, 2014 by tygoo7

[malkuth]

See the problem is: I have a 1000 cost storage unit that holds 100,000 worth of resources when filled up. So 6x part cost puts the storage unit at 606k, and then removing the resources in the VAB leaves me with an empty 506k container, which is 506x up from what it was.

You would have the same problem without the multiplier. Only smaller.

All the multiplier does is multiply the part cost x mult.

I have no way of changing the resource cost seperate from part cost. It's not an option that we have right now.

Biggest complaints from moders in .24 was this issue. The devs released .242 and put a bandaid on this issue by allowing mods to use modules to add prices to parts. Which helps procedural parts but not this issue. All you can hope for is that .25 adds it's own difficulty multipliers. Or they seperate the part cost and resource cost.

I have not used module manager to change part prices yet but I will do some test if module manager can get to the part price before the part and resource is combined it might be a possible solution to this issue.

Edited August 31, 2014 by malkuth

[chlue]

Is it possible to reduce the mission payouts (global multiplier for all missions or at least MC and default missions) instead of adding a cost multiplier? From my point of view this has two advantages:

- It avoids the whole problem with recovery, fuels,...

- Ships always costs the same so it's easier to get a feeling about how efficient a design is during building. Currently changing the difficulty means one has to adapt to that change first and using different saves let my mind blow up.

[mic_e]

Relevant to the cost multiplier discussion: A module manager conf that does the same (doesn't work for procedural parts)

[malkuth]

Is it possible to reduce the mission payouts (global multiplier for all missions or at least MC and default missions) instead of adding a cost multiplier? From my point of view this has two advantages:

- It avoids the whole problem with recovery, fuels,...

- Ships always costs the same so it's easier to get a feeling about how efficient a design is during building. Currently changing the difficulty means one has to adapt to that change first and using different saves let my mind blow up.

Not that I know of. I can do it for my stuff, in fact you can do it now in settings just change the contract multiplier to .75 and you will get a 25% reduction to mce contracts only mce though.

Also might be pointless to put any work into this since .25 is suppose to have its own difficulty that does this.

[mic_e]

Unfortunately, they haven't really confirmed difficulty sliders... Maxmaps has just announced to move the settings that are currently debugmenu/cfgfile only (Crew respawn, revert, quicksave) to their own GUI. Still room for hope, though

Anyways, I don't think it's entirely pointless since .25 is still quite some time in the future...

BTW @malkuth: It'd be nice if you answered to my earlier post, however stupid the suggestions might be

[Mr Shifty]

Curious why the satellite missions require Advance Flight Control and Science Exploration. I'm at the point in my career mode save where I'd really like to start setting up a comms network, but I don't have those techs yet. (And I can't figure out which parts in those techs are important for these missions.)

[dbmorpher]

Does anyone know of a video or album of someone completing the agena contract?

[malkuth]

Curious why the satellite missions require Advance Flight Control and Science Exploration. I'm at the point in my career mode save where I'd really like to start setting up a comms network, but I don't have those techs yet. (And I can't figure out which parts in those techs are important for these missions.)

Vanilla KSP its the first tech you get unmanned capability in flightcontrol, and you can't have unmanned vessels without batteries so reason for ScienceTech.. Regular Satellite missions require only FlightControl and scienctech. The advanced com requires Advanced Flight control and scienceTech. Again on the premise that having an advanced Communication network requires better equipment. Pretty sure that Remote Tech follows vanilla Tech Tree so there should be no issues with this flow.

- - - Updated - - -

Does anyone know of a video or album of someone completing the agena contract?

Not sure if I ever made one, is there an issue?

[malkuth]

Unfortunately, they haven't really confirmed difficulty sliders... Maxmaps has just announced to move the settings that are currently debugmenu/cfgfile only (Crew respawn, revert, quicksave) to their own GUI. Still room for hope, though

Anyways, I don't think it's entirely pointless since .25 is still quite some time in the future...

BTW @malkuth: It'd be nice if you answered to my earlier post, however stupid the suggestions might be

I did answer a similar question about this and think its a very good idea to add satellite parts like this. the only issue is that I have no real modeling experience. More import texture experience, which is what really makes or breaks a new model.

[frickafrack]

Just started playing with this mod and I'm really liking the diversification of contracts but I've run into a bit of a problem. I like to run Kerbal Construction Time and this mod does not play well with it in that the contracts have deadlines only a few days away, which absolutely makes sense without KCT but does not give enough time to build the rockets with it. I was wondering if there is a possibility of changing the contract lengths in configs or something.

Apologies if this has already been covered earlier in this thread but I couldn't seem to find anything with the search function.