Probe Science config files (any version KSP)

[Starwaster]

I'm not necessarily looking for errors or warnings so much as I'm wanting to trace what happens when MM starts up and begins applying config nodes. The file itself is more informative than the console especially just a screenshot that amounts to just a snippet.

Regarding modulemanager it goes in the top level of gamedata folder. There should be no copies anywhere else in any sub folders.

[likke_A_boss]

Ok, how do I make a copy of my output_log.txt? I've never done it before. And I'll move they Module manager.

Edited December 24, 2013 by likke_A_boss

[Starwaster]

Just moving modulemanager might be enough. I'm away from my main machine or I'd be trying to replicate your problem. If moving modulemanager doesn't fix it then find your output_log.txt in the KSP_data folder. If you have a Dropbox then put it there and send me the link. Or maybe you can copy paste the contents to paste bin. (Except I'm not sure if there's a limit on pastebin)

[likke_A_boss]

Still isn't working. Paste bin had a limit, I could just paste everything into this comment?

[somnambulist]

http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/battleshipcraft/images/8/81/Screen_Shot_2013-12-24_at_9.23.31_AM.png

Somehow your .cfg files hit renamed to cfg.txt. Change them back to just .cfg and try again.

Not sure how that happened -- Safari on 10.9.1 doesn't change the file extension, nor does Dropbox if I add the file directly to my Dropbox.

[Starwaster]

Somehow your .cfg files hit renamed to cfg.txt. Change them back to just .cfg and try again.

Not sure how that happened -- Safari on 10.9.1 doesn't change the file extension, nor does Dropbox if I add the file directly to my Dropbox.

I totally missed seeing that!

[likke_A_boss]

Dang! I bet you are right, I'll check as soon as I get to

My computer.

[likke_A_boss]

IT WORKS! Thank you everyone, for all of your help, and this is a pretty awesome plug-in. Thanks!

[Starwaster]

IT WORKS! Thank you everyone, for all of your help, and this is a pretty awesome plug-in. Thanks!

YW and thx!

[Dreadp1r4te]

Yeah, I think it was just the situationMask that was limiting it but I also added in a few flavor texts. I'm not sure all of those are working right because I'm not sure (with respect to the sun) what constitutes 'inSpaceLow' and 'inSpaceHigh' so the flavor text might not always make sense

BTW, getting ModuleManager to work with the temperature was a tiny bit trickier than usual because it has no name keys so it needed Sarbian's extensions to see it and then deleting its RESULTS{} node and replacing it with mine.

Might be a bit late, but from what I've noted from doing thorough EVA reports around Kerbin (and a few other bodies), "inSpaceHigh" is at about 250km or greater, and "inSpaceLow" is below that but above the planet's atmosphere. This means that for a "inSpaceLow" flag around Jool, you'd need to be above 200km but below 250km, as far as I can tell, but I've only orbited Jool once so I may correct myself later. Also note that "inSpaceLow" seems to be a double area, in that if a planet has biomes, this is where they'll be detected for contextually appropriate science scans; i.e., an EVA report at 120km will first show up as "EVA Report while in Space near Kerbin," and then the second time the same experiment is performed, will report "EVA Report while in Space over Kerbin's Grasslands." Above 250km (it seems) no biome is detected, and you'll always get in a "high in space above *body*" result. Also, bodies without atmospheres will always show "in space above *body*" if your true altitude is greater than 0 and less than 250km.

[Javster]

About samples: Is there a way for the probe to take a small sample? Or does it already gain less science?

[Starwaster]

About samples: Is there a way for the probe to take a small sample? Or does it already gain less science?

Pretty sure I have it doing less science than if you have Kerbals on-site..... have to check to be sure

[Probus]

Very nice Starwasher, in fact Sweet!

[A9p]

In and working, and adding that little bit more flavour to my probe missions, thank you

[John FX]

So does this still work with 0.25? (I`ll download it and just see)

And just to double check, If I take a surface sample with a probe I can take another with a kerbal as they are different?

I had an idea to balance science returns for probes, returning a sample taken by a probe should give the `kerbal sample transmitted` amount of science and a transmitted probe sample should be the corresponding amount of science lower than that.

Then putting a kerbal on the ground still has some extra value.

[Starwaster]

So does this still work with 0.25? (I`ll download it and just see)

And just to double check, If I take a surface sample with a probe I can take another with a kerbal as they are different?

I had an idea to balance science returns for probes, returning a sample taken by a probe should give the `kerbal sample transmitted` amount of science and a transmitted probe sample should be the corresponding amount of science lower than that.

Then putting a kerbal on the ground still has some extra value.

I'm still downloading 0.25 so I can't say. I know of no changes to the science definitions that might invalidate the Probe Science configs though

transmitting I can maybe see as being lower but a sample returned is a sample returned.... Not sure I can see a penalty on that. Maybe a small one to reflect lack of human discrimination in the selection process when finding things to sample..... but not to the point of being equal to kerbal sample transmission

[John FX]

I'm still downloading 0.25 so I can't say. I know of no changes to the science definitions that might invalidate the Probe Science configs though

transmitting I can maybe see as being lower but a sample returned is a sample returned.... Not sure I can see a penalty on that. Maybe a small one to reflect lack of human discrimination in the selection process when finding things to sample..... but not to the point of being equal to kerbal sample transmission

I was working on the premise that an actual kerbal looking at the ground would get a much better idea of where to sample, be able to get to places the probe cannot and other factors like I imagine they have geological training. This would make the quality of their sample much higher.

The probe (I imagine) only samples exactly where it landed, is either controlled by computer or a kerbal looking at a transmitted image. I imagined this would reduce the science obtained from the sample. If searching for life for example, subtle differences in the rock formation (which may only be visible in person) would lead to some samples being much more valuable than others.

It was more of a gameplay idea to keep value in putting a kerbal on the ground than anything else.

[ultrasquid]

Let's see if this still works for 0.90. I've long been annoyed with the thermometer limitation.

[QuazarCa]

Let's see if this still works for 0.90. I've long been annoyed with the thermometer limitation.

Does it work with .90 ?

Please as not being able to take numbers from the thermometer and the radiation meter without destroying them is annoying .

[Starwaster]

Does it work with .90 ?

Please as not being able to take numbers from the thermometer and the radiation meter without destroying them is annoying .

Yes it does. There's no support for the added biomes so the messages default to generic. (a matter of text flavor, no science! is lost)

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

When I made KAINET (short version: play KSP with no Kerbals ever), I made my patch change the "visual survey" contracts so that they use your experiments (if these patches are installed). That gave me the idea to make a similar patch that simply adds your visual survey types to the contract list. Feel free to include this in the next version of your patches:

@Contracts:FOR[StarwasterSciencePatches]
{
    @Survey
    {
        @SURVEY_DEFINITION:HAS[#Title[*visual*]] //"Visual surveys"
        {
            PARAM
            {
                Experiment = probeReport
                Description = Collect probe data
                Texture = report
                AllowGround = True
                AllowLow = True
                AllowHigh = True
                AllowWater = True
                AllowVacuum = True
                FundsReward = 10000
                ScienceReward = 20
                ReputationReward = 6
            }

            PARAM
            {
                Experiment = surfaceSampleProbes
                Description = Take a surface sample with a probe
                Texture = sample
                AllowGround = True
                AllowLow = False
                AllowHigh = False
                AllowWater = True
                AllowVacuum = True
                FundsReward = 8000
                ScienceReward = 30
                ReputationReward = 6
            }
        }
    }
}

Edited February 26, 2015 by Kerbas_ad_astra
Why not allow ground data reports?

[Starwaster]

Looks interesting but is that for a contracts mod or the stock contract system?

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

Both, in a way -- Fine Print configured its contracts that way (though the root node was called "FinePrint" back then, and there have been changes between 0.25 and 0.90), and when Squad brought it into 0.90, they retained the exposed configuration. It's under GameData/Squad/Contracts/Contracts.cfg.

[Starwaster]

Both, in a way -- Fine Print configured its contracts that way (though the root node was called "FinePrint" back then, and there have been changes between 0.25 and 0.90), and when Squad brought it into 0.90, they retained the exposed configuration. It's under GameData/Squad/Contracts/Contracts.cfg.

I'll be testing this over the next couple of days (week?) and see about including it

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

FYI, it just occurred to me that there's no reason to forbid "probe data" contracts from showing up while landed, so I updated the config in my post to say "AllowGround = True".