[0.90.0] Fine Print vSTOCK'D - BETA RELEASE!!! (December 15)

[forsaken1111]

Edit: but not everyone has a good grasp of orbital dynamics and/or has spent hours and hours fighting the game to learn.

Not arguing that, but the assertion was that it is 'impossible without mods' which is just not true. Difficult, sure. Impossible? No.

[SiliconPyro]

Edit: but not everyone has a good grasp of orbital dynamics and/or has spent hours and hours fighting the game to learn.

That's where I started, then I watched MechJeb perform a few orbital maneuvers and the lightbulb clicked on. MechJeb was like training wheels for me, a great learning tool.

[Hurry- Starfish!]

I'm not quite sure what you mean, you mean docking with something in orbit that pushes you through a transfer, that existed before the contract was accepted? I think this situation would be okay. I just check the launch date of the vessel vs the contract acceptance date, and I believe that when you dock two vessels, if there are two launch dates, it uses the earlier one.

So what would happen is that it would not count until you undocked from the transfer stage again, at which point the newer launch date would be considered. As long as any one part is older than the contract, that parameter will shut off, meaning even if the station is built to the exact specifications of the contract, it won't count.

Yeah, that's what I meant. If undocking from the transfer stage sets the launch dates of both ships back to their correct values, does that mean that launch dates are saved on a per-part basis? Maybe in that case it would be possible to only check the launch dates of all those parts the contract specifically requests. That would remove any possible problems with transfer stages altogether.

[pellinor]

does that mean that launch dates are saved on a per-part basis?

Yes, I could see in the persistence file that parts carry a launch ID that is (usually) constant over the vessel and probably tied to the launch time. However the launch time of a vessel is not the minimum over all parts. I once KAS-attached an old part to a 'young' vessel and it was still considered as young (and having a different launch ID than the rest of the vessel). Maybe KSP takes the launch time of the root part?

[skbernard]

This shouldn't be possible. A stationary orbit would be well within the SOI, and randomized orbits limit their apoapses to be under the SOI altitude. Do you have a screenshot?

i could be wrong, but i'm pretty sure the orbit for a Munarstationary orbit (made that word up) is outside the Mun's SOI by like 500km, but i think you can kinda do it by circularizing 500km before the SOI change from Kerbin

[Arsonide]

i could be wrong, but i'm pretty sure the orbit for a Munarstationary orbit (made that word up) is outside the Mun's SOI by like 500km, but i think you can kinda do it by circularizing 500km before the SOI change from Kerbin

I use this function to determine the semi major axis of a synchronous orbit:

        public static double synchronousSMA(CelestialBody body)
        {
            if ((object)body == null)
                return 0.0;

            return Math.Pow(body.gravParameter * Math.Pow(body.rotationPeriod / (2.0 * Math.PI), 2.0), (1.0 / 3.0));
        }

I then calculate where the apoapsis would be given that semi major axis, and compare that with the sphere of influence of the body. If it is greater, the orbit is rejected, and the generator defaults to a purely random orbit, the contract is notified of this, and the briefing text changes accordingly to describe a random orbit.

        public static bool canBodyBeSynchronous(CelestialBody body, double eccentricity)
        {
            if ((object)body == null)
                return false;

            double semiMajorAxis = synchronousSMA(body);
            double apoapsis = (1.0 + eccentricity) * semiMajorAxis;

            if (apoapsis > body.sphereOfInfluence)
                return false;
            else
                return true;
        }

If you would like to check my math. Mathematically, these can only show up on bodies that support them.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Arsonide

[Aedile]

Have some problems with x64, can't seem to load/start career games

log

[John FX]

If it's possible to create a way to disable certain types of contracts, that would be lovely. I'd disable all the "test blah at blah" contracts in a hurry - this would also leave more room for the more interesting contracts and help reduce the contract overload issue you described.

I would also like this. Personally, I`d remove all the aerial survey missions. MCE has a cool in game options panel where you can toggle all the mission types, seems to work quite well.

Can I add a call for missions to the anomalies? They could be like the rover survey missions where one of the points is an anomaly but you are not told which one. Maybe it could be an option to have a mission to build bases at the anomalies?

[Wanderfound]

Speaking of aerial survey missions...something with altitude variations within the same survey would be cool. Rapid climb/dive cycles provide all sorts of opportunities for aerodynamic failures and DRE-related adventures.

[forsaken1111]

I had a contract (which I did not accept) last night which wanted me to do an aerial survey a point near the KSC. The target altitude was ~24km. I had only just unlocked the basic jet engines.

is that even possible?

[K3-Chris]

I had a contract (which I did not accept) last night which wanted me to do an aerial survey a point near the KSC. The target altitude was ~24km. I had only just unlocked the basic jet engines.

is that even possible?

Yeah, basic jet gets you to mach 2~ and 24km~ Which is pretty ludicrous I know but still.

[forsaken1111]

Yeah, basic jet gets you to mach 2~ and 24km~ Which is pretty ludicrous I know but still.

Maybe I'll give it a try then. I have FAR installed and I suspect I'll have a few design iterations which will result in liberal application of wreckage to the runway area as I am playing an 'ironman' career mode with no save reverting.

I'd really like to just turn off the aircraft survey missions for kerbin. Flying around kerbin isn't terribly interesting to me.

[K3-Chris]

I like it, nice source of cash when short some, you don't have to accept those missions, decline and you get something else.

I've flown around kerbin a couple times to get 24km~ ones with FAR and basic jet engine myself, though yeah flying to the south pole and back even in 4x takes a while.

[skbernard]

I like it, nice source of cash when short some, you don't have to accept those missions, decline and you get something else.

I've flown around kerbin a couple times to get 24km~ ones with FAR and basic jet engine myself, though yeah flying to the south pole and back even in 4x takes a while.

yeah they do take a while, but honestly its gotten me to fly the most i've ever flown before...

also talking about the altitude differences in survey missions, i was doing two separate ones at the same time in the same general area and had so much problem with not having a maneuverable enough plane to climb and drop quick enough, i blew right through things at the wrong altitudes and wasnt maneuverable enough (or enough lift probably) to make a hard enough turn to get back on track until i was clicks away...

that'll teach me to build better planes...

[TaranisElsu]

Quick question, hopefully someone has some insight. I've been starting a new mod build using 64, I know - buggy in general, but I've had a relatively stable build until I attempted to add Fineprint.

I'm including the output of the crash, or at least the lower portion of the huge output file. I try to read it but lose patience and don't really understand it all.

Either way, does anyone have advice or knowledge of a particular mod that may be conflicting or has a history of conflict?

Any help would be great and if I've mispoken please let me know.

<snip>

It's hard to say, could you edit that to have the entire log? It has a scroll bar so it won't spam the thread. It looks like something with a GUI window is crashing you, and Fine Print doesn't have one in any released builds. There's one in development. I'm tempted to say it might be TAC, but like I said, I need to see the whole log.

Don't blame a mod just because it is the last thing you see! Especially in the Win64 version! Go read http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92229-How-To-Get-Support-%28READ-FIRST%29. It talks about some of the issues with the Win64 version, and outlines some steps to go through to get help, including posting a full, complete log file.

BTW, I started using the Win64 version so that I could fix any issues with my mods there, and even installed a lot of extra mods that I don't normally use to push my memory usage up (5.1 GB now), and I am having crashes but they are at different points. Sometimes it will crash when loading a save, other times when a rocket impacts the ground, and various other times. It doesn't seem like I can pin point any specific mod(s) or causes.

[vardicd]

Mission: deploy sat to specific orbit.

Step one: design launch vehicle.

Step two: Launch payload.

Step three: match orbits

Step four: deorbit and recover boost stage for fund recovery.

Step five: watch as deployed sat smashes headlong into Mun after 1/4 of an orbit.

Step six: inform contract giver, sorry no refunds.

[forsaken1111]

Mission: deploy sat to specific orbit.

Step one: design launch vehicle.

Step two: Launch payload.

Step three: match orbits

Step four: deorbit and recover boost stage for fund recovery.

Step five: watch as deployed sat smashes headlong into Mun after 1/4 of an orbit.

Step six: inform contract giver, sorry no refunds.

Maybe the contract was for an impact probe?

[Wanderfound]

Maybe I'll give it a try then. I have FAR installed and I suspect I'll have a few design iterations which will result in liberal application of wreckage to the runway area as I am playing an 'ironman' career mode with no save reverting.

I'd really like to just turn off the aircraft survey missions for kerbin. Flying around kerbin isn't terribly interesting to me.

With FAR, a single basic jet with two radial intakes can easily cruise at Mach 1 and 20,000m. Add some more intakes or use a parabolic arc and you'll hit 24,000m without much trouble.

Aerial surveys get a lot more interesting once you've got turbojets, especially if you do a couple of them on a single flight. Pulling high-G turns at Mach 5 to avoid overshooting waypoints when you're low enough to be generating reentry flames can be quite entertaining:

They do seem a bit over-generous on the science, though. I'm pulling in more science from a single survey flight than I would from a Mun landing. I'm not complaining, but they could do with a bit of a difficulty buff; maybe require you to install a camera part and trigger it while flying straight and level for a certain period of time.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Wanderfound

[vardicd]

Maybe the contract was for an impact probe?

That was what they got, that's for sure!

[K3-Chris]

yeah they do take a while, but honestly its gotten me to fly the most i've ever flown before...

also talking about the altitude differences in survey missions, i was doing two separate ones at the same time in the same general area and had so much problem with not having a maneuverable enough plane to climb and drop quick enough, i blew right through things at the wrong altitudes and wasnt maneuverable enough (or enough lift probably) to make a hard enough turn to get back on track until i was clicks away...

that'll teach me to build better planes...

It's not really about maneuverability I tend to find, more FAR punishing you by hot firey death if you keep the engines going when you dive, and climbs being slow in a realistic fashion, and yeah I tend to wait until I have 2-3 missions before I do all of them at the same time, air-brakes helps the diving part a lot, crazy power helps with the climbing.

Wish you could set the survey spots as a target though, yeah the nav-ball integration is nice but it doesn't work in IVA, in-IVA navball doesn't have the icon nor does MFDs etc, and ScanSAT's MFD map doesn't have the icons etc, being able to target it like you do with MJ's landing assistant or similar would be neat, ties into other navigation tools.

Doing these aerial survey missions has really re-fueled my interest in 1.25m planes, since without fine-print they're quite literally pointless except for a handful of part tests most of which don't make sense, I'll be sure to expand B9 down into the tech tree with smaller parts (especially a 1.25m cockpit).

[Superfluous J]

Can I add a call for missions to the anomalies? They could be like the rover survey missions where one of the points is an anomaly but you are not told which one. Maybe it could be an option to have a mission to build bases at the anomalies?

Yes! Maybe even not tell the player which ones go to anomalies, just have about half of all survey missions include an anomaly.

[juanml82]

With FAR, a single basic jet with two radial intakes can easily cruise at Mach 1 and 20,000m. Add some more intakes or use a parabolic arc and you'll hit 24,000m without much trouble.

Aerial surveys get a lot more interesting once you've got turbojets, especially if you do a couple of them on a single flight. Pulling high-G turns at Mach 5 to avoid overshooting waypoints when you're low enough to be generating reentry flames can be quite entertaining:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot49_zps65835032.jpg

They do seem a bit over-generous on the science, though. I'm pulling in more science from a single survey flight than I would from a Mun landing. I'm not complaining, but they could do with a bit of a difficulty buff; maybe require you to install a camera part and trigger it while flying straight and level for a certain period of time.

You can adjust the science in Fineprint configuration files. About the camera, it's interesting. There is a mod which adds external cameras to ships (which you can then see with RPM monitors)

[Wanderfound]

You can adjust the science in Fineprint configuration files. About the camera, it's interesting. There is a mod which adds external cameras to ships (which you can then see with RPM monitors)

RPM includes external mount camera parts itself, although they're fairly basic. Things like ALCOR include some nicer looking ones. They're pretty much essential for IVA flying:

I keep burning them off, though. Cameras seem to be Deadly Reentry's favourite snack.

[K3-Chris]

Yeah I'm making proper covered ones for B9, camera inside a dome.

[Arsonide]

I would also like this. Personally, I`d remove all the aerial survey missions. MCE has a cool in game options panel where you can toggle all the mission types, seems to work quite well.

There are already options for this in the configuration file. Change MaxAvailable or MaxExistent to zero for each contract type you would like to disable.