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

[Renegrade]

The ascending node tooltip is going to go all over the place when your inclination is similar to the inclination you are matching. Before you matched inclinations, was the ascending node icon in the correct location?

It graphically looked okay. It was actually fairly stable, I didn't bother matching that inclined orbit exactly as the ship was low on fuel, and the indicator showed green.

The tooltip number was way off though.. it should have been around like.. 1-2 degrees, but it told me I was 124 degrees, which would be almost the opposite direction.. almost like it was tracking some other orbit..

[Arsonide]

It graphically looked okay. It was actually fairly stable, I didn't bother matching that inclined orbit exactly as the ship was low on fuel, and the indicator showed green.

The tooltip number was way off though.. it should have been around like.. 1-2 degrees, but it told me I was 124 degrees, which would be almost the opposite direction.. almost like it was tracking some other orbit..

Yeah it's the relative ascending node between your orbit and the contract orbit. Also, I replicated stock behavior, which shows these numbers between your target and you as -180 to 180 instead of 0 to 360. That disconnect is probably what's throwing off your expectation.

Nowhere else does it use -180 to 180, but here it does for some reason, so I replicated it.

[Maelin]

I just patched today to 0.56a, and opened up the contracts place to discover I'm asked to place a satellite in keosynchronous orbit with Ap and Pe both at 400,000m. This is obviously impossible. I've only spent about 5 seconds in flight mode so far since I patched (been in the VAB for an hour, went to the landing pad to briefly run a science experiment).

http://imgur.com/TX819SM

Edit: I declined that contract (and the other one that also had the 400,000m Ap/Pe) and as I deleted them it replaced them with new ones that do seem to have properly generated numbers.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Maelin

[Arsonide]

I just patched today to 0.56a, and opened up the contracts place to discover I'm asked to place a satellite in keosynchronous orbit with Ap and Pe both at 400,000m. This is obviously impossible. I've only spent about 5 seconds in flight mode so far since I patched (been in the VAB for an hour, went to the landing pad to briefly run a science experiment).

http://imgur.com/TX819SM

Edit: I declined that contract (and the other one that also had the 400,000m Ap/Pe) and as I deleted them it replaced them with new ones that do seem to have properly generated numbers.

This appears to be the goofiness caused by not resetting. The auto reset must not be happening with this patch for whatever reason. Anybody having these "default" orbits, just decline them, and good ones should pop up. My apologies for the mixup. I'll see if I can get it fixed. There will also be a hotfix very soon that addresses the argument of periapsis not matching on circular orbits. For now, avoid perfectly round orbits.

[Renegrade]

Yeah it's the relative ascending node between your orbit and the contract orbit. Also, I replicated stock behavior, which shows these numbers between your target and you as -180 to 180 instead of 0 to 360. That disconnect is probably what's throwing off your expectation.

Nowhere else does it use -180 to 180, but here it does for some reason, so I replicated it.

The -180 to 180 thing isn't unexpected.. In fact, it's correct to use a relative bearing like that in that situation (I've been programming that sort of system for the last twenty five years, trust me..) The issue was that it was reading 124, that would imply that I'm actually in a retrograde orbit relative to the target orbit, but I wasn't, it completed, so it had to have been between -5 and 5 degrees..

I have another example right now with a new contract: it's a 31-degree inclined orbit. I'm at 39 degrees, skewed somewhat. The DN says -13.6 (and it looks about that much), and the AN says ..166.4 that should be +13.6 on the AN.

I think I see what's going on there - I think you're converting the AN incorrectly. If the function is returning 346.4, to convert that to a proper relative bearing is 360-346.4, not 346.4-180.

(I haven't looked at the source, so I can't be certain, but the numbers make sense)

NB: It doesn't cause any real problem, the contract text is correct and completes okay when I'm in the correct orbit (except that 400k one :/) It's just a minor display bug.

(actually the numbers themselves may be on the wrong node, but I'm not certain - I never bother with the sign, if it's a DN, I burn up, if it's an AN, I burn down, until the number gets close to zero. If the number is getting bigger, I'm backwards so I burn the other way )

[Thorium]

In many of contracts' descriptions, I get a "neutralize controls for 10 seconds" checkpoint. What does this mean exactly?

[Superfluous J]

In many of contracts' descriptions, I get a "neutralize controls for 10 seconds" checkpoint. What does this mean exactly?

Turn off SAS and don't use the controls of the ship.

[Arsonide]

I fixed that issue, and I fixed the argument of periapsis check, and as a show of insanity I'm sneaking in some extras for the hotfix today.

[Xaidian]

Awesome.

Thanks for the prompt response by the way.

This is a good mod. I have been enjoying it greatly.

Will certainly be looking forward to further developments.

[arkie87]

Arsonide AKA Mr. Dev:

Any interest in adding in rescue missions from random (previously visited) planets and moons, possibly with a crashed/landed craft with kerbals that needs to be repaired/refueled and returned to Kerbin?

Am I missing something? Is there a reason why this hasnt been added already?

[Arsonide]

Am I missing something? Is there a reason why this hasnt been added already?

Yes there is. I've been busy implementing other things.

Speak of the devil, the hotfix is out!

• ARM contracts doomed for Kerbin will now occasionally ask you to land instead of orbit with the asteroid.
  
• Stationary orbits now ask for you to orbit over a specific point with line of sight to it. Be within 45 degrees of that point to accomplish this objective. It will be shown as a new waypoint.
  
• To compensate for the added difficulty of stationary orbits, they were raised to exceptional prestige level, which has the added benefits of making them worth more, and making synchronous orbits more plentiful in the lower difficulties.
  
• Argument of periapsis checks are now skipped for perfectly round orbits.
  
• Ascending and descending nodes now show the proper relative inclination differences.
  
• There is currently a known issue with the board reset upon patching. Patching may or may not reset your contracts. If it does, any active contracts will be refreshed on the board upon patching. This is intended. If it does not, you will have goofy contracts for a few days of in game time. This is not intended. If you see any satellite contracts with 400KM apoapsis and periapsis, decline them so that new ones can generate. You should only see them once, if at all.
  

[arkie87]

Yes there is. I've been busy implementing other things.

Did not mean to come off rude. I meant is there something i was missing--as in, is it already in the stock KSP (no matter how much rep i get, i still only get rescue missions for kerbals in orbit around kerbin...)

Does that imply that you will eventually implement it, once you have time, of course?

[vardicd]

So I may being showing myself as the rocket newb that I am but I am having trouble figuring this out:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/110197558/screenshot5.png

I have a contract to place a Satellite around Kerbin.

Apo 400,000m

Per 400,000m

Inclination 0

Longitude of Asc Node 0

5% Deviation limit

I have matched the Equatorial Orbit as indicated with a very tight 400,000m +/-50m Satellite.

However the orbit is not checked as satisfied.

The Ascending Node tooltip reads 106.6 degrees. I have no idea why.

The Descending Node reads -73.4 degrees. Again, no idea.

I might be wrong but it seems that if I zero out the ascending node I will still be left with 180 degree descending node.

I am not sure how to satisfy the requirements of the contract.

Just thought I'd add it, I also got a contract to put a satellite into a specific orbit and it also has 0 inclination, 400,000m Ap and 400,000m Pe just like Xaidian reported. Maybe a good time to get the lotto ticket

That was my very first satellite contract as well after the last update, but it completed for me. Very interesting. I have not yet DL'd the hotfix.

[biohazard15]

Small question: is there any way to target orbits (for MJ ascent guidance, for example)?

[Arsonide]

Small question: is there any way to target orbits (for MJ ascent guidance, for example)?

No, as you are not rendezvousing with a specific point, there is no need for this, all the information you need is on the orbit.

[impyre]

I love this mod. Great work, great update schedule, great direction. Awesome (and helps reduce the feeling of contracts all being the same). Thanks!

Speaking of great update schedule... I just downloaded the .56 update like yesterday, noticed the inclination problem today, came in the forum to post and let you know... and it's already fixed?! Yah, that's awesome. Oh, and one more thing... I <3 the graphic representation for waypoints and required orbits.

Edited August 18, 2014 by impyre

[Thorbane]

That was my very first satellite contract as well after the last update, but it completed for me. Very interesting. I have not yet DL'd the hotfix.

Same here, and it was called a tundra orbit for extra weirdness. Oh and there was the contract to establish an orbit with a -260,600,000 ap/pe over the sun.

After using the debug menu to complete them mission control appears to have regained their sanity. Mostly.

Edit: Do station building missions actually require the said number of kerbals on-board, or just that it has the capacity?

Edited August 18, 2014 by Thorbane

[Renegrade]

Edit: Do station building missions actually require the said number of kerbals on-board, or just that it has the capacity?

Just capacity. Mine, in fact, have NEVER had the required number of kerbals on board, just the seats.

I have a related question though:

Does it have to have this capacity at launch, or can I do orbital assembly of modules? I tend to play with FAR (90% of the time) and uh, really neat looking stations are best sent up in pieces that are cylindrical rather than all pre-assembled.

[Arsonide]

Just capacity. Mine, in fact, have NEVER had the required number of kerbals on board, just the seats.

I have a related question though:

Does it have to have this capacity at launch, or can I do orbital assembly of modules? I tend to play with FAR (90% of the time) and uh, really neat looking stations are best sent up in pieces that are cylindrical rather than all pre-assembled.

You can do orbital assembly, this is actually heavily encouraged, as with any station. Also yes, you just need the capacity. The contract is technically to build a station for someone else's usage. (This doesn't actually happen, though.)

[teser]

I'm confused, how is this orbit not within a 5% deviation, the apoapsis and periapsis are off my only about 100m and the inclination is almost identical but it still won't say I've completed this step of the contract.

EDIT: Nevermind apparently I was going the opposite direction I was supposed to be going.

Edited August 19, 2014 by teser

[Motokid600]

I'm having just the worst time with a Kerbin rover mission. I cannot seem to drive to the waypoints. I have zero sense of direction. I click the point for it to show up in the navball, but it's completely misleading and sends me in the wrong direction.. like 90 degrees in the wrong direction. I just got done roving for an hour only to look at the map and see I'm twice as far from the waypoints then my landing site. Very frustrating. I've tried different control orientations which only seem to make it worse. I tried a probe on the face if the rover pointing horizontal. That didn't work... No matter what I do the waypoints always dodge me.

What I need is for the waypoint to physically show up in game. Is this possible?

[teser]

whoops sorry accidental double post

Edited August 19, 2014 by teser
accidental double post

[Arsonide]

I love this mod. Great work, great update schedule, great direction. Awesome (and helps reduce the feeling of contracts all being the same). Thanks!

Speaking of great update schedule... I just downloaded the .56 update like yesterday, noticed the inclination problem today, came in the forum to post and let you know... and it's already fixed?! Yah, that's awesome. Oh, and one more thing... I <3 the graphic representation for waypoints and required orbits.

Thanks for the positive feedback. Always nice to hear that things are working smoothly somewhere!

What I need is for the waypoint to physically show up in game. Is this possible?

The navball waypoints themselves were a convenience factor added because of requests. Showing waypoints in the world is possible but not in my immediate plans. Of course, my plans change with feedback.

I mostly have no intention of doing this as of now because the locations themselves are abstractions rather than physical things (for now). They are an excuse to get players out there and actually exploring, but I make no assumptions on what you may find there. In a lot of my testing for aerial missions I did this one mission over a beautiful archipelago I never even knew existed with this river delta sort of thing going on. I never would have found it if not for the contract. Placing physical waypoints hovering in mid air kind of takes away from this, in my opinion. This abstract concept of what is actually at these places. Does that make sense?

How are you setting up your command pod (be it manned or unmanned). Which way is it pointing? I hear that orients the navball. If your navball is 90 degrees off it might be advantageous to rotate your command pod 90 degrees.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Arsonide

[Renegrade]

You can do orbital assembly, this is actually heavily encouraged, as with any station. Also yes, you just need the capacity. The contract is technically to build a station for someone else's usage. (This doesn't actually happen, though.)

Okay cool, that's nifty, I do like assembling them (although I try to streamline the assembly of these things into my own usage; they become lander refuel stations for various places hehe).

I just want to add my positive feedback too - I love this mod too, and it's running perfectly now. Also, as impyre says, the indicators are nifty too.

[AbhChallenger]

"Miguel Piña â€Â@Maxmaps

We are currently finalizing a deal to integrate a slightly modified version of a very well made mod. Follow @KerbalSpaceP for more later."

Fine Print perhaps?

Edited August 19, 2014 by AbhChallenger
quote