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

[Arsonide]

Over the course of the week I will update the wiki on GitHub to include descriptions of what each configuration setting does, but they are pretty self explanatory.

[bigbadben]

sweet! looking forward to being a space trucker!

[DeMatt]

I haz an idea-slash-question... Is it possible to set up the "put satellite in orbit" contracts so they delete the satellite after it's been verified? Sort of a, "now that you've finished putting the satellite in place, the contracting corporation takes over control" deal?

I think it would take moving the satellite-in-orbit checks from in-flight to in the Tracking Center, if that's even possible...

It annoys me to have those satellites floating around in my inventory, so to speak.

[requimrar]

Hello. I just downloaded 0.58b, accepted two contracts to deploy satellites... neither are working.

One of them is a simple 'Specific Orbit' satellite deployment mission, with Ap and Pe at 400 000m, while the other is a contract to deliver a satellite to "Keostationary orbit". Curiously, the latter's "notes" and description indicate an Ap and Pe of 400 000m as well.

Neither are completing. What's this 'force complete' thing people are talking about?

[Superfluous J]

I haz an idea-slash-question... Is it possible to set up the "put satellite in orbit" contracts so they delete the satellite after it's been verified? Sort of a, "now that you've finished putting the satellite in place, the contracting corporation takes over control" deal?

I think it would take moving the satellite-in-orbit checks from in-flight to in the Tracking Center, if that's even possible...

It annoys me to have those satellites floating around in my inventory, so to speak.

Just delete the satellites from the tracking station. There's no penalty for it.

[Thalassicus]

I'm actually just now adding configuration options that allow the user to specify % chances per difficulty level to spawn waypoints near KSC if they are on Kerbin. I also added a % chance per difficulty to spawn low altitude missions.

This is excellent! Options files are a great way for people to quickly tweak the numbers to fit their preferences.

However, the algorithms need more fundamental adjustments. For example, the old method considers a solar orbit near Eve or Duna easier than an orbit near Kerbin. We need a more nuanced method to figure out difficulty of missions based on the celestial body we're looking at.

The old code multiplies difficulty by sphere of influence to get maximum altitude for random sat missions. This is very simple to write, so I understand why you used it, just to get something in there and working. I spent a few hours thinking of ways we can improve it.

I divided solar orbits into three regions: near Kerbin (low ÃŽâ€v), far from the sun (medium), and close to the sun (high, on average). In addition, high orbits near non-Kerbin planets are easier than low orbits, so I inverted the difficulty-to-altitude relationship for planetary bodies other than Kerbin.

I also used the high/low space boundary to split orbits into thirds, instead of difficulty*SOI. The SOI doesn't have a regular relationship to the ∆v required to reach orbits around that body. It's irregular because KSP uses simple one-body gravitational interactions. They had to set the SOI to values that are good for escape/capture, but don't match orbits well. This is why they set the hi/low science orbit boundary by hand for each planet and moon. The science boundary is a better indicator of difficulty for various orbits around a body.

For aerial and rover missions on Kerbin, consider centering them somewhere close to the space center, but not quite on it. We play the game to have fun, flying should be enjoyable, and the terrain around the space center is rather boring. It's mostly featureless flat land and water. I centered these missions around interesting landscape features to give people a nice view while completing the mission. Introductory flights go around the old-airfield islands to the southeast, and mountains to the west. Rover missions go around the space center at first, then the hills to the southwest. It's fun to explore these areas.

Something else to consider is adding more distance or waypoints for missions on Kerbin doesn't really make them harder, it just makes them take longer, which isn't very fun. The altitude range is a more important factor for aerial flight difficulty. Flying at low altitudes is easy because low speeds and high air density give us good control over aircraft.

The descriptions for some missions make sense for other planets, but are odd for Kerbin. Why would the space center be a place we don't know much about? I rephrased Kerbin aerial missions to evoke the experimental test plane projects of history:

Old: "There are places on Kerbin that we don't know much about, fly over them and see what you can see."

New: "Pilot a jet to these locations to collect test flight data for commercial aircraft engineering."

Edited September 1, 2014 by Thalassicus

[Arsonide]

This is very simple to write, so I understand why you used it, just to get something in there and working.

This wasn't my code. This is stock behavior, and the multipliers for each planet are stock as well. I encountered the same issues you have with the difficulty to reward ratio, but at the same time, my mod is something that I intend to change stock behavior as little as possible with. I want to enhance the stock experience with more activities, not change it. For this reason, I left the stock behavior as it is.

The aerial and rover missions behave exactly as you describe now. They choose a random spot on the planet, unless that planet is Kerbin/Home. If the planet is Kerbin, they check the difficulty, and the chances to spawn near KSC. At lower difficulties, they pick a spot near KSC, and spawn around that spot. At higher difficulties it can still spawn near KSC (though rarely) but the distance from KSC moves outward. This is all configurable, if you feel that the chances for this are too great or too low.

I agree that having some new titles for missions based on location would be cool! However, I try to stick to the convention of starting each title with the same word. You will notice that all satellite missions start with "Position", all station missions start with "Build", all rover missions start with "Chart", and so on. This is not unintentional. I do this so that the mission list is easy to "skim" with your eyes.

This convention has caused me to keep the descriptions of each mission relatively static, but I do believe you are right. I can change the "backstory" of each mission, without changing the first word. I will look into that.

As for difficulty/length of aerial/rover missions. I do believe that you will like my plans for the next patch. I intend to add variations of these missions that behave very differently. For instance, a "chain" of waypoints that you visit in a certain order, or even little race tracks for rovers. I have lots of plans here. Keep an eye out.

[Arsonide]

I experienced something weird in my testing, so I need some help from anybody that's playing with my mod. If you see a grouping of waypoints on a planet. (More than one contract.) I need to know what planet it was, and what color the waypoints were for each contract. (Just describe the shade, but be specific..."dark orange" "teal" "periwinkle"...etc.)

This would help me determine if this is a bug, or just a stock quirk of some kind. I have a feeling it is the latter, but we'll see.

[vardicd]

I experienced something weird in my testing, so I need some help from anybody that's playing with my mod. If you see a grouping of waypoints on a planet. (More than one contract.) I need to know what planet it was, and what color the waypoints were for each contract. (Just describe the shade, but be specific..."dark orange" "teal" "periwinkle"...etc.)

This would help me determine if this is a bug, or just a stock quirk of some kind. I have a feeling it is the latter, but we'll see.

I had one last night with two sets of points on kerbin, yellow and sky blue, clustered around each other in the southeast desert and along the shore line. Is this what you mean?

[Arsonide]

I had one last night with two sets of points on kerbin, yellow and sky blue, clustered around each other in the southeast desert and along the shore line. Is this what you mean?

Yes, I'm experiencing an issue where waypoints on the same planets are showing up as the same color. Kerbin is spawning firey colors (Yellow, orange, red), Duna is always green or teal, Eve is always blue, purple, or periwinkle. It's an odd issue, but I think I know what might be causing it. The colors are generated using a seed, and that seed is the Contract's "MissionSeed", and mission seed is based on the time a contract is generated.

I encountered this issue when generating lots of missions in quick succession, and time doesn't pass in Mission Control, so it might be that the seed is simply not changing too much. Such quick generation of missions isn't really possible in a normal game, so this is probably a nonissue.

[vardicd]

Also, just as an item of note, my contracts did NOT refresh when I updated last night. I looked in mission control, went to the tracking station, launched a rocket into orbit, brought a crew down from a station, and checked and still had the same contracts staring at me from before I updated.

[Arsonide]

Also, just as an item of note, my contracts did NOT refresh when I updated last night. I looked in mission control, went to the tracking station, launched a rocket into orbit, brought a crew down from a station, and checked and still had the same contracts staring at me from before I updated.

It doesn't do a full refresh anymore. It only refreshes Fine Print contracts. Other contracts will remain in place. I'll double check everything there though.

[vardicd]

It doesn't do a full refresh anymore. It only refreshes Fine Print contracts. Other contracts will remain in place. I'll double check everything there though.

The two I specifically remember where two keostationary sat contracts over kerbin. I'd been stating at them a bit waiting on the update, but I didn't want to accept them with the sat missions buged.

[physicsnerd]

So you can change it to use other resources for harvesting? So, I could set it to use that precious metals mod? The only resource gathering I could see an issue with is KSPI, where some resources can be collected only in certain places.

[Arsonide]

So you can change it to use other resources for harvesting? So, I could set it to use that precious metals mod? The only resource gathering I could see an issue with is KSPI, where some resources can be collected only in certain places.

Right, you'd change the resource, and just make sure that you set up the techunlocks as well, you want to put a list of parts there that would need to be researched in order for the missions to appear.

These two things are lists, so you can add more than one resource, for example.

The two I specifically remember where two keostationary sat contracts over kerbin. I'd been stating at them a bit waiting on the update, but I didn't want to accept them with the sat missions buged.

This is not too big of an issue. The mod recovers very well when it encounters things it doesn't understand in save files. I'll look at it though. I'd rather the reset be functional.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Arsonide

[Nori]

Quick question. Started a new career and put the latest fineprint in it. Haven't gotten a single part testing contract though. Can't say that I mind too much, but I'm wondering if fineprint removed or reduced those?

[Arsonide]

It is 100% random. I am unable to remove that contract type from the game or affect how contracts are chosen, or at least I don't know how to. I can block my own contracts from being chosen, which is how I keep their numbers down, but I can't control stock code.

The ContractSystem checks to see what contract templates are available, and rolls a dice from the first to the last one every time a mission is generated. The fact that Fine Print adds so many new contracts means it has more options to choose from, and the chance to see any particular one goes down slightly. You can actually see this in action the other way as well, if you go to the configuration file and set the maximum amount of rover contracts to 3000, you probably won't ever see more than 3 or 4 at a time, because it's random.

Most of the contracts I've added thus far are fairly involved, so I was considering something simpler for the next few additions to kind of balance that out.

With all of that said, you should not see the majority of Fine Print's contracts in a new game unless you've unlocked the technology for them.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Arsonide

[chlue]

It is 100% random. I am unable to remove that contract type from the game or affect how contracts are chosen, or at least I don't know how to. I can block my own contracts from being chosen, which is how I keep their numbers down, but I can't control stock code.

The Mission Controller add-on has support to disable stock contracts. I have disabled the part testing contract on purpose in my game, because on my first 0.24 game I nearly finished the tech tree without going further than the mun which felt a bit pointless in the end (but it's hard to reject a 250 science contract which only requires slamming some parts together and a 5 min flight :-) )

I have two suggestions for the mod:

- Mission Controller is supposed to have a parameter which scales the mission payout. It would be nice if this mod supports a similar parameter. I don't like add-ons messing with part costs and the stock game is way to easy (especially when one uses add-ons like stage recovery). So a custom multiplicator seem like a simple fix for this issue.

- Often I already have a specific location in mind (upcoming launch window, need to go there anyway,...) and I don't like to reject dozens of mission until I finally get one for the desired location. I would really like an ingame setting to temporary only create missions for a specific sphere of influence.

[Arsonide]

- Mission Controller is supposed to have a parameter which scales the mission payout. It would be nice if this mod supports a similar parameter. I don't like add-ons messing with part costs and the stock game is way to easy (especially when one uses add-ons like stage recovery). So a custom multiplicator seem like a simple fix for this issue.

The latest patch added dozens of settings per mission type for this per currency type per difficulty. It really is entirely customizable, and you should check it out.

- Often I already have a specific location in mind (upcoming launch window, need to go there anyway,...) and I don't like to reject dozens of mission until I finally get one for the desired location. I would really like an ingame setting to temporary only create missions for a specific sphere of influence.

This doesn't really fit in very well with the game. Contracts are not a proactive thing. They are a reactive thing. The player responds to requests. This is a good setup, because before 0.24, players would often do the same thing over and over, and now, they have incentives to do things they never though of before, or things outside of their comfort range. Because of this, I will say that I don't really support this idea, however, I will also say that when I do add a settings screen in game, it will have a button to reload the configuration file, so you can edit the settings without having to restart the game. This should allow you to do this if you choose to.

[Superfluous J]

With all of that said, you should not see the majority of Fine Print's contracts in a new game unless you've unlocked the technology for them.

I'm seeing this. Is there a chance (or can you even know this considering you don't know Squad's code) that the fact that I have Fine Print installed is lowering the raw number of contracts I get offered when I'm at lower tech? I have not yet reached Mun and I'm pretty low tech, and I've done a couple part tests in Kerbin's atmo and rescued a guy from LKO, and done all the hard-coded contracts (are all Squad contracts) and now my available contracts are empty and have been for a few Kerbin days. I'm actually getting a little scared that if I have a big failure and lose a lot of money that my space program will be grounded without any money or any way to make it.

[Arsonide]

Fine Print does not affect the Contract System, that governs how missions are handed out. I handle blocking too many of my own from spawning by killing them when they try to generate (below the level of the Contract System, which remains unmodified). How, when, and what missions are handed out is stock behavior, and it is random.

As far as why they are not showing up, I can't answer that without a detailed stock API, which we don't have.

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

Picked up the update today, opened the config to tailor it to my tastes.

I suggest some commenting as to what the values mean. I can pick up on it easy enough, but I should be the exception, not the rule.

Also, what defined as 'low altitude'? It doesn't tell you. I believe you were planning to involve my idea for expanding the altitude fields later on, but we don't know what the current setup is now.

[Arsonide]

I suggest some commenting as to what the values mean. I can pick up on it easy enough, but I should be the exception, not the rule.

Unfortunately Kerbal Space Program's default ConfigNode system does not allow for comments. I looked into it during implementation. The best I can do here is make a detailed wiki page about it on my GitHub, which I plan on doing.

I'm not sure what you mean regarding the altitude? There are chances to spawn low altitude missions there, which are a number from 0 to 100, and there are the altitude multipliers for low altitude missions, which are a decimal number. If a mission is chosen to be low altitude, the altitudes (max and min) are multiplied by the low altitude multiplier.

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

Unfortunately Kerbal Space Program's default ConfigNode system does not allow for comments. I looked into it during implementation. The best I can do here is make a detailed wiki page about it on my GitHub, which I plan on doing.

I'm not sure what you mean regarding the altitude? There are chances to spawn low altitude missions there, which are a number from 0 to 100, and there are the altitude multipliers for low altitude missions, which are a decimal number. If a mission is chosen to be low altitude, the altitudes (max and min) are multiplied by the low altitude multiplier.

It's not clear enough then.

I thought the multiplier did something else, and I was looking for what constitutes the threshold value that defines the border between low and high altitude. Based on what you just said, the value is instead defined behind the scenes, and you use a multiplier on it.

Problem is, I don't know what the base-value for the altitude is, so the multipliers mean nothing to me. What's the base value and/or base range being applied to altitude before the multipliers?

EDIT: Wait a second...

You sure comments don't work?

I'm looking at a config file that contains:

// --- FX definitions ---

fx_exhaustFlame_yellow_tiny = 0.0, -0.4, 0.0, 0.0, 1, 0, running
fx_exhaustLight_yellow = 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, running

Slash-slash (//) is a commented-out line. You sure you didn't just try an improper way to comment a line out?

Edited September 1, 2014 by AdmiralTigerclaw

[juanml82]

Hey, question. I already have a base at the Mun with a capacity for 12 kerbals. I got a contract asking me to create a base on the Mun... with a capacity for 12 kerbals.

If I send a rover with a lander can (and power, antenna and etc) and dock it to the existing base, will it trigger the contract, as I'll have a base with a 13 kerbal capacity and a part of it would have been built after the contract was issued? Or do I need to plan another base with a 12 kerbal capacity?