Testing Parts Contracts Worthless?

[Argylas]

Ever since I started playing KSP (around 0.23, so I'm somewhat of a new player), I've always strayed away from the testing parts contracts in Career mode as they seem pretty worthless to me. They just don't seem to give a good enough reward for the risk involved (I've always played without quicksave and reverting for better realism and I'm now playing on Hard in 0.25). Besides, I've always managed to get enough money with only the bigger contracts (like explore Mun and Minmus, achieve orbit around Kerbin and save Blah-Blah Kerman) even on 40% funds. Moreover, most of the parts contracts seem harder to me than the "normal" ones - usually I have to activate a part not only under certain condition (like in orbit around the Mun for example), but also to do it at a certain altitude range AND while moving at a certain speed. All this makes me avoid them whenever possible. Which means always . Is there anyone who feels the same or am I missing something obvious about them that makes them attractive to people?

[magnemoe]

I always look at them to see how hard they are and how well they pay.

For the in flight testing and most suborbitals I uses testing probes, launch straight up and they land back on KSC. For orbital tests I mostly uses spaceplanes.

Tests around other bodies always pay well, it might be smart to add an ant engine and a radial ant on probes orbiting other bodies as they weight nothing and tend to come up for testing.

[tater]

I delete almost all of them for the reasons you state above. I've had all green checks, and still not had it work.

[Zeniter]

I don't do them. I don't like them.

[Felsmak]

I only do them if I don't have to leave the ground.

[Sky_walker]

I always look at them to see how hard they are and how well they pay.

That's they key, basically.

I got dedicated cheap, low-tech sounding rocket for all of the "sub-orbital" and "in-flight" tests. Obviously rewards are a huge factor in that.

I don't do any of the in-orbit tests as IMHO they're not worth the time. It's much more profitable and quicker to send an orbiter to, say, Moho, and farm science and cash contracts from there than keep on sending missions to the Kerbin orbit, often redesigning the rocket to accommodate the payload in case you need to test something larger or heavier.

[psyper]

I delete almost all of them for the reasons you state above. I've had all green checks, and still not had it work.

They normally state in the contract whether the test needs to be "stage the engine when all the criteria are met" or "select run test" - the former you need to have the engine in a stage which you active when all the ticks are green. In the latter you need to right click on the part and choose run test in the option.

[Jeff Bird]

I've gotten what I think are some strange contracts. Like, to test the small gear bay while splashed down on Kerbin. Easy enough to do but kind of odd. Must be randomly generated.

Anyway, I think that Sky_walker is correct. Picking and choosing contracts carefully is the key. I look for super easy or big profits.

[Yellowburn10]

While these contracts may not pay well funds wise, that's not the same for science. Typically when a testing contract comes up for the first time, the science they give you can be great, up to 300 science for one contract. This may not seem like a lot compared to science on other planet bodies, but most of these can be done without even leaving the atmosphere. Also, you don't need to spend all that money on a rocket to go to a said planet, get the science, and come back.

So, testing contracts. Not that great of a money payout, but great if you need some quick science.

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

I've gotten what I think are some strange contracts. Like, to test the small gear bay while splashed down on Kerbin. Easy enough to do but kind of odd. Must be randomly generated.

Anyway, I think that Sky_walker is correct. Picking and choosing contracts carefully is the key. I look for super easy or big profits.

I got a similar contract. It is random generated, but it is all coming out of the same pool.

My weirdest contract is: Rescue a "stranded Kerbal", where a random Kerbal is spawned in LKO

Overall I only use the science, land, visit etc. contracts 'cause they make the most sense. I never bother with testing parts.

[Alshain]

Depends on what it's doing. Several of them are unrealistic, like testing the BACC at 60km. Who's going to cart a giant SRB to 60km to run a test? Not me. Sadly I get that contract a lot.

More realistic ones I will test. You just have to filter out the ones that are not reasonable. Once you get enough parts to build planes, that makes it easy. You can strap most of the parts to a plane and test easily at little cost, even engines. You don't have to actually run the engine to get the credit for it, a plane with no oxidizer can test rocket engines just fine.

[Methusalem]

While these contracts may not pay well funds wise, that's not the same for science. Typically when a testing contract comes up for the first time, the science they give you can be great, up to 300 science for one contract. This may not seem like a lot compared to science on other planet bodies, but most of these can be done without even leaving the atmosphere. Also, you don't need to spend all that money on a rocket to go to a said planet, get the science, and come back.

So, testing contracts. Not that great of a money payout, but great if you need some quick science.

The "Landed at Kerbal" contracts are really great for that. They don't pay a lot, but they do give full science. For engine tests, simply set the thrust to Zero (and maybe remove the fuel as well). And the tests cost almost nothing since you never leave the launch pad.

Other than that, I'm rather picky and only accept contracts when they fit into the flight profile. But especially the "In Orbit" or "While on Escape Trajectory" tests can pay so much later on, that it sometimes makes sense to adjust the rocket design or flight profile slightly to do these experiments.

If you play modded KSP and use Tweakscale, then you can make the components so small, that they cost almost nothing and their weight is very low. But since the rewards are also balanced against the costs, it could almost be considered cheating.

[Sky_walker]

Depends on what it's doing. Several of them are unrealistic, like testing the BACC at 60km. Who's going to cart a giant SRB to 60km to run a test? Not me. Sadly I get that contract a lot.

Empty it.

You can regulate the amount of solid fuel through twakeables in the editor.

Empty SRB is almost like a balloon - large, but light Quite easy to carry. I strap two symmetrically to my sounding rocket. Fly up, then trigger them. Easy money.

So, testing contracts. Not that great of a money payout, but great if you need some quick science.

Depends on a specific contract. Some don't give you any, or very little, science but do give cash.

My weirdest contract is: Rescue a "stranded Kerbal", where a random Kerbal is spawned in LKO

You do know that it's a standard contract that keeps on reoccurring for every playthrough, right? It's almost like a moon landing contract, only it's suppose to teach you an orbital rendezvous.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Sky_walker

[DunaRocketeer]

I like doing the parts tests, but only if they don't sound silly - I do the tests for roleplay reasons rather than for any particular utility.

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

You do know that it's a standard contract that keeps on reoccurring for every playthrough, right? It's almost like a moon landing contract, only it's suppose to teach you an orbital rendezvous.

No, I didn't. I haven't played contracts (except for a little sandbox) due to lack of time, so it is all new to me. My first guess was that is was used as a rendez vous tutorial, but it is breaking immersion for me. I'd like to see more meaningful contracts that actually make a little sense.

[Sky_walker]

No, I didn't. I haven't played contracts (except for a little sandbox) due to lack of time, so it is all new to me. My first guess was that is was used as a rendez vous tutorial, but it is breaking immersion for me. I'd like to see more meaningful contracts that actually make a little sense.

Everyone would - but devs are busy with adding explosions to the buildings.

[boxman]

For me the biggest problem is lack of direction... I want some interesting missions where i actually get interesting results, like maybe go to a crater on a this and that planet at these specific coordinates and then get some result that actually makes me learn a bit about that said planet/moon. As it is now it seems pretty much same as sandbox mode. It seems like Squad does not want to do that since they wants to leave everything up to the player, but sadly that just does not work in career mode imo.

So I personally really hope they reconsider this part and actually give us something more meanigful to do in career mode.

[Beachernaut]

I don't generally do parts contracts. Many of them are more trouble than they're worth.

However, I found this contract mod to be pretty good. It does have specifics for placing satelites, investigating specific locations, etc.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/88445-0-24-2-Fine-Print-v0-58b-Resource-Harvest-Contracts-Configuration-%28August-31%29

[PB666]

[Complaint: the message gui sucks, it looses more than 75% of my messages]

Magnemoe - I agree.

My metric is space center time. The more cash and/or sci earned per unit time is how I decide missions.

-Landed mission reward but cost no time. Landed contracts are the best because you simply don't move.

-Combine orbital and suborbital missons and contracts, these can be also combined with a mission ending enviro EVA.

-Atmosphere completion contracts often offer good rewards with little time. But many are too difficult, too risky to justify the rewards.

Deleting contracts often results in the replacement with more favorable contracts. One should not just leave the contracts, fiddle with them and one may be able to cluster several contracts into one very profitable mission.

[metl]

Most of the payoffs just aren't worth the expense of the vehicle to test the part.

[Jeff Bird]

Everyone would - but devs are busy with adding explosions to the buildings.

You correct again Sky_walker.

[boxman]

Everyone would - but devs are busy with adding explosions to the buildings.

I think we should just wait and see what it leads to in .26 before we decide if it is a worthwhile addition or not. They have said that it is the groundwork for something bigger, so hopefully that will be worth it.

[theend3r]

On the contrary. Testing kerbodyne parts is the only contract worth doing. It yields 450 000 fuds if I remember right (didn't play for a while now).

[ayana]

the four million funds for testing an LFB around Eve sure seemed worth alot

[SorryDave]

I like using the part testing with admin strategy to earn science.

Unlocking nodes on the tech tree gives me more part testing contracts.

I like to save the exploration missions till after I unlock a bunch of technology. I find it more realistic to unlock technology by testing before I plan and build for manned missions.