[1.10.1+] Contract Configurator [v1.30.5] [2020-10-05]

[steve_v]

22 minutes ago, SoonerTed said:

Do you think Field Research is pushing out the "Rescue Kerbal" missions?

Field research doesn't disable rescue contracts, but this does:

One can presumably re-enable them in CC settings.

Edited January 6, 2019 by steve_v

[SoonerTed]

2 minutes ago, steve_v said:

Field research doesn't disable rescue contracts, but this does:

One can presumably re-enable them in CC settings.

Right, but the quantity of contracts can "push out" the others because of the frequency.

[nightingale]

3 hours ago, SoonerTed said:

Right, but the quantity of contracts can "push out" the others because of the frequency.

I thought I'd put something in place to prevent that... but I honestly can't remember and will look into it.  Raised here:
https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/issues/674

[SoonerTed]

On 1/6/2019 at 12:38 AM, nightingale said:

I thought I'd put something in place to prevent that... but I honestly can't remember and will look into it.  Raised here:
https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/issues/674

I started a new game without Bases contract pack and without the Field Research.  I got multiple rescue missions within the first 50 days.  I'm kicking myself for not doing this one at a time to isolate the problem for you.

[nightingale]

3 hours ago, SoonerTed said:

I started a new game without Bases contract pack and without the Field Research.  I got multiple rescue missions within the first 50 days.  I'm kicking myself for not doing this one at a time to isolate the problem for you.

Oh, it could be Bases and Stations disables it (although I checked and this does not seem to be the case).

[gamerscircle]

New to the thread, I have an on going save, I just added the Bases and Stations, when I am looking at the available contracts, there is a constant refresh going on.. something I should check?

[BlackHat]

2 hours ago, gamerscircle said:

New to the thread, I have an on going save, I just added the Bases and Stations, when I am looking at the available contracts, there is a constant refresh going on.. something I should check?

Yep that has been seen, its a new bug that cropped up. The contracts appears and disappears to quickly to be selected. Nightingale is aware of it. AFAIK it only effects Bases and Stations Contracts. Dont know if its CC Mod or B&S mod.

[gamerscircle]

6 hours ago, BlackHat said:

Yep that has been seen, its a new bug that cropped up. The contracts appears and disappears to quickly to be selected. Nightingale is aware of it. AFAIK it only effects Bases and Stations Contracts. Dont know if its CC Mod or B&S mod.

Okay.. thanks, I thought perhaps my save was haunted .. all those lost kerbals over the years.

[Tonka Crash]

On 1/14/2019 at 11:41 PM, BlackHat said:

Yep that has been seen, its a new bug that cropped up. The contracts appears and disappears to quickly to be selected. Nightingale is aware of it. AFAIK it only effects Bases and Stations Contracts. Dont know if its CC Mod or B&S mod.

It's not exactly new I saw it in August and was ignored. 

[TicTac]

I'm also having the bases and stations flickering issue, I posted in their thread but linuxgurugamer suggested raising the issue here.

From my post there:

I have a few contract packs installed, and only Bases and Stations is effected.  For me, missions to launch a station will become available and then disappear within a few seconds.  Clicking on the "Launch a Station" mission when none are available shows all criteria met except for "Target Not Sun".  The behavior looks almost like it's still re-rolling the contracts after they appear on the mission board, despite having multi-day expiration timers.

I didn't see anything useful in the log, but let me know if there's any info I can send you.

I haven't yet tried recreating this in a clean install, using only contract configurator and the bases and stations pack.  I might do that over the weekend.

[Tonka Crash]

Since the Bases and Station pack has a problem with the contract flipping by faster than they can be accepted I went in added autoAccept = true to the maintenance type contracts, this covers the mundane like crew rotations and supply runs, but also the unavoidable "act of god" problems like evacuations and malfunctions. I also increased the cooldown by a factor of 10 across the board so they shouldn't pop up as frequently.

@nightingale I have a question about this. The autoAccept contracts are now just appearing in my active contract list without me going into Mission Control. Is this the expected behavior?  

Also is there a way to manually force the number of stars for a contract? What I'm experiencing just seems a little out of wack. I have a contract to build a base on Duna (1-star) but a supply run to my Mun base is (3-star), that seems backwards. I'd like to force routine missions to be 1-star, build something new 3-star, expand an existing site 2-star, etc.

My reputation is in the mid 80s and things that should be trivial are getting 3 stars and I can't accept any more exceptional contracts, but I am able to accept another 20 one and two star contracts. I just don't get offers at the lower star count very often. At this point in my game nothing in the Kerbin SOI should be exceptional as none of these have any difficulty, but missions to other planets should have a high significance. For whatever reason the autoAccept contracts have all added as exceptional.

[Tonka Crash]

@nightingale Another problem. I had two nearly identical contracts from Bases and Stations. Both were "Repair a faulty power module" one on a Kerbin orbital station and the other on a Minmus orbital station. To complete the contract it's just EVA an Engineer for two minutes. When I completed one successfully the other one fails at the same time. I have no chance to complete the second one. How can this be avoided?

I think I found this one. I set MaxSimultaneous = 1 in the problem contract. Hopefully this sidesteps the problem of one failing if there are two at the same time.

Edited January 19, 2019 by Tonka Crash

[Ahres]

I've been trying to research as much as possible before coming onto the forum to ask for help, but now that time has finally come.

CC was something I've been wanting to learn so I've been recreating @pap1723's Career Evolution pack piece by piece with my own code and then comparing to pick up on things I might have missed or could have coded better. He (or she) has got a rendezvous contract that I remember worked back in the day. The contract is to simply rendezvous two vessels in orbit. Looking at the original code:

		PARAMETER
		{
			name = Rendezvous
			type = Rendezvous
			distance = 100
			title = Rendezvous two craft in Orbit
			hideChildren = true
			disableOnStateChange = true
		}

You can see there's no "vessel" attribute. So I tried to do the same thing but got an error saying that the "vessel" attribute is required. So did something change there? Because of that error though, I created a contract that asks for launching a target vessel (basically the Agena from the Gemini Program) and gave it a VPG so that I have something to target in follow-up rendezvous contract. I wanted to make it fool proof though and make sure that the Agena was still in orbit so that the rendezvous contract could be fulfilled. I used the VesselValid requirement to see if that'd do the trick but it didn't. The error log says that "VesselValid" is an unknown requirement.

 

Here's the VPG of the target vessel:

	PARAMETER
	{
		name = FirstRendAndDockTargetVesselParameterGroup
		type = VesselParameterGroup
		title = Target Vessel
		
		define = TargetRendezvousAndDockingVessel
		
		dissassociateVesselsOnContractCompletion = false
		
		PARAMETER
		{
			name = FirstRendAndDockNewTargetVessel
			type = NewVessel
			title = Launch New Vessel
			
			hideChildren = true
		}
		
		PARAMETER
		{
			name = Uncrewed
			type = HasCrew
			title = Uncrewed
			
			minCrew = 0
			maxCrew = 0
			
			hideChildren = true
		}
		
		PARAMETER
		{
			name = DockingPortValidation
			type = PartValidation
			title = Have A Docking Port
			
			partModuleType = Dock
			
			hideChildren = true
		}
		
		PARAMETER
		{
			name = ReachOrbitState
			type = ReachState
			title = Reach Orbit
			
			situation = ORBITING
		
			disableOnStateChange = false
			hideChildren = true
		}
	}

 

And here's the requirement for the rendezvous contract:

	REQUIREMENT
	{
		name = FirstRendTargetVesselValid
		type = VesselValid
		title = Target Vessel Is Still In Orbit
		
		vessel = TargetRendezvousAndDockingVessel
		
		hideChildren = true
	}

 

I know I could just ditch the requirement, but I'd really like to keep it in there. The wiki says the vessel attribute in the rendezvous parameter is required, but it appears it didn't used to be. It'd sure make my coding easier if it wasn't required. But if it must be that way, any pointers would be really appreciated.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Ahres

[viveleroi]

Using v1.27.1 - I have a fully upgraded mission control (v1.6.1) but am somehow still limited to 15 trivial, 12 significant, 8 exceptional contracts. I'm not aware of any other mod that's limiting this, I certainly haven't chosen them. Am I missing something simple or is there a bug somewhere?

 

I have 80% rep. Maybe I'm forgetting how default KSP works but this definitely isn't "unlimited active contracts".

Edited January 24, 2019 by viveleroi

[Inqie]

Hi, I was just wondering, has anyone has made a User Defined Language for Contract Configurator yet? A .xml file you can import into a program like Notepad++ to highlight keywords.
I attempted to make one myself, here is the link to it (it will be updated as I refine it): https://www.dropbox.com/s/od8sku0wkpceh79/contractcfg.xml?dl=0
+Edit: I added a Lite version which supports folding/collapsing, but text may be highlighted out of place: https://www.dropbox.com/s/uueo4pykr2cqmar/contractcfg_lite.xml?dl=0

It has a couple of problems, like some brackets and/or comments directly after DATA or PARAMETER nodes don't get coloured, and Code Folding is messy, but that's the sacrifice I had to make to be able to colour expressions ie. HomeWorld() or type = PartUnlocked without them being highlighted outside of their correct positions (ie. if you named something that included an expression or node title).

If you would like to help fix the problems with it, I've been sorting out the initial issues on the Notepad++ forum: https://notepad-plus-plus.org/community/topic/17019/how-to-setup-udl-keyword-style-overwrites

Edited January 31, 2019 by Inqie

[Inqie]

@nightingale I'm trying to use extended PartValidation - and as I've seen in a previous post, I've put MODULE {} behind a FILTER {} node.

Spoiler

	PARAMETER
	{
		title = Activate your warp-capable engine
		...          
		FILTER
		{
			MODULE
			{
				name = USI_ModuleWarpEngine
				isEnabled = True
				IsDeployed = True
			}
		}
	}

 

However neither hidden nor hideChildren seem to hide anything when placed anywhere in the above nodes, so the result in the contract menu in-game ends up: 

Spoiler

Activate your warp-capable engine: Incomplete
	With Name: U S I_ Warp Engine: Incomplete
	With Is Enabled: True: Incomplete
	With Is Deployed: True: Incomplete

 

(Note the change in the module name) Rather than just:

Activate your warp-capable engine: Incomplete

EDIT: Even putting all of the code inside of an All clause and putting hidden or hideChildren in that doesn't work. 
!!EDIT: It doesn't seem like the MODULE node is detecting changes in the parts until I enter the physics load distance of another craft - and when it does, it returns incorrectly (ie. displays "Is Deployed" as failed when the part is clearly deployed)

Can someone give me advice on how to properly set this up?
Entire relevant part of the script here: 

Spoiler

	PARAMETER // limit thrust to 25%
	{
		name = PartValidation
		type = PartValidation
		title = Limit your warp engine thrust to 25%
		
		disableOnStateChange = false
		completeInSequence = true
		
		FILTER
		{
			MODULE
			{
				name = ModuleEngines
				currentThrottle >= 1
				thrustPercentage >= 20
				thrustPercentage <= 30
			}
		}

		minCount = 1
	//	hideChildren = true
	}
	
	PARAMETER // activate warp engine
	{
		name = PartValidation
		type = PartValidation
		title = Activate your warp-capable engine
		
		disableOnStateChange = false
		completeInSequence = true
		
		FILTER
		{
			MODULE
			{
				name = USI_ModuleWarpEngine
				isEnabled = True
				IsDeployed = True
			}
		}
		
		minCount = 1
	//	hideChildren = true
	}

 

 

Edited February 3, 2019 by Inqie

[MuchozolF]

Waypoint toggles in the Tracking Station just went all crazy on me. When I disabled any toggle all waypoints got hidden. The issue disappeared after going to KSC and back to Tracking Station.

It might be important that earlier I got the waypoint multiplication bug and after clicking one of the toggles my game crashed.

 

Also, I really think these toggles need new icons. IMO they stand out too much from the stock ones. And their section of the bar is a little narrower. Maybe it would be enough if there was some separation between KSP and mod toggles. Might be just my preference and/or OCD. Just putting it out there.

[gamerscircle]

HI there -

I was refereed here by @linuxgurugamer re: 

There has been a couple of contracts now that says [para-phrasing here]  Go to this station and do this experiment.

The stations are called out by name and they are valid.
The experiment has been the Atmospheric Fluid Spectro-Variometer

Both times, being asked to perform the experiment and not being able to.

Currently I am using CC: [1.6.x+] Contract Configurator [v1.27.1]
The mod is [1.4.*, 1.5.*] Contract Pack: Bases and Stations Reborn [link above]

I have read through the forums on CC a little and see that there is a possible issue about the contracts and how they are constantly refreshing, but I hasn't seen anyone call this out. If there are any other details that i am provide, please let me know.

 

[jospanner]

Sorry if I'm being a bit silly but I don't understand what the (new) and (TBD) tags mean with contracts. What am I being asked here?

Do vessel (new) and vessel (TBD) have to be separate missions or something?

https://imgur.com/a/Ezqt6iS

[Tonka Crash]

On 2/6/2019 at 3:54 PM, gamerscircle said:

The stations are called out by name and they are valid.
The experiment has been the Atmospheric Fluid Spectro-Variometer

LinuxGamerGuru passes the buck to contract configurator when people report bugs in that Bases and Stations contract pack. It's buggy. I've gone in and changed a lot of the contract setups to auto accept to get around them flashing by too fast to click. I also set the significance down to trivial because I usually have room to accept them there.

When I've seen a bad combination of experiment and situation. Like the atmosphere only experiments in a vacuum location. I'll go through the motions to run the experiment as asked and when it fails go into the debug menu and just complete the contract. You also get these with the Dmagic anomaly surveyor doing scans "flying low" on the Mun or Minmus when it should be "in space low"

1 hour ago, jospanner said:

Sorry if I'm being a bit silly but I don't understand what the (new) and (TBD) tags mean with contracts. What am I being asked here?

Do vessel (new) and vessel (TBD) have to be separate missions or something?

https://imgur.com/a/Ezqt6iS

New means launch a new ship, you can't use one already in flight. I don't think I've ever seen TBD on a contract before. Maybe it attaches to whatever vessel you launch as the (new) vessel for the first requirement of the contract I wouldn't think it would be a different vessel.

[Grigetio]

That TBD means that the specific ship will be registered as part of that contract once it escapes the SOI of kerbin.

[Vanamonde]

2 hours ago, Tonka Crash said:

LinuxGamerGuru passes the buck to contract configurator when people report bugs in that Bases and Stations contract pack.

Even if true, that's a pretty harsh way to phrase your point, and one not likely to inspire a productive response. As always, folks, please try to keep in mind that your fellow forum members are not deliberately being unhelpful, and please restrict the discussions to game issues and leave each other's personalities out of things. 

[steve_v]

5 hours ago, Tonka Crash said:

LinuxGamerGuru passes the buck to contract configurator when people report bugs in that Bases and Stations contract pack.

That would be because the bug mentioned, experiments being called for in invalid situations, has nothing to do with the bases and stations pack.

Valid experiment / situation combinations are defined in GameData/ContractConfigurator/science/foo.cfg. In the case of the atmosphere analysis we have:

    EXPERIMENT
    {
        name = atmosphereAnalysis
    }

In stock.cfg, which means it will be called for in contracts with no restrictions.
It should probably be:

    EXPERIMENT
    {
        name = atmosphereAnalysis
	requireAtmosphere = true
    }

Either way @Tonka Crash, you are flat-out wrong in blaming Bases And Stations, and flat-out wrong in blaming LGG. [snip]

 

5 hours ago, Tonka Crash said:

When I've seen a bad combination of experiment and situation. Like the atmosphere only experiments in a vacuum location. I'll go through the motions to run the experiment as asked and when it fails go into the debug menu and just complete the contract.

Or you could [snip] fix the definitions, then report the bug and the fix in the appropriate thread. Better yet, put it up as a pull on github.
Do make sure you file your bugs against the the right mod though...

 

5 hours ago, Tonka Crash said:

You also get these with the Dmagic anomaly surveyor

https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/commit/98a78542132edbf2d9af5a3b850dcb8612eb2dba
See, people are fixing this stuff [snip]. Feel free to pitch in.

Edited February 9, 2019 by Gargamel
Edited by Moderator

[DMagic]

4 hours ago, Tonka Crash said:

You also get these with the Dmagic anomaly surveyor doing scans "flying low" on the Mun or Minmus when it should be "in space low"

Orbital Science does not use Contract Configurator and the anomaly survey science does, in fact, use the Flying Low situation for any results that are collected with the anomaly scanner while not landed on the surface. The anomaly science does not conform to standard science in any way, including this one.

[steve_v]

Just now, DMagic said:

anomaly science does not conform to standard science in any way

Yeah, it's ignored in the fixed DMagicOrbitalScience.cfg  for this very reason.

Aside, wow, this ridiculous WYSI(S)WYG post editor still is super broken.