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

[Razorfang]

Awesome. Thanks for this. Same problem with Stations and Bases Pack. The SCANSat pack seems to be working though. At least, the contracts I already have accepted are still there.

[Torih]

1 hour ago, nightingale said:

Fixed for next release (which will probably be today to get this issue cleared out).

Assume its the same issue, but just in case. Satscan contracts are also disappearing instantly. My Remote tech ones are fine however.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26687/output_log_contractissue.txt

Edited April 20, 2016 by Torih

[nightingale]

3 hours ago, Torih said:

Assume its the same issue, but just in case. Satscan contracts are also disappearing instantly. My Remote tech ones are fine however.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26687/output_log_contractissue.txt

Totally different issues, you're getting some exceptions on contract load.  I'll fix that up for the imminent release.

[nightingale]

Fixed a whole bunch of stuff that was due to the 1.10 changes around contract requirements.  Should all be good now, download here.

Contract Configurator 1.10.3

• Fixed contract "flickering" on RemoteTech contracts (thanks Razorfang).
• Fixed problems with SCANsat contracts (thanks Torih).
• Fixed issues with child requirements not getting properly propagated to offered contracts.
• Fixed disabling of contract requirements in debug menu (the contract would appear then immediately disappear).

[A_name]

Can I make it so I don't receive "test a part" contracts?

[severedsolo]

4 minutes ago, A_name said:

Can I make it so I don't receive "test a part" contracts?

You can do that by editing contracts.cfg in stock, but you can also do it with CC - see here: https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/wiki/Miscellaneous

[A_name]

1 minute ago, severedsolo said:

You can do that by editing contracts.cfg in stock, but you can also do it with CC - see here: https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/wiki/Miscellaneous

Thanks for chiming in. Where exactly do I have to put the code you linked?

[severedsolo]

Just now, A_name said:

Thanks for chiming in. Where exactly do I have to put the code you linked?

Just put it in a new text document and name it <whatever you like>.cfg - you can also do this in game by going to the CC menu in the KSC scene.

[nightingale]

@A_name - yup the in-game way is the recommended method (although what @severedsolo suggested is fine too).  Keep in mind that doing it the in-game way is a per-save setting.

[HaArLiNsH]

Hi, since your new version ( 1.10.3 ) the RemoteTech missions seems bugged. I had the "setup Kerbin relay with 4 sats" mission active and I  receive this error message and the mission disapeared from my list :

 

Exception occured while loading contract 'RemoteTech.RT_KerbinRelay_4sat':
System.ArgumentException: Missing required value 'minCoverage'.
  at ContractConfigurator.ConfigNodeUtil.ParseValue[Double] (.ConfigNode configNode, System.String key, Boolean allowExpression) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
  at ContractConfigurator.RemoteTech.CelestialBodyCoverageRequirement.LoadFromPersistence (.ConfigNode configNode) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
  at ContractConfigurator.ContractRequirement.LoadRequirement (.ConfigNode configNode) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
  at ContractConfigurator.ConfiguredContract.OnLoad (.ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

 

I've another mission for Remote Tech (point out a dish to the Mun) and it seems its not affected by this problem

 

[Dtgnoome]

I have an intermittent issue on load,

Exception occured while loading contract 'RemoteTech.RT_GasGiantRelay':
System.ArgumentException: Missing required value 'minCoverage'.
  at ContractConfigurator.ConfigNodeUtil.ParseValue[Double] (.ConfigNode configNode, System.String key, Boolean allowExpression) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at ContractConfigurator.RemoteTech.CelestialBodyCoverageRequirement.LoadFromPersistence (.ConfigNode configNode) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at ContractConfigurator.ContractRequirement.LoadRequirement (.ConfigNode configNode) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at ContractConfigurator.ConfiguredContract.OnLoad (.ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

 

I have CC 1.10.3, Remotetech 1.6.11, RemoteTech Contractpack 2.0.2,ScanSat 1.0.1 I am using ksp 1.1

It only happens sometimes,and rarely at that.

 

[Sidelia]

3 hours ago, HaArLiNsH said:

Hi, since your new version ( 1.10.3 ) the RemoteTech missions seems bugged. I had the "setup Kerbin relay with 4 sats" mission active and I  receive this error message and the mission disapeared from my list :

 

Exception occured while loading contract 'RemoteTech.RT_KerbinRelay_4sat':
System.ArgumentException: Missing required value 'minCoverage'.
  at ContractConfigurator.ConfigNodeUtil.ParseValue[Double] (.ConfigNode configNode, System.String key, Boolean allowExpression) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
  at ContractConfigurator.RemoteTech.CelestialBodyCoverageRequirement.LoadFromPersistence (.ConfigNode configNode) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
  at ContractConfigurator.ContractRequirement.LoadRequirement (.ConfigNode configNode) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
  at ContractConfigurator.ConfiguredContract.OnLoad (.ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

 

I've another mission for Remote Tech (point out a dish to the Mun) and it seems its not affected by this problem

 

+1 from me. CC 1.10.3 & Contract Pack: RemoteTech 2.0.2 and RemoteTech 1.6.11

 

I accepted the contract last night with the previous version of CC installed. This morning, updated CC to latest version and loaded the game. Same contract active, same error on game load.

[nightingale]

Right, it's been a while since I've had to do such frequent releases.  There was a build misconfiguration from switching over to 1.1, and I wasn't actually testing what I thought I was testing.  That's all fixed, and so are the errors it caused.  New version here.

Contract Configurator 1.10.4

• Fixed RemoteTech exceptions (thanks @HaArLiNsH, @Dtgnoome and @Sidelia).

[HaArLiNsH]

Great work ! thank you

[chrisl]

I'm pretty sure there is an issue in the way RP-0 contract spaceStationRotationRepeat (Station Crew Rotation.cfg) is setup but I'm not sure how to correct it.  Hoping nightingale might be able to offer some suggestions.  I'm using the version of the file from the RP-0 Github.  Not the version that comes with RP-0-v0.47. 

The first parameter of the contract defines a ship labeled as "crewCapsule" which is supposed to be a vessel with at least 2 crew that gets within 1000m of a previously defined vessel named "spaceStation".  First issue I see after running this contract twice is that this first parameter seems to complete simply by launching a craft with at least 2 crew. 

The second parameter of the contract is intended to have you transfer two crew from "crewCapsule" to "spaceStation" and have them remain on the station for 30 days.  This mostly works in that, if you dock "crewCapsule" to "spaceStations" the timer starts up.  The trouble is, docking results in "crewCapsule" and "spaceStation" being listed in the "ContractVesselTracker" scenario as the same vessel (both now have the same id and hash).  I understand why that happens since "docking" in KSP results in two vessels being merged into one.

The real trouble is when we come to the third parameter.  Here we're suppose to put the crew back into "crewCapsule" and return the capsule and crew home.  Problem is, when I undock the capsule I flew up to the station, "crewCapsule" doesn't get redefined.  It's still got the same id and hash as "spaceStation".  So basically the only way to complete the contract (without hacking, of course) is to land the space station.

1) Why does the first parameter complete before rendezvous happens?
2) Is there any way to force "crewCapsule" to track the original capsule even after a docking/undocking procedure?

[nightingale]

2 hours ago, chrisl said:

<snip>

1) Why does the first parameter complete before rendezvous happens?

Sounds like a bug, let me look into it.

2 hours ago, chrisl said:

2) Is there any way to force "crewCapsule" to track the original capsule even after a docking/undocking procedure?

It's supposed to, but it's complicated.  It would be really helpful if you could provide a full KSP.log with verbose debug turned on for ContractVesselTracker (see here for instructions).  For this log I'd need you to start before the docking, and go through everything up to the undock.

[chrisl]

I should be able to do that.  Will get you the files as soon as I can.

[nightingale]

20 minutes ago, chrisl said:

I should be able to do that.  Will get you the files as soon as I can.

If you're able to include a save from before docking it would be really helpful too.

[smjjames]

Hey @nightingale I'm getting loads of NREs and some other exceptions coming from the DMagic anomaly contracts. I'm not totally sure if they are coming from CC or something else. This is when loading an old 1.0.5 save that was transferred to 1.1.

Output log: http://sta.sh/0alf0a59d3

persistent file from that save: http://sta.sh/01pavwb7coa9

[nightingale]

@DMagic's stuff is all old school contracts, no Contract Configurator involved. Best to bring it up on his thread.

[DMagic]

@smjjames It looks like a lot of my contract are screwed up in your save file. Whether this is from the changes made in the 1.2 update, or something about the most recent update I'm not sure. I would go through the Contracts section and delete any of my contracts (they all start with DM...) that don't have any parameters or maybe just have one or two.

Edited April 22, 2016 by DMagic

[smjjames]

26 minutes ago, nightingale said:

@DMagic's stuff is all old school contracts, no Contract Configurator involved. Best to bring it up on his thread.

Oh right, sorry.

1 minute ago, DMagic said:

@smjjames It looks like a lot of my contract are screwed up in your save file. whether this is from the changes made in the 1.2 update, or something about the most recent update I'm not sure. I would go through the Contracts section and delete any of my contracts (they all start with DM...) that don't have any parameters or maybe just have one or two.

Well, it's an older save transferred into 1.1, so it could easily be that. Also, it seems to be largely the anomaly contracts that are spazzing out,

I'll continue the discussion in the DMOS thread though.

[nightingale]

@chrisl - good news and bad news.  Was able to figure out and fix the undock thing.  Is this on 1.1 yet, or are you guys still back on 1.0.5?  If it's the latter, I'll provide an unofficial back-port, because I'd really like another test on this one since undocking is nasty and different for claw vs. docking ports and also impacted by vessel setup.

Bad news is, I wasn't able to reproduce the rendezvous thing - that worked as expected for me.  Any more insight you can provide on that would be good, otherwise I may have to resort to giving you a hacked up DLL with extra debug (there isn't much in Rendezvous).

[nightingale]

Need some input from the maintainers of contracts that use VesselParameterGroup.vessel, which I'm thinking means @inigma, @severedsolo and @NathanKell.

As part of investigating the fix above for @chrisl, I had some trouble figuring out which vessel of the two after undocking that Contract Configurator was looking at for a VesselParameterGroup with the vessel attribute set.  I had the parameter in there already to do the actual checking, it was just invisible because it didn't have a title set.  So I turned the title on, which gives the "Vessel: Le Station" parameter below.

Now, the "problem" is that when the active vessel is not the vessel being checked for, the VesselParameterGroup will continue to track the vessel that does match.  The down side is user confusion - "why is there a checkmark when I'm focused on  'Le Other Vessel'?".  The upside is that if the parameters are somewhat dynamic they'll be able to see stuff changing (the countdown timers are a particularly good example of this).

So how should I make this work?  Try to force showing the active vessel?  Or show the vessel that meets the VesselParameterGroup.vessel condition?  If I do the latter I can add some sort of text (or note, but notes suck because they start minimized, and users won't look at them) to indicate the vessel tracked is not the current vessel?

Keep in mind either way the change is cosmetic - even if I'm not looking at "Le Station" when it splashes down, the parameter will still complete correctly

[NathanKell]

@nightingale uh...so Le Station is actually the capsule, and the station (still in orbit) is named something different?