[1.2.2] Realistic Progression Zero (RP-0) - Lightweight RealismOverhaul career v0.53 June 12

[New Horizons]

I am enyoing RP-0 more and more. I did my first moon landing. 

But there seems to be a problem. I cannot transmit data completely. Thermometer data need to be recovered, but "KSAEAVars.cfg" says, that all sensor type data have "globalSensorXmitDataScalar = 1.0".

Is this a known issue?

[chrisl]

On ‎3‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 7:55 PM, nightingale said:

In a word: timing.  That expression is only ever executed once (at contract generation time).  So when the contract was generated, the station probably existed and had no crew.  Once generated, it didn't matter that the expression would've had a different result, as it's simply never checked again.  I don't have a good answer for this one with what's currently available in Contract Configurator, so I've raised #496 with my thoughts on how to address it in the long term.

That being said, I do see a fairly major issue with that contract.  On this line, the vessel = crewCapsule probably was supposed to be define=crewCapsule.  Unless there is another contract that defines crewCapsule, but I think that this is leftover from a previous iteration of the contract that had an extra couple steps IIRC.

Sure does, something to this effect:

DATA
{
    type = List<Kerbal>
    kerbals = Vessel(spaceStation).Crew()
}

You can then use @/kerbals anywhere that accepts a list of Kerbals.

That part's actually more difficult - the kerbals on the capsule aren't known at contract generation time, and that's when expressions are executed.  Best way to do it given that is a two part contract (ie. two contracts).

When does a contract get generated?  I had my skylab space station in orbit but wanted to try out the repeatable space station contract so I pulled everyone out of Skylab and brought them home.  Then went to the tracking station and deleted Skylab.  Finally, I went to Mission Control to get a new contract.  I see the "Station Crew Rotation" contract so I select it and decline.... and decline... and decline.  I've declined the "Station Crew Rotation" contract about twenty times now but it keeps coming up.  Always with "Rendezvous with: spaceStation (TBD)" listed as one of the objectives.  That doesn't really surprise me since I no longer have any space stations in orbit.  But how come this contract keeps coming back up as an option?

Another question is, how does the contract determine what is a spaceStation?  Does it look for "type = Station" in the VESSEL information?

 

EDIT: I had 10 satellites (4xDSN plus 6xComm) that I had listed as Stations for sorting purposes.  I've gone through and re-typed all of these flights so they are now correctly listed as "type = Probe".  Then I even went so far as to completely exit and restart KSP.  Still I keep getting the "Station Crew Rotation" contract even though I definitely have no stations with which the contract should identify with.  On top of that, I am not getting the "New Space Station" contract which I should be getting since I have no stations currently in orbit.

Edited March 29, 2016 by chrisl

[nightingale]

6 hours ago, chrisl said:

When does a contract get generated?  I had my skylab space station in orbit but wanted to try out the repeatable space station contract so I pulled everyone out of Skylab and brought them home.  Then went to the tracking station and deleted Skylab.  Finally, I went to Mission Control to get a new contract.  I see the "Station Crew Rotation" contract so I select it and decline.... and decline... and decline.  I've declined the "Station Crew Rotation" contract about twenty times now but it keeps coming up.  Always with "Rendezvous with: spaceStation (TBD)" listed as one of the objectives.  That doesn't really surprise me since I no longer have any space stations in orbit.  But how come this contract keeps coming back up as an option?

This contract has been in flux a little bit - not sure if you're using the current dev version or not.  The last I looked at it though, I though launching the station was part of the contract (unless I'm thinking of a different one).  Anyway, the "(TBD)" just means a VesselParameterGroup with a vessel attribute that is pointing to an undefined vessel.  This is okay if there is also a VesselParameterGroup with a define attribute for that vessel in the same contract (which there is, if it's the one that I'm thinking of.  It was the best way I could come up with to concisely say "this vessel will be assigned at some point in the future".  Of course, there's the ability for the contract author to just overwrite that text completely (at least, there should be, could be partially broken in mission control, I've got a TODO to clean that up a bit).

6 hours ago, chrisl said:

Another question is, how does the contract determine what is a spaceStation?  Does it look for "type = Station" in the VESSEL information?

See above.

6 hours ago, chrisl said:

EDIT: I had 10 satellites (4xDSN plus 6xComm) that I had listed as Stations for sorting purposes.  I've gone through and re-typed all of these flights so they are now correctly listed as "type = Probe".  Then I even went so far as to completely exit and restart KSP.  Still I keep getting the "Station Crew Rotation" contract even though I definitely have no stations with which the contract should identify with.  On top of that, I am not getting the "New Space Station" contract which I should be getting since I have no stations currently in orbit.

I'd have to see the contract to be sure, but pretty sure launching is part of the contract.

[NathanKell]

@New Horizons Instead of transmitting the data, 'keep' the data and use a kerbal (or Ship Manifest) to transfer the data into a part that will be recovered on Earth. Then do so.

[chrisl]

12 hours ago, nightingale said:

This contract has been in flux a little bit - not sure if you're using the current dev version or not.  The last I looked at it though, I though launching the station was part of the contract (unless I'm thinking of a different one).  Anyway, the "(TBD)" just means a VesselParameterGroup with a vessel attribute that is pointing to an undefined vessel.  This is okay if there is also a VesselParameterGroup with a define attribute for that vessel in the same contract (which there is, if it's the one that I'm thinking of.  It was the best way I could come up with to concisely say "this vessel will be assigned at some point in the future".  Of course, there's the ability for the contract author to just overwrite that text completely (at least, there should be, could be partially broken in mission control, I've got a TODO to clean that up a bit).

See above.

I'd have to see the contract to be sure, but pretty sure launching is part of the contract.

The contracts in question are RP-0 contracts, "Station Repeat.cfg" and "Station Crew Rotation.cfg".  I'm using the versions that come with RP-0-v0.47.

When I'm in game and use ALT+F10, Contract Configurator shows that "expression = VesselIdentifier(spaceStation) == null" from "Station Repeate.cfg" is yellow which I'm assuming means the expression failed.  And Contract Configurator shows that "expression = VesselIdentifier(spaceStation) != null && Vessel(spaceStation).CrewCount() == 0" from "Station Crew Rotation.cfg" is green which I'm guessing means that expression is reporting as true.  That tells me my game seems to think there is already a space station in orbit somewhere (explaining why I never get offered the contract to put up a new space station) and that the space station in orbit has no crew on it (hence why I keep getting the crew rotation contract).  But like I said, as far as I can tell I have nothing that should be viewed as a space station currently in orbit.

[Shurikeeen]

I assume that updating RP-0 to 1.1 just requires the dependencies to be updated?

[nightingale]

52 minutes ago, chrisl said:

When I'm in game and use ALT+F10, Contract Configurator shows that "expression = VesselIdentifier(spaceStation) == null" from "Station Repeate.cfg" is yellow which I'm assuming means the expression failed.  And Contract Configurator shows that "expression = VesselIdentifier(spaceStation) != null && Vessel(spaceStation).CrewCount() == 0" from "Station Crew Rotation.cfg" is green which I'm guessing means that expression is reporting as true.   That tells me my game seems to think there is already a space station in orbit somewhere (explaining why I never get offered the contract to put up a new space station) and that the space station in orbit has no crew on it (hence why I keep getting the crew rotation contract).  But like I said, as far as I can tell I have nothing that should be viewed as a space station currently in orbit.

Correct, and yes, this does imply that the vessel 'spaceStation' is defined.  In your save file, there's a ScenarioModule called ContractVesselTracker where Contract Configurator keeps track of this stuff.  You should be able to find the appropriate vessel ID, which you can search for in the save file (be careful though, it's in a different format it has dashes when the stock ID doesn't).  Take a look, and that might shed some light.  Regardless, post up your save and I'll take a look as there's something fishy.  Either the contract is being offered when it shouldn't or there's a display issue and it should be showing you the name of the vessel and not spaceStation (TBD).

[chrisl]

35 minutes ago, nightingale said:

Correct, and yes, this does imply that the vessel 'spaceStation' is defined.  In your save file, there's a ScenarioModule called ContractVesselTracker where Contract Configurator keeps track of this stuff.  You should be able to find the appropriate vessel ID, which you can search for in the save file (be careful though, it's in a different format it has dashes when the stock ID doesn't).  Take a look, and that might shed some light.  Regardless, post up your save and I'll take a look as there's something fishy.  Either the contract is being offered when it shouldn't or there's a display issue and it should be showing you the name of the vessel and not spaceStation (TBD).

I put a copy of my persistent.sfs into my drop box ( https://www.dropbox.com/home?preview=persistent.sfs )  The only thing I see under the "ContractVesselTracker" scenario is:

 SCENARIO
 {
  name = ContractVesselTracker
  scene = 7, 8, 5
 }
 

Maybe it's not tracking properly?

[New Horizons]

12 hours ago, NathanKell said:

@New Horizons Instead of transmitting the data, 'keep' the data and use a kerbal (or Ship Manifest) to transfer the data into a part that will be recovered on Earth. Then do so.

Understood. But what is the intended behaviour? Data can be transmitted at 100 % or are there intended exceptions?

[CobaltWolf]

26 minutes ago, New Horizons said:

Understood. But what is the intended behaviour? Data can be transmitted at 100 % or are there intended exceptions?

Yeah @NathanKell is it not intended that simple data instruments (thermometers, geiger counters, etc) cannot transmit 100% ? If not, what would prevent them from transmitting simple information like that?

[NathanKell]

It is entirely intended you can transmit for 100%. The reason the contract specifies recovery is because it's a lunar landing and return contract, and that ensures you're actually returning.

[gleedadswell]

Did something just break, with craft mass and size limits?  All of a sudden rockets that I've launched before in the current game that I'm playing are exceeding size and mass limits of my launchpad.  The Launchpad size limit (level 2 upgrade) is set to 140 t.  I see a config file, CustomBarnKit.cfg, in the RP-0 directory which seems to be showing that the mass limit should be 800 t and that matches my memory of what it should be.  But clearly that isn't being implemented.

I went into the CustomBarnKit directory and edited the default.cfg to try to set the mass and size limits that way.  But that didn't change anything.  So I presume there must be some other mod which is changing these values somehow.  Help?

 

[Fluppi]

4 minutes ago, gleedadswell said:

Did something just break, with craft mass and size limits?  All of a sudden rockets that I've launched before in the current game that I'm playing are exceeding size and mass limits of my launchpad.  The Launchpad size limit (level 2 upgrade) is set to 140 t.  I see a config file, CustomBarnKit.cfg, in the RP-0 directory which seems to be showing that the mass limit should be 800 t and that matches my memory of what it should be.  But clearly that isn't being implemented.

I went into the CustomBarnKit directory and edited the default.cfg to try to set the mass and size limits that way.  But that didn't change anything.  So I presume there must be some other mod which is changing these values somehow.  Help?

 

Do you have the same problem with other buildings too? E.g. I updated CustomBarnKit today and I'm not able to use Action Groups anymore and my max contracts limit went down to 2 from 3. It was available when I played my career before that update.

[gleedadswell]

Quote

Do you have the same problem with other buildings too? E.g. I updated CustomBarnKit today and I'm not able to use Action Groups anymore and my max contracts limit went down to 2 from 3. It was available when I played my career before that update.

I haven't noticed anything with other buildings, but I agree that this sure looks like the update of CustomBarnKit broke things.

[Fluppi]

Ok I looked up the config files too. And it definitely isn't loading the config file of RP-0 but the CustomBarnKit default config file. Is there a way to change the config file that should be used in-game?

Edited April 2, 2016 by Fluppi

[gleedadswell]

1 hour ago, Fluppi said:

Do you have the same problem with other buildings too? E.g. I updated CustomBarnKit today and I'm not able to use Action Groups anymore and my max contracts limit went down to 2 from 3. It was available when I played my career before that update.

I can confirm that reverting to CustomBarnKit 1.1.4 (today's update was 1.1.5) fixes the problem.

[NathanKell]

@sarbian more CKAN issues?

[sarbian]

yep...

[LeuZ]

Does Real ISRU get added to RP-0 some time?

[chrisl]

On ‎4‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 0:09 PM, LeuZ said:

Does Real ISRU get added to RP-0 some time?

I would assume that Real ISRU will eventually be useable by RP-0 but I wasn't aware Real ISRU was ready for release yet.

[Dr. Jet]

It seems that most rocket parts from 

• Raidernick's Soviet rockets

and half of probes from 

• Raidernick's Soviet probes

are not RP-0 supported. R7 assembly for example is placed in Non-RP0 section and has insanely high cost, same for Luna and Molniya probes (though Sputnik1-3 probes are supported correctly... except for their decouplers and fairings).

Edited April 10, 2016 by Dr. Jet

[Maxsimal]

Hey, just wanted to share some thoughts on RPO.  I love the set of mods overall, been playing with it for more than a month, and none of this should be construed as a gripe - just some impressions and suggestions for you to look over and discard or think about as you choose.

I've gotten through the 'early' tech and am starting to send lunar missions, fyi, so obviouly this is just thoughts about how it works at the start..

1. Early missions are pretty repetetive..  It'd be nice to integrate some of the parts test or targetted science collection missions back, just to add variety (particular build variety).
2. Science is WAY too easy to earn early on, it's never really a concern, especially with the recommended DMagic orbital science mod.  While I think it's more realistic to have science progression depend on time moreso than lab tests, it still reduces one of the challenging aspects of the game.
3. There don't seem to be enough avionics options in the tech tree - and those that are there don't seem to improve that much as you get deeper.  Particularly, there's not too much in the way of improved small suite avionics to help build satellites, and you'd expect them to get cheaper - right now my satellite mission part cost is about 40%-50%  just the avionics modules, for instance.
   1. As an addenda, it'd be kinda awesome to have procedural avionics modules that work like procedural fuel tanks, taking into account current tech development.
4. The engine costing, if you're trying to be efficient, often favors using cheaper engines than the ones you've teched up to.  For instance, my satellite launch vehicle's lower stage using 5 staged A-4 engines gives me far more delta V and lift capacity than the more expensive, higher tech RD-103. 
5. I'm not sure if this is intended or not, but mechjeb lets you bypass the avionics requirements for your launches. This might help solve #4 since it would favor lighter/higher tech launch vehicles if it didn't
6. There are a lot of non-RO/RPO parts even with just suggested mods installed.  It'd be nice to hide these from the parts menu and/or science tree.  Or perhaps enlist help in costing them for RPO?  I'd be happy to help if that's the issue.

I do have one large suggestion that might address a bunch of these issues at once, and also make the game feel more like the real space programs - right now, it still feels like a commercial space program, rather than a national one.

What I'd do is add a  strategy to the administration building.  This would do the following, in a very rough sense

1. Give monthly cash allowance based off of your current reputation.  50-100 per point of reptuation.
2. Null out mission cash rewards.
3. Convert 60-75% of science rewards to reputation.
4. (possibly) Reduce reputation over time very slowly.
5. If at all possible, the strategy would raise the game's reputation cap or remove it.

Doing it as a strategy would allow an easy place to let players toggle whether they want a commercial or governmental space program.

Thus, rather than being funded on a contract basis, your space program would operate like a governmental one - with more funding based off of completing milestones, collecting science, and doing the tough missions, but without the incentive/need to 'grind' contracts like sounding rockets or suborbital flights.  Success would be measured in how quickly you could do the tough missions with current tech to increase your reputation and get a higher funding level, rather than how willing you are to launch repeatables.  

[winged]

On 10.04.2016 at 10:49 AM, Dr. Jet said:

It seems that most rocket parts from 

• Raidernick's Soviet rockets

and half of probes from 

• Raidernick's Soviet probes

are not RP-0 supported. R7 assembly for example is placed in Non-RP0 section and has insanely high cost, same for Luna and Molniya probes (though Sputnik1-3 probes are supported correctly... except for their decouplers and fairings).

That's probably because Raidernick changed the names for various parts: https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/issues/471

I was thinking it was fixed already.

[Maxsimal]

Is there any way to hide all the non-RP-0 parts?  The non-RP0.cfg looks like it's supposed to be doing this, but it doesn't seem to be working.

[Ice30]

I seem to be missing parts in the tech tree for nuclear power, improved nuclear power, high energy nuclear power etc. What is wrong?

Thanks in advance for the help!