search

linuxgurugamer / KerbinSpaceStation

A contract pack for KSP, designed to replace the current Space Station Missions
Other
4 stars 8 forks source link

Add SSPXr Station core parameter #14

Closed TakashiSenpai closed 2 years ago

TakashiSenpai commented 3 years ago

Hello! Since SSPXr is getting an update, I thought it would be neat to include some of its features into the contract pack. My changes only add the requirement to include a station core (ie specialized station command module) as part of the "launch a new station" contract. I've thought about removing the requirement of having to unlock the hitchhiker too (it also adds habitation modules), since some tech tree mods (my own ^^) might move it later in the tree, while sspxr modules might be available, and block the unlock of the mission pack; however I didn't want to touch this, as it can be easily done by manually commenting out said requirement. And the rename for the lab is because they don't all share the same name, so as to avoid confusion if more parts could validate that requirement.

~TakashiSenpai

Krzeszny commented 2 years ago

Wait, let's get it straight. You proposed removing the requirement of having to unlock Hitchhiker because it might block the contract with custom tech trees, but you decided not to do it because you're expecting everyone to do it manually?

As for the sciencel lab, some science labs are lighter and some are heavier. Maybe it's better to have custom rewards for different labs? 75000 seems like too for the stock lab, anyway.

TakashiSenpai commented 2 years ago

Yes, since this commit intended only to add the core parts as an addiditional, optional requirement. I was looking for opinions on the requirement of the hitchhiker. I didn't "expext" anything of anyone, if my suggestion would gain traction, the idea is to remove that parameter entirely, if it doesn't, the people who'd, like me, not want this, would still be able to remove it on their end. If it were to be a fancy config, it would be also possible maybe to include this change only if no modded tech tree (except ctt) is installed.

linuxgurugamer commented 2 years ago

Could you do a better job of formatting, so that the indentations look correct?

TakashiSenpai commented 2 years ago

It was looking fine in visual studio code and notepad, I tried to fix it directly in github editor, but that didn't seem to work. Will have to look later, maybe it's related to having mixed tabulations and spaces for indents (I seriously don't know, am no expert).

Krzeszny commented 2 years ago

Yes, since this commit intended only to add the core parts as an addiditional, optional requirement. I was looking for opinions on the requirement of the hitchhiker. I didn't "expext" anything of anyone, if my suggestion would gain traction, the idea is to remove that parameter entirely, if it doesn't, the people who'd, like me, not want this, would still be able to remove it on their end. If it were to be a fancy config, it would be also possible maybe to include this change only if no modded tech tree (except ctt) is installed.

"Optional requirement" is an oxymoron. What's the point of having an "optional requirement" that requires you to launch additional mass but you don't get paid for it?

It's exactly like with the cupola which I'm planning to change. You're "required" to have an "optional" cupola which costs mass (so it costs more funds to launch) but you don't get paid for having it.

TBH, I'd like to be required to have a station core. when sending a... station core. What do you guys think? Should a station core be required with SSPXR installed?

linuxgurugamer commented 2 years ago

I'd like to see more discussion of this, preferably in the forum where others can see and comment on it.