McyD

Would like to suggest a key bind for screenshots, as it is setup now there is no way to get images with the contents of what is inside fairings, etc. by using the mods interface.

I agree a way to have favorited mods, either because they are used constantly, or ones players which to not forget about (maybe waiting for a mod to resolve a bug or become beta, release, etc) would be very handy. I also agree that the whole kick out the entire list when making changes is very annoying. Most of the time it is a network congestion issue it seems, as a second try will go through fine. It would be nice if CKAN just flagged the unable to be retrieved mods and listed them at the end. Maybe not install any dependent mods if a mod fails. The whole reason I was checking the thread though is I just swapped over to the Pre-release today and find it strange that many mods that are downloading for 1.05 are being listed as for version 1.1 now by the mod authors and ksp avc. Yet now that I am running 1.1 those mods are no longer listed as compatible. Might be worthwhile to check the pre-release mod thread as many of the mods on it which have been updated to 1.1 are not updated in CKAN it seems.

Ah that sucks, missed it by a few months then. Unfortunately, I didn't start using steam till a year ago. However, steam is great for keeping games up-to-date and I am a bit sick of the broken KSP patch system.

Is it not possible to transfer to steam now? I bought my copy in 2013, yet it is not showing as available to transfer to steam?

ckan Support?

Very Nice, definitely on my watch list now.

Oh, thank you! That clears that up, I probably never would have thought to look there, I kept looking for a toggle or hotkey.

Quick question, Just started using this. Videos show a configure screen for the parachutes; however, I have yet to get one to pull up. Are they only on certian parachute/creative only/ changed since the videos? Just wondering if I have a mod conflict somewhere or if it is only there under specific situations.

Wow, very interesting mod. Just when you think everything that can be added Kerbal has been, something like this comes along. Nice Job.

You mean besides the author of the mod stating that the mod it is not progressive? How is that on me to prove? You seem a bit lost on the conversation. And I would not call it badgering, I would call it a conversation, one that clarified quite a few things about the mod at that. I am also pretty sure that if the author did not have time to answer, they wouldn't. Here is a thought, forums are for more than just displaying signatures and posting OPS, something is supposed to go between those two.

Lol, okay I can see from your description of Realistic Progression Lite Versus what the Diagram actually shows, is that you do not seem to understand what a progressive tech tree is. While Realistic Progression Lite could be laid out a bit better, it is obviously designed as progressive tech tree where you progress through the techs and work your way to higher ones in a, for the most part, logical order. From comparing the two, you seem to have taken the worst aspects of it and built on those... turning what was a decent progressive tree, into a non-progressive one, as you describe it and seems intended (which is your prerogative). Yet you wonder why someone is confused when you compare to your tech tree to it, and then claim yours is supposed to be like it, then claim yours is not progressive... Actually looking at yours, you still do have some progression, though broken to the known balance issues (understandably as WIP), you just have really not though about the order or relation in some of the techs it seems and that is IMHO. As an Example: in what setting would solar power come before energy storage and lead to robotics? Robotics should be in its own line, perhaps linked to energy storage to advance in it (smaller more advanced robots need better batteries). Solar could be linked in with battery but should realistically run along side it, as batteries would not be required to make or use them; but it is understandable how a leap in solar could result (not require) a leap in batteries. Now compare those in Realistic Progression Lite (no robotics, but you can see where they could easily fit in). I see progression there... However, you have stated that is not what you are going for, and like I said that is IMHO and just given as an example. While you may not see Realistic Progression Lite as a progressive tech tree... Which description do you think people are going to relate, the original mod authors or someone else's? As you have just stated: I based my tech tree on XXX mod, which the author describes YYY; however, I describe that authors mod as ZZZ which is what my mod is like... Which basically states I did not base my mod on the other authors... See where the confusion comes in? As to the incompatibilities, I was just reporting that ckan shows them as incompatible, I am sure that is for a reason. If there is a workaround, then people can choose to use it like you say. However, that messes up ckan install if you ever want to update/remove those mods again. Given its ease of use for games containing large amounts of mods and its ease in updating or adding to them, I think I will trust it over work arounds. If the mods are good, they will continue to be developed, by the original author or another. Either way good luck with your Tech tree, you have obviously put quite a bit of work into it.

Hmm, it was never meant to be an attack, sorry if it was taken that way. I provided all the information I had readily available at the time of my posts. As for your claim now that it is not meant to be a progressive tree? You may want to re-read your OP then... As you specifically state in it: So you want to "fill the gap" left by a progressive tech tree, with a non-progressive tech tree? How exactly does that work? Is that like filling a gap in the ground with air? Because neither do the same thing or are setup the same way... Maybe that was just poor wording on your part, but you OP clearly eludes to the fact that this is meant to be a progressive tech tree. I did not think I needed any facts to back this up, as the OP itself leads one to believe it is an progressive tech tree. If you did not intend for the mod to be progressive tech tree then you should change the OP to reflect that it is set up as a categorical tech tree (which is how it is currently implemented) if that is your goal. As I did not have Ckan open at the time and thought perhaps; it was a known issue, a bug in ckan, or you might ask for more information (as it is a work in progress mod), instead of leaving a wall of text right off the bat... Again, I never stated "it's bad", and already stated in my previous posts that I understand the mod is a work in progress, maybe just that is was not as far along or as balanced as you thought it was... anyway here you go: - Near Future Electrical - 0.3.1 -shown as incompatible, listed as a .25 mod by both the author and ckan. - KASA IXS - 1.0 - shown as incompatible, no idea why. On a side note: where/what are these mods? - KAS - 0.4.10 -What is this? (I only find KAS Portable Science Container which is version 1.2.2 or Kas supplies which is 1.0) - FantomWorks KAX Part Pack - 0.1 -What is this? not found on the forums or ckan. - Romfarer Robotic Arms - v35 -What is this? Not found on the fourms or Ckan. Romfarer only shows as having made the lazor mod? Is this an addon by someone else? Suggestion here, links should be provided to the mods listed and the full name of the mod used, not acronyms. Keep in mind not everyone has been playing Kerbal non-stop for the last year or two, and reading the addon releases everyday. Well, I tried to be helpful, acknowledged I knew it was a work in progress mod and gave supporting information over multiple posts... and there is such a thing as taking constructive criticism as it is meant and... well...not. However, stating that mod is not a progressive tech tree (as stated in the OP) and not balanced as such; is in no way an attack, it is a simple fact in and of itself. As you just stated yourself... This leads back to the poorly worded OP... Maybe part of re-evaluating your mod, would be to ensure you are defining it correctly in the first place, so as to let the people who are downloading it know what they are getting... Perhaps a simple, "This is not a progressive tech tree, why do you think it is?" response, instead of OMG why are you attacking me, that is not what this is, where are your facts, etc... see how that works? Constructive criticism is a two way street, and such a response would have saved 2 walls of text... Now, from a categorical tech tree, you seem pretty much right on the money, with a bit of tweaking and balancing. However, again that is not what the OP describes this tree as... As you stated, I can remove the mod; which I did yesterday, as I am looking for a progressive tech tree (again, which this is described as in the OP). I was hoping to re-install it at a later date, once it was more balanced, but if it is not meant to be a progressive tree then I won't. As to removing mods, I do not know where this came from or why you are suggesting it, since I use most of the mods your tree supports and one of the initial reasons I tired it. I never stated anything about not liking mods in it, only that it lists incompatible mods (according to ckan), which would not be installed... Maybe you should check and list your facts on this, lol. So in the end, I guess ask a simple question, especially when someone is trying to be helpful, instead of... how did you word it... "just spitting venom"...

I understand that; however, even the way the tree is currently setup, is nowhere near what could be considered progressive. You would think that as a tech tree that is supposed to be progressive, at least some effort would have been taken to set the tech up that way from the start... Also still trying to figure out how incompatible mods, at least according to Ckan, are listed as required and recommended...

This tech tree really caught my eye, but after playing with it a while, I think the author needs to take a step back and re-evaluate it. Reading the description you would think that this tree was setup to be progressive, maybe it is supposed to be; however, as implemented right now it is not. While everything should not unlock at once and progression should take a while, this tree is sorely out of balance currently. As mentioned in previous posts, stack decoupler and control surfaces, the most prominently noticed so far, are too far down the lines for example. Also parts are put before parts they require to function:confused:, and parts that are meant first tier tech in some mods is pushed to higher tiers than they should be, upsetting the progression in those mods. Additionally, completely opposite to what the tree is described as what its meant to replace/be an alternate to, many varieties of the same parts unlocking at once is not progression. When I got to air intakes... previously having 1-2 air intakes and unlocking 7 or more air intakes in one unlock... that is not progression, if anything it is the exact opposite. No one in the real world would develop 7 air intakes and nothing else at once... maybe 2 if they differed in features and are not over powered for the tech level compared to each other. I really like the goal of the tech tree, however, its implementation falls far short of that goal right now. Hopefully, this will be remedied as the mod ages; otherwise I see it to be very short lived. This is meant as constructive criticism, and I hope it is taken that way. There is the potential for one of the best tech trees available, it just needs quite a bit of work to get there.

Anyone else having issue with even a basic decoupler being to far down the tech line? Seems a bit impossible to put a satellite in orbit, let alone anything else, without building some monstrosity of a rocket, due to a lack of staging. Three games now trying this tech tree, and I find myself stuck as I cannot complete any contracts as the tech tree progresses slower than the contracts are calling for.

Probably should be; but remember, Un-manned tech tree was just added yesterday. On a side note. If I am not mistaken the Contracts, (tech testing ones) are linked to the tech tree right? Ie testing contracts usually shows recently unlocked or next level unlocks. If so they are in desperate need of attention as I am seeing a ton of contracts I can't do in the beginning, as the tech given is so different from what is expected, making many of the missions impossible. Such as after my third flight, create a satellite network contract, when I am no where near unlocking most of the parts required to complete it.

Your missing Nova Punch 2, it adds the unmanned core (M-38 unoccupied guidance system) that you need at start.

Yeah, ran into this, just remove techmanager and then update ADIOS. @Arachnidek: How about a flight - unmanned -manned line of tech tree? I know you just added the unmanned to manned option. This would also allow props to be before jet engines, as long as you noted Firespitter (or similar) is required for it... Besides being realistic.