Oneiros

[1.3.1] OpenTree - v2.5 (25/1/2018)

Recommended Posts

OpenTree is a tech tree mod featuring:

  • Increased player freedom with more options available from the start - choose from manned/unmanned rovers, manned rockets, probes, planes and drones.
  • Entry level tech offers the bare minimum to provide a fun and interesting challenge.
  • Tech development is based on finer levels of control and ease of use - not just increasing power.
  • The parts contained in each tech either work well together or are related in function. No more illogical groupings.

qEdu7um.png

Specifics

  • Receive 5 starting science points to choose between manned or unmanned tech.
  • Launch your first plane/drone (glider) with solid fuel boosters, your first rocket/probe with mono-propellant... or go for a drive around KSC with a rover.
  • Earlier access to docking ports, RCS, cargo bays, ISRU and turbojet engines.
  • Points of entry to Mk2, Mk3, 2.5m and 3.75m parts from both rocketry and aviation lines.
  • Feel free to lower the science rewards rate for a greater challenge - OpenTree was balance tested down to 30% science rewards.

 

Recommended mods

pOpdwHo.png?1

 

DOWNLOAD v2.5


SpaceDock

OR

CurseForge

(Simply extract to your KSP installation directory)

Also available on CKAN.

When installing for the first time, please start a new game.


 

Recent changes

Spoiler

v2.5 - 25/1/18

  • Several minor adjustments to part locations and buy-in costs
  • Fixed intake progression
  • Brought SRBs forward
  • Start with external command seat instead of pod

 

Mod Parts Technical Notes

Spoiler

OpenTree has a built in redundancy feature whereby any unknown parts that were previously assigned to the stock tech tree will automatically be placed in the most similar OpenTree tech nodes.

This covers both mod parts and future parts added by Squad, meaning that both forward compatibility and widespread mod support is already built in. Sometimes the parts seem to end up in strange places, due to differences between the structure of OpenTree and the stock tree, in which case a patch is needed to place them more sensibly. If you want to do this yourself, have a look in the .cfg file - it's quite simple once you become familiar with basic syntax used by ModManager.

Any dynamic mod parts that change after you research a specific technology (e.g. MechJeb) will need a patch before the changes can be seen. This is because that mod is waiting for the specified stock technology to be researched, which will never happen since you're using a modded tree. Again if you want to update this yourself, have a look at the MechJeb patch inside the .cfg file for an illustration.

There are so many mods around now that I can't commit to providing patches for every new part, but if there are any bugs or parts out of place, and you're afraid of editing .cfg files, please let me know and I'll look into it. I'm happy to include any patches made by the community in future releases (naturally with attribution to the author).

 

Special thanks to @Kegereneku for all his detailed input and advice

Starting science plugin uses code from BTSM (which has since vanished)

Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0


1Y53jQh.png

Edited by Oneiros

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well, now this is exciting. I can't wait to give this a shot. I might also see about building a config file to add the KAX mod to the plane tree. I'm playing right now with the SpaceY Heavy Lifters too (they are surpassingly gigantic - I made a Saturn V style moonshot last night but I'm pretty sure could've got me all the way to Jool).

Have you considered adding the same mod parts nodes that the Community Tech Tree does in similar places? That way, in any mods compatible with the CTT would be can possible with the open tech tree as well. I mapped the CTT in Excel last night, as I was planning to mod it to be more like this, and it seems to me that the two could fit together well.

Edited by theonegalen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you SO much for revealing the little secret to making a working custom tech tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No mod support yet but I will work on it over time. For modded parts I have provided a legacy version which includes the stock tree (over to the left).

I love this idea, but isn't it better to have some nodes on the main timeline correspond to those of the stock tree, so they'll be catch-all for those parts?

I'm afraid the way you set it up might lead to a situation where you have to unlock the whole stock tree (with empty nodes) just to get to a single part in a deeper node.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love this idea, but isn't it better to have some nodes on the main timeline correspond to those of the stock tree, so they'll be catch-all for those parts?

I'm afraid the way you set it up might lead to a situation where you have to unlock the whole stock tree (with empty nodes) just to get to a single part in a deeper node.

This, as I see it, is a simple, logical tech tree. If you want a custom tech tree that builds around ​the stock tree, then use CommunityTechTree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I installed the Standard version, and the old tree showed up to the left of the Start node.

Sorry, apparently it derped because I had a part mod installed. RoverDude's Sounding Rockets (forgot they were in more than just the "Start" node).

Edited by theonegalen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will this work with CTT (and the entire USI suite) installed at the same time?

Edited by Errol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love this idea, but isn't it better to have some nodes on the main timeline correspond to those of the stock tree, so they'll be catch-all for those parts?

I'm afraid the way you set it up might lead to a situation where you have to unlock the whole stock tree (with empty nodes) just to get to a single part in a deeper node.

I had considered integrating stock nodes into the new tree, but I think it would create more problems than it would solve. I could only integrate half the stock nodes, creating a bigger mess; plus it would be changing the balance entirely, as modders have chosen where to put their new parts based on stock tree dynamics. I decided not to attempt any mod part balancing and make them freely available until I can look into the mods and balance them in the tree properly. I am a new (1.0) player with no modded parts installed, so that will take time.

I installed the Standard version, and the old tree showed up to the left of the Start node.

If you have modded parts that use the stock tree nodes, these nodes will show up in both versions. The cfg only allows me to hide empty nodes, not ones that contain parts. Legacy mode just shows the entire stock tree, in case you have parts scattered around and need to purchase empty prerequisite nodes to access them.

If KAX is your particular poison I can make that the first mod I look at integrating :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you have modded parts that use the stock tree nodes, these nodes will show up in both versions. The cfg only allows me to hide empty nodes, not ones that contain parts. Legacy mode just shows the entire stock tree, in case you have parts scattered around and need to purchase empty prerequisite nodes to access them.

request adding this to OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK sorry for the confusion guys, I have fixed up the main post to make things much clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feedback : (2hours of play, before achieving orbit)

So far it's WAY, WAY, better than Stock. Unlike it you do feel you aren't grinding pointlessly.

Below I'm pointing out thing as they bugged me.

I say a lot but I would still totally use/mod your Tree over the stock horrific-tree, you saved us a lot of frustration.

Global :

- You should use the horizontal axis more, for more step, and to make structural wing much cheaper than engine-node.

- Don't worry about making more step, as long as we are given ONE part giving us the "Minimal Functionality" we wanted we will be glad to improvise.

Consider the following : We'll use the same Engine/science for hundred of flights, but we usually want "special function" more often.

- I like how sometime you put part that will inevitably be used together in the same package, you should do it for more part.

- Did you made everything relatively cheap to get feedback faster ? (because that's an good idea, maybe you could make a build special "test")

- Allow to bypass completely some node.

Science :

- Myself I would replace the Mystery good as first part with a thermometer and an antenna.

- Easier access to science than anything else (EXCEPT the Processing Lab)

- Mystery goo and Material bay would come after any of the small science module.

- The Laboratory would be the very last one. And come in SCIENCE.

Engine :

- Considering how much of an improvement the "Reliant" Liquid Engine is, you ought to give the RT-10 "Hammer" first.

Decoupler :

- The TT-38K, small radial decoupler should come with the structural pylon (for rocketplane), the TT-70 is more suited for next node, and Hydraulic Detach...later.

- Stability Enhancer should be more of a luxury

- Although not "decoupler", the multi-coupler connector should be given a little after the first Decoupler, in structural.

Spaceplane :

- More step, more step ! We only need minimal functionality. (I would also go by increasing size)

- Structural less costly than Engine please !

- If you give the Mk1 inline cockpit, you should give Turbofan first to fill the lack of nose-cone

- Considering the price of bundle, you ought to distribute elevons with wings bundle.

- I consider Structural Intake very High-Tech and would put them at the very end (optimization is costly).

Rover :

- we ain't going to be building gigantic rover first, so you can (should) put the wheels by order of size.

- Equal to spaceplane, if you consider the price of bundle, give a M-1x1 structural with first wheels

That was my 2 cents, I'll keep playing and tell you if my impression change.

EDIT :

About starting node :

- I suggest to put the antenna and probe-body inside the starting package, so we don't have to do a manned flight before specializing. (and for good players to give the ability to do send several Crew Report per flight)

About Probes route :

- I would put the service-bay sooner, I've had problem of aerodynamic stability because I couldn't shield any parts (especially the probes)

- You could fuse Inline Stabilizer, Reaction-wheels with the probes-body improvement since those usually have less powerful one

About Docking & RCS :

- Docking is an extremely important game changer. I think it should come later

- The O-10 "Puff" could be made available first (as it make a perfect "Mercury-like" thruster) without the Thruster-block and Jr-port

- the RCS and Jr-port would come only after.

About Adapter :

- The Nose-cose and Fairing being on a separate line is perfect, but the Multi-coupler could be unlocked with the first Bigger fuel tank. (because if we want to use those adapter, we usually do because we'd have unlocked a large tank, but not the large engine)

Strange proposal :

Progressing from short to long tanks is a good idea, but to me progression include finesse over design, what do people think about unlocking the medium-length first, then the short&long length tank ?

Edited by Kegereneku
Addition (though too late it seem)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think saturating the forums with various tech trees is a good idea. More choice is not always a good thing. Whats wrong with collaborating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think saturating the forums with various tech trees is a good idea. More choice is not always a good thing. Whats wrong with collaborating?

I wouldn't say the forums are "saturated" with tech trees. Moreover, among the tech trees available, there doesn't yet seem to be a clear community consensus regarding what is needed, so I'd say the field should be open to new ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't say the forums are "saturated" with tech trees. Moreover, among the tech trees available, there doesn't yet seem to be a clear community consensus regarding what is needed, so I'd say the field should be open to new ideas.

I can't tell what you're arguing for here. If you want consensus then enter the discussion in the place where most of the tech tree talk takes place and make your case. You're not going to get consensus by doing your own thing in another separate thread.

To reiterate, what's wrong with a collab? It's the only way to get to a common ground right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't tell what you're arguing for here. If you want consensus then enter the discussion in the place where most of the tech tree talk takes place and make your case. You're not going to get consensus by doing your own thing in another separate thread.

To reiterate, what's wrong with a collab? It's the only way to get to a common ground right?

My point was that - despite widely recognized need for tech tree overhaul - existing projects have yet to capture widespread community enthusiasm. We have yet to see a tech tree mod with the stature of FAR/DRE/MechJeb/ScanSat/RemoteTech/Interstellar/NFT/USI. The most widely used tree, CTT, is just an extension of the stock tree; not an overhaul.

I mean no offense to the people involved in tech tree overhaul efforts thus far, but perhaps their vision has not resonated strongly with the average player. If existing projects aren't on the right track to garner mass appeal (not that there's anything wrong with niche appeal), collaborating with them isn't necessarily a successful strategy. Sometimes fresh, independent ideas are needed. Or they at least shouldn't be discouraged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is something to be said about filling other people's thread's with off topic discussion as well. One might even suggest opening a thread somewhere about the fact that there are too many threads, rather then inside another's thread.

Or perhaps that's too meta. Either way, there still isn't a viable flight first tech tree option for mod players that offers a vanilla feel. I play mainly with the USI mods, and a few other small niche part mods that to round out the lineup in the editor. Everything seems to work well in CTT, so with being able to display the stock tree I'm wondering if there is a way to integrate with CTT. The nice thing is that CTT as a point leaves all the stock nodes alone, and instead focuses on organizing all the others that this mod would need to integrate, if it weren't already taken care of. And this mod conveniently currently only encompass the stock tree.

This is the exact type of thing that the CTT was designed to encourage. I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point was that - despite widely recognized need for tech tree overhaul - existing projects have yet to capture widespread community enthusiasm. We have yet to see a tech tree mod with the stature of FAR/DRE/MechJeb/ScanSat/RemoteTech/Interstellar/NFT/USI. The most widely used tree, CTT, is just an extension of the stock tree; not an overhaul.
I mean no offense to the people involved in tech tree overhaul efforts thus far, but perhaps their vision has not resonated strongly with the average player.

You say that as if you don't know that tech trees are notoriously difficult to implement without breaking gameplay for every other damn thing in the game, not to mention most part mods.

The tech tree suggestion thread (linked in my signature) has been one of the most popular suggestions in that subforum. People obviously want it, and the ideas in it have been almost universally agreed on. You're looking for a rationalisation where it doesn't exist. The reason tech tree mods do not usually reach a wide audience is that playing with them requires you to make additional modifications yourself just to get a coherent experience, and very few people have the know-how and the will to do that.

It's your decision. I suspect this tree mod will die after an attempt to keep in on life support, precisely because you insist on going it alone instead of lending your voice to the bigger discussion which might force Squad to finally do SOMETHING that allows tree mods to be a plausible undertaking.

Edited by Cpt. Kipard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think saturating the forums with various tech trees is a good idea. More choice is not always a good thing. Whats wrong with collaborating?

No, no, and there's nothing wrong with collaborations (as long as they're not used as an excuse to squelch alternatives), but there's also nothing wrong with individual mods too. There's room for both.

...instead of lending your voice to the bigger discussion which might force Squad to finally do SOMETHING that allows tree mods to be a plausible undertaking.

False dilemma. The one does not preclude the other -- one can contribute to that discussion, while still doing tech tree mods in the meanwhile. Essentially at this point you're just thread-jacking here. If you don't want to use this mod (or any other), feel free to skip it, but getting annoyed that it (or any other mod you don't want) exists is silly. And if you want to discuss how Squad ought to handle tech tree mods in general, great, but as you point out, that's the topic for another thread, not this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update coming ASAP which combines both versions into one - I'm taking a little extra time to make some balance changes at the same time to avoid spamming updates. Will also respond to Kegereneku's feedback in detail.

I suspect this tree mod will die after an attempt to keep in on life support, precisely because you insist on going it alone instead of lending your voice to the bigger discussion which might force Squad to finally do SOMETHING that allows tree mods to be a plausible undertaking.

I'm not sure what has happened here, but I think you're getting things a bit misconstrued. I agree with most of the key points from your thread and am certainly willing to listen to suggestions. As you will see in the next update, I have taken several of Kegereneku's ideas on board because they make sense. If you have your own ideas please share them.

The tech tree is what it is, and I am making an effort to improve it using the methods that work best for me. If the mod dies off for whatever reason that's fine, but so far I am really pleased with the amount interest in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I got confused about who's making this. It's just you Oneiros? Somehow I got the impression it was Fraz86 because he decided to speak for you for whatever reason. Some of what I said is not even pertinent now if he's just speaking for the sake of it, and not actually tied to the mod in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't tried this out but this sounds like exactly the type of tech tree I've been looking for. Given that I have to start a new game to do so, at least properly, it's not something I want to do just yet but I will add a few points of information that you can do with what you will. Beyond the grouping, and what you have addressed (the heavy reliance on space parts only) the biggest issue I've seen is the reason planes aren't 'viable' is simply because there isn't enough science on Kerbin to tackle the tree effectively without going somewhere else for science. That alone seems to be the biggest linchpin in the career progression. I realize a lot of it is to emphasize a type of progression but it seems to be artificial. The reason most people go to the Mun first is because it's closest, and that's what they feel more comfortable doing.

That said, and not speaking from the perspective of the work you've done, I think overhauling the science game is also a requirement to some degree to really create the sense of freedom. My suggestion was to simply 'zero' out the nodes so that instead of going from 5 to 1000, each node costs a flat rate, or over a lower range say 5 - 50. That of course requires the reduction of science from around the solar system as well, to some degree. Anyways, I look forwards to giving this a try, it really does look like just the improvement to clean up some of my issues with career progression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You say that as if you don't know that tech trees are notoriously difficult to implement without breaking gameplay for every other damn thing in the game, not to mention most part mods.

The tech tree suggestion thread (linked in my signature) has been one of the most popular suggestions in that subforum. People obviously want it, and the ideas in it have been almost universally agreed on. You're looking for a rationalisation where it doesn't exist. The reason tech tree mods do not usually reach a wide audience is that playing with them requires you to make additional modifications yourself just to get a coherent experience, and very few people have the know-how and the will to do that.

It's your decision. I suspect this tree mod will die after an attempt to keep in on life support, precisely because you insist on going it alone instead of lending your voice to the bigger discussion which might force Squad to finally do SOMETHING that allows tree mods to be a plausible undertaking.

2.3 Forbidden messages

b. Messages made for the perceived purpose of stirring up and otherwise getting a rise from users (ie, flamebaiting, troll posts);

d. Messages that purposefully change the subject of conversation in a thread without a natural tie to the topic at hand; and

The whole point of a modification to the game, is that it is not provided in an adequate manner by the base game. If sufficient users desired the mod behaviour, it would become part of the base game. 'sufficient users' =/= 'all users'. If you don't like what a mod tries to achieve, then don't use it. In particular, don't use that mod's thread as a soapbox for your own agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If KAX is your particular poison I can make that the first mod I look at integrating :)

:D KAX is definitely a favorite of mine, as is Sounding Rockets. I admit, the one thing that disappointed me about this tree so far was how it started off with the same Start node as stock. I feel like I shouldn't get the Mk1 Pod for a while, or at least it should be be behind a purchasable node.

Edited by theonegalen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now