[1.8.1] ETT - Engineering Tech Tree - May 4, 2020

[JadeOfMaar]

4 hours ago, Probus said:

Is there still any interest in this tech tree concept?

That interest is definitely out there. I've seen the rise and use of a few tech trees apart from CTT, or which modify CTT, and I catch mention of ETT at times.

[GrubbyZebra]

5 hours ago, Probus said:

Hi o/. I'm back after ~2 year hiatus (I had so many games I'd been buying on sale that I had to try them).  The KSP 2 announcement sucked me right back in. 

Thanks to those who helped keep ETT alive. I am going to try and resurrect this version of the mod. All the @yongedevil mods used to run and maintain this tree are out of date (of course). I have to have a tech tree editing solution/GUI that is very good if I am to keep this mod updated. If anyone has suggestions, please let me know. 

Is there still any interest in this tech tree concept?

I am using excel to create the tree layout with quite a bit of success.

[Probus]

On 1/16/2020 at 3:45 PM, GrubbyZebra said:

I am using excel to create the tree layout with quite a bit of success.

You have to put it back in a more conventional tree form to use that.  Correct?  Any chance you could give us a peek with some screen shots of it in use?

[GrubbyZebra]

55 minutes ago, Probus said:

You have to put it back in a more conventional tree form to use that.  Correct?  Any chance you could give us a peek with some screen shots of it in use?

Not at all, the current spiral layout for ETTR was done with excel, as well. Should be a copy of the workbook in the github for ETTR under the Tree Layout folder. Preview is below (most current screenshot I've taken). I'm still a very grid-oriented person, but the spacing is ultimately determined by what you set the spacing values to in the workbook (so if you wanted rows to be staggered like a row of bricks, for example, you could). I don't know why Logistics is way up there, paint fail on my part. Logistics is down near landers.

 

Edited January 18, 2020 by GrubbyZebra

[billybob579]

Just wanted to pile on and say, there's definitely interest in this mod continuing. It's been a staple in pretty much every career game I've played, and my attempts since 1.4 just haven't been the same. I'm really grateful to see you're thinking of coming back and picking it up again.

[GrubbyZebra]

@Probus also, I would be interested in rolling ETTR back into the main branch of ETT, as I think this may be beneficial for both of us, and would eliminate the need for you to start over in getting ETT off of YongTechTree.

Edited January 21, 2020 by GrubbyZebra

[TheNerdMobile]

On 1/16/2020 at 11:02 AM, Probus said:

Is there still any interest in this tech tree concept?

Yes, its my favorite, honestly i have almost no joy playing the game without it, it makes much more sense the way you put it.

[Probus]

21 hours ago, GrubbyZebra said:

@Probus also, I would be interested in rolling ETTR back into the main branch of ETT, as I think this may be beneficial for both of us, and would eliminate the need for you to start over in getting ETT off of YongTechTree.

Absolutely @GrubbyZebra.  I will merge them both back together as best I can.  Should make updating easier.

I really like the Yonge Tech Tree Editor.  Although the Yonge mod seems to work just fine most of the time, the player has to keep it up to date with the latest KSP version.

[Mimos]

On 1/16/2020 at 10:02 AM, Probus said:

@yongedevil

 

Is there still any interest in this tech tree concept?

Yeah, man! I loved ETT. There was a while where I stayed at 1.4.5 just to use it, but then I had to move on to newer versions. Every time I did a fresh install (Which is often) I would check CKAN or the forums to see if it was back up.

[GrubbyZebra]

On 1/21/2020 at 7:34 PM, Probus said:

Absolutely @GrubbyZebra.  I will merge them both back together as best I can.  Should make updating easier.

I really like the Yonge Tech Tree Editor.  Although the Yonge mod seems to work just fine most of the time, the player has to keep it up to date with the latest KSP version.

@Probus, Let me know what I can do to help.

[linuxgurugamer]

For all interested, I've been working on updating the Yonge Tech Tree Editor.  I seem to have a working version, and @Probus is testing it for me.

[Probus]

7 hours ago, GrubbyZebra said:

@Probus, Let me know what I can do to help.

Will do @GrubbyZebra

 

29 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

For all interested, I've been working on updating the Yonge Tech Tree Editor.  I seem to have a working version, and @Probus is testing it for me.

@linuxgurugamer has got it working again.  That is great news!  ETT is on its way back! Thank you very much!

I know it took him quite a while to get it back into a working condition.  This is just me talking here, but he has a Patreon page if you would like to show him some luv for all he does:

https://www.patreon.com/linuxgurugamer/posts

 

[Probus]

So do I wait for KSP 1.9 to drop or do I continue like I never heard the news?  Decisions, decisions...

[linuxgurugamer]

7 minutes ago, Probus said:

So do I wait for KSP 1.9 to drop or do I continue like I never heard the news?  Decisions, decisions...

Doesnt really matter.  BTW, let me know when you are ready for release and I'll  make a full release of YongTech

[linuxgurugamer]

For all, I've released a 1.8 rebuild of the YongeTechTreePlugin here: 

 

[Probus]

Update update:

• Added new 1.875m Fuel Tanks Branch (optional between 1.25 and 2.5m).
• Finished separating the engine branch from the fuel tank branch.
• Further separated engines into "Booster Engines" and "Sustainer Engines" branches.
• Cleaned up SRB tech nodes.  Each advancing SRB tech node is an order of magnitude higher energy.
• Removed the Radial Technology branch and re-integrated parts as appropriate.
• Fairings branch includes nosecones, and service bays.
• Off-world mining tech nodes had nomenclature reversed.  Conversion is now ISRU not drilling equipment.
• Updated Making History.
• Updated Breaking Ground.

The addition of propellers in an expansion could drastically change the way the beginning of the aviation tree starts.  Could mean a lot of Module Manager work in cases where it's not installed.  Or maybe I'll just handle it with empty tech nodes.  Should it be Propellers then Jets?  Maybe just Propellers and/or Jets.

[Electrocutor]

@Probus ETT is bar-none my favorite tech tree, although there are quite a few things I'd do a bit differently, the concept is sound.

 

If you're intending to put time into this again, would you be open to the idea of using part upgrades to reflect advancing technology. For example, have battery nodes in the tree to go through Lead Acid, Nickel-Metal Hydride, Lithium Ion, etc and have that reflect in the mass and charge of anything that contains battery power.

[Probus]

On 3/4/2020 at 8:20 AM, Electrocutor said:

@Probus ETT is bar-none my favorite tech tree, although there are quite a few things I'd do a bit differently, the concept is sound.

 

If you're intending to put time into this again, would you be open to the idea of using part upgrades to reflect advancing technology. For example, have battery nodes in the tree to go through Lead Acid, Nickel-Metal Hydride, Lithium Ion, etc and have that reflect in the mass and charge of anything that contains battery power.

Yeah. Absolutely. You do the module manager files and I'll integrate them. I'd say I would do them but they may not get done in a timely manner. 

[Electrocutor]

3 hours ago, Probus said:

Yeah. Absolutely. You do the module manager files and I'll integrate them. I'd say I would do them but they may not get done in a timely manner. 

Sure. It'd help a ton if you could come up with a list of technology advancement nodes you want to use: things like wood & steel -> aluminum -> composites for structural or whatever. They would encompass countless parts depending on their application. I could try to come up with nodes myself, but it would be unlikely to fall in line with your original thoughts on how to categorize things for ETT.

Doing a couple quick tests, I should be able to use the magic of ModuleManager to apply these on a grand scale, covering all parts regardless of stock or mod so long as they fit certain criteria.

My first thoughts for stat improvement is: new-50%, improved-80%, advanced-100%; this would provide for a very notable improvement in functionality on existing parts as you progress through the tree, but would need to make sure it doesn't cross any practicality thresholds. Certain types of tech may need more or less than 3 improvements as well, but it seemed to me a good generic starting point.

First Thoughts of Improvement Types:

• Structural Materials (mass, impact tolerance, g-force tolerance, heat tolerance)
• Thermodynamics (heat tolerance, ablator per mass, heat transfer rate)
• Charge Density (electric per mass ratio)
• Combustion (thrust, fuel efficiency)
• Cryogenics (liquid fuel/oxidizer per volume, mass)
• Gyroscopics (force per mass of reaction wheels)
• Software (SAS modes)
• Hydraulics (gimbal range, piston efficiency and max force)
• Electromagnetics (servo/rotor efficiency and max force, generator/alternator efficiency, wheel efficiency)
• Aerodynamics (drag, max lift)
• Chemistry (ISRU efficiency, fuel efficiency)
• Analytics (science efficiency)

[TheNerdMobile]

7 hours ago, Probus said:

Yeah. Absolutely. You do the module manager files and I'll integrate them. I'd say I would do them but they may not get done in a timely manner. 

Yeah, i think its better to focus on getting the mod working again first and then add more features like that, im anxious about this mod becoming available again, keep up with the good work men! and thanks a lot for all you`ve done

[NotNumberOne]

Hey, is there working version for 1.8? I found only for 1.4

[Probus]

Woohoo! @linuxgurugamer was able to fix the last problem I was having with the tech tree editor yesterday.  Game on folks!!!  Game on!  He would have fixed it earlier but 1) 1.9 came out at the same time I was updating ETT and 2) since I'm an engineer, there was a communication gap.  You know the old quote: "Communication with the dead is only just slightly more difficult than communication with an engineer". 

Anyway,

5 hours ago, NotNumberOne said:

Hey, is there working version for 1.8? I found only for 1.4

You can use the updated Yonge mod to run ETT in 1.8.1. Just a warning.  Its going to be buggy but probably playable.  Many parts have changed, moved, obsoleted etc... so use common sense when a part appears somewhere it shouldn't.

Here is a link to Yongetech Revived:

Also, here is a sneak peak at the ETT main config file with new branches and the stock and expansion parts moved to the correct locations:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g02fsz8x8jwdbog/EngTechTree.cfg?dl=0 (New and moved nodes have not had their tech cost/details updated yet)

The full release should be soon now.  The bug that I was having with the tech tree editor was a small but weird one.  When Squad moved to localization files it completely borked the tech tree editor.  All you could see were localization variables instead of titles and descriptions of parts. LGG was able to fix that and some other bugs pretty quick and I was trucking along.  But after updating the stock parts, the mods uncovered another problem.  All the part titles and descriptions consisted of the first word of the title/description and nothing else.  These one word titles can be a real pain. For instance, @CobaltWolf's Blue Dog parts use a lot of titles that start with the same word.  He has like 65 SRBs and it seems 1/2 of them are named Prometheus ****.  I had a painfully slow work around. I was using the cost of each item to narrow them down then putting them in separate nodes to isolate which was which. Squad parts just didn't do that.

All fixed now.  I am also using @Galileo's JNSQ with a campaign game to help tweak, balance and verify compatibility.

 

[NotNumberOne]

23 hours ago, Probus said:

Woohoo! @linuxgurugamer was able to fix the last problem I was having with the tech tree editor yesterday.  Game on folks!!!  Game on!  He would have fixed it earlier but 1) 1.9 came out at the same time I was updating ETT and 2) since I'm an engineer, there was a communication gap.  You know the old quote: "Communication with the dead is only just slightly more difficult than communication with an engineer". 

Anyway,

You can use the updated Yonge mod to run ETT in 1.8.1. Just a warning.  Its going to be buggy but probably playable.  Many parts have changed, moved, obsoleted etc... so use common sense when a part appears somewhere it shouldn't.

Here is a link to Yongetech Revived:

Also, here is a sneak peak at the ETT main config file with new branches and the stock and expansion parts moved to the correct locations:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g02fsz8x8jwdbog/EngTechTree.cfg?dl=0 (New and moved nodes have not had their tech cost/details updated yet)

The full release should be soon now.  The bug that I was having with the tech tree editor was a small but weird one.  When Squad moved to localization files it completely borked the tech tree editor.  All you could see were localization variables instead of titles and descriptions of parts. LGG was able to fix that and some other bugs pretty quick and I was trucking along.  But after updating the stock parts, the mods uncovered another problem.  All the part titles and descriptions consisted of the first word of the title/description and nothing else.  These one word titles can be a real pain. For instance, @CobaltWolf's Blue Dog parts use a lot of titles that start with the same word.  He has like 65 SRBs and it seems 1/2 of them are named Prometheus ****.  I had a painfully slow work around. I was using the cost of each item to narrow them down then putting them in separate nodes to isolate which was which. Squad parts just didn't do that.

All fixed now.  I am also using @Galileo's JNSQ with a campaign game to help tweak, balance and verify compatibility.

 

Thanks! So, in which folder I have to put this cofig? 

[Probus]

8 hours ago, NotNumberOne said:

Thanks! So, in which folder I have to put this cofig? 

The ETT directory.

[Corax]

On 3/16/2020 at 8:16 PM, Probus said:

[...] sneak peak at the ETT main config file with new branches and the stock and expansion parts moved to the correct locations:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g02fsz8x8jwdbog/EngTechTree.cfg?dl=1

[...]

 

FTFY ; ) 

If it isn't obvious, I changed the ?dl=0 to ?dl=1, which makes the file download immediately instead of having to go through the Dropbox web interface. Looks like I'm having to go on a crusade to promote awareness of that oft-overlooked fact, I have been gnashing my teeth for too long.

 

 

Thanks for continuing ETT, was my favourite back in KSP-1.darkages, I'm looking forward to its new interpretation

 

EDIT: Wait, wasn't it you I told that same factoid just a few hours ago? Darn, my apologies, don't mean to pester you. On the other hand, maybe it gets some more exposure in this thread.

Edited March 18, 2020 by Corax
People, use ?dl=1 in your Dropbox links!