[1.3.x] SETI, Unmanned before Manned [Patreon]

[hawk_za]

I just wanted to pop in and say thanks the camera for raster prop is available in the lower tiers again ....I am flattened by this community's speed co-operation and friendliness

thanks again

[SkyMarshal]

Erm. Heads up, Yemo: the game just crashed on me when a vessel underwent rapid unplanned disassembly... and a barometer was the last thing to fly off. Methinks a massless object on its own crashed the physics system.

[Yemo]

I just wanted to pop in and say thanks the camera for raster prop is available in the lower tiers again ....I am flattened by this community's speed co-operation and friendliness

thanks again

You are welcome!

Erm. Heads up, Yemo: the game just crashed on me when a vessel underwent rapid unplanned disassembly... and a barometer was the last thing to fly off. Methinks a massless object on its own crashed the physics system.

Hm, could be, with all the shenanigans going on.

Anyway, massless parts were planned to get mass in the next update anyway, hope that fixes it.

Another topic: Fairings

As written above, Procedural Fairing limits seem to be non-moddable (thus work only for the stock tech tree).

Nevertheless, I did take a look at the stock fairing size limits and I thought they were available too early.

Any objections to raising the 2.5m unlock to advContstruction (same level when 2.5m fuel tanks are unlocked) and the 3.75m limit to advMetaworks (same tier as 3.75m fuel tanks)?

[Landwalker]

Another topic: Fairings

As written above, Procedural Fairing limits seem to be non-moddable (thus work only for the stock tech tree).

Nevertheless, I did take a look at the stock fairing size limits and I thought they were available too early.

Any objections to raising the 2.5m unlock to advContstruction (same level when 2.5m fuel tanks are unlocked) and the 3.75m limit to advMetaworks (same tier as 3.75m fuel tanks)?

My general attitude about part tiers is that if I unlock parts of a certain size before reaching a tier that gives me the means to seamlessly connect them to other parts, either of the same size or of different sizes (since I don't use Procedural Parts, adapters matter), I'd just as soon unlock them later when I can actually do that.

Which is to say, unlocking 2.5m Fairings in a tier before I have anything to put them onâ€â€1.25m-to-2.5m adapters, and other things to do with 2.5m (which usually means "engines and fuel tanks")â€â€just annoys me more than anything else.

In other words, I'm in favor of the proposal.

[Svm420]

Only if we get 1.875 sooner. I hardly ever have a payload that fits in a 1.25 fairing. I may not need 2.5, but 1.25 will not cut it.

[Yemo]

My general attitude about part tiers is that if I unlock parts of a certain size before reaching a tier that gives me the means to seamlessly connect them to other parts, either of the same size or of different sizes (since I don't use Procedural Parts, adapters matter), I'd just as soon unlock them later when I can actually do that.

Which is to say, unlocking 2.5m Fairings in a tier before I have anything to put them onâ€â€1.25m-to-2.5m adapters, and other things to do with 2.5m (which usually means "engines and fuel tanks")â€â€just annoys me more than anything else.

In other words, I'm in favor of the proposal.

Only if we get 1.875 sooner. I hardly ever have a payload that fits in a 1.25 fairing. I may not need 2.5, but 1.25 will not cut it.

Only the fairing base will be restricted to the standard sizes, the actual fairings can be quite a bit larger.

So, finally the big update. I bet I forgot stuff to do and to mention in the changelog.

There are quite some tech tree changes and a lot of additional mod supports.

SETI CommunityTechTree v0.9.1 (for KSP 1.0.4)

TechTree changes

• Propulsion/Fuel/Construction/Aero rearrangements, new nodes, new interdependencies
  
• Aerospike moved to new specializedPropulsion node
  
• HeavierRocketry later, new node improvedRocketry in its place, Skipper moved there
  
• New node basicFuelSystems before fuelSystems, many radial fuel tanks moved there
  
• Also see 0.9.0.2 patch notes
  
• Recycling/LifeSupport node retitlement reverted to recycling
  
• All life support containers moved to enhancedSurvivability
  
• TAC LifeSupport clutter parts get their own 0 science node, so users can avoid them
  
• Electrics/Solar/HeatManagement rearrangements, new interdependencies
  
• LV-900 Beagle later @propulsionSystems
  
• O-25, O-10, 24-77 engines earlier @propulsionSystems
  
• HeatShields moved to the Command Pods line
  
• Some ladders moved to the survivability node
  
• Mk1 Cargo Bay earlier @aviation
  
• Some canards/winglets moved to aviation
  
• Most wing and elevon parts moved to new node modularWings
  
• KAX electric prop to electronics
  
• Mk2 Bicoupler later @highAltitudeFlight
  
• Fairing diameter upgrades moved to the same tier as fuel tank diameter upgrades
  
• 2.5m decouplers later @heavyRocketry
  
• Stack batteries to survivability, biggest version to basicScience
  
• All VenStockRevamp ladders to engineering101
  
• Possibly some other stuff I forgot about...
  

Part Rebalances

• Due to the increased modding restrictions by squad:
  
• Mass of thermo, baro, struts and fuel lines increased to 5kg, instead of 0
  
• Also each scientist star only gives a 0.1 lab bonus, instead of 0.25
  
• TweakScale removed from all science category parts
  
• HybridRocketBooster now has a tweakscale config
  

SETI-CTT Mod Support

• B9 Procedural (since 0.9.0.2)
  
• Cargo Transportation Solutions (the 1.0.4 version by Olympic1)
  
• Dr Jet's Chop Shop
  
• HGR (forgot that one as well at first...)
  
• KipEng Low Profile Station Hubs
  
• KipEng Universal Docking Ports
  
• OSE Workshop
  
• Procedural Parts (actually forgot that in the initial changelog...)
  
• Real Chutes
  
• Sigma Mod Expansions
  
• Stork Delivery System
  
• USI Karbonite
  
• USI Survivability
  

edit: LOL, actually forgot to mention ProceduralParts mod support... Which is the most important mod support of this update...

edit2: And forgot HGR in the mod support list...

Edited July 13, 2015 by Yemo

[BahamutZer00]

I noticed that there is a bug on the heavier rocketry r&d node. It costs 160 instead of the 300 it should.

As a side note, I'm using kerbal interstellar and the LN-V nerv engine is placed in improved nuclear propulsion instead of nuclear propulsion. This seems odd since the nuclear propulsion node has all the fuel and no engine. Not sure if this is something that would be a quick fix, or if its because i'm using interstellar.

[Yemo]

SETI CommunityTechTree v0.9.1.1

Fixes

• HeavierRocketry costs now 300 science, as it should
  
• ProceduralFairings test config removed (did not work)
  
• Stack battery tech tree positions corrected (survivability, electrics)
  
• Added ProceduralParts to the 0.9.1 changelog
  

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe I should start releasing dev versions for the big updates again.

@BahamutZer00:

Thank you for the fast bug report.

VenStockRevamp adds a small, low ISP nuclear engine which goes into nuclear propulsion.

[Landwalker]

Downloading now. I didn't see HGR in the 0.9.1 changelist and support list... did it make the cut for this edition? (Edit: Looks like it didâ€â€The HGR 5PUD-N1k Command Pod is now in the same tech as the Mk1 Command Pod, as it should be, instead of available right at the get go. Yay!)

Out of curiosity, when you're playing career mode (if you play career mode, I guess), are you really using 60% funds? That strikes me as almost punishing.

I might have to look into RealChutes, too. I'm just concerned that they might overcomplicate my already difficult KSP life.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Landwalker

[Yemo]

Downloading now. I didn't see HGR in the 0.9.1 changelist and support list... did it make the cut for this edition?

Out of curiosity, when you're playing career mode (if you play career mode, I guess), are you really using 60% funds? That strikes me as almost punishing.

I might have to look into RealChutes, too. I'm just concerned that they might overcomplicate my already difficult KSP life.

Lol, I should really not publish mod updates late in the evening.

Added HGR to the 0.9.1 mod list.

Actually for testing purposes I go with 50% science and funds. Keep in mind I mainly use cheap probes for missions and I leave the penalties at 100%. So the building upgrades do not cost more.

I found RealChutes to be invaluable for probes and finetuning. It just takes a few clicks to adjust to different atmospheres without guessing around.

[Landwalker]

Dang, 50%. You, sir, are hardcore. Or maybe a masochist, I'm not sure which. I'm just trying to figure out what "game start" settings to use for an eventual AAR/Mission Log. I've been using 60% Science in my pregame testing, and it seems to work well (I don't imagine 50% science would be too horribly worse), but my 60% Funds attempt was just brutal. If if the game's contracts weren't so asinine, I wouldn't mind grinding them too much, but between the craziness of the stock contracts and the craziness of trying to work in (and learn) RemoteTech, grinding things like "Fly a propeller plane around for 40 minutes so you can conduct visual surveys" and "test the Launch Escape System while landed on Minmus" drive me crazy. Some of them are great sources of cash, but I'd prefer to keep grind to a minimum.

I'll pick up RealChutes and tinker around with it, see how it goes.

Looking at all the tech tree work, I might finally have to bite the bullet and axe KW Rocketry from my list. It makes me sad, because I especially love their late-tree heavy engines and their SRBs. Unfortunately, the early-tree stuff is too all-over-the-place right nowâ€â€the WildCat-V is in the first LFO Engine tech (same as the LV-T15 Dachshund), and it's just so good I can't in any sort of conscience use any other engine for early lifting if it's available. I will be sad to see the Vesta VR-1 go, though, since it's my pre-Terrier "space stage engine" for early flights (sorry Swivel).

Speaking of late-game engines, any idea how well this mod plays with Space-Y?

Allow Reverting Flights - Yes

Allow Quickloading - Yes

Missing Crews Respawn - No

Require Purchase for Researched Parts? - No

Indestructible Facilities? - No

Starting Funds - $50,000

Re-Entry Heating - 30%

Resource Abundance - 100%

Science Awards - 60%

Funds Awards - 100% (?)

Everything Else - 100%

Edited July 13, 2015 by Landwalker

[Yemo]

Dang, 50%. You, sir, are hardcore. Or maybe a masochist, I'm not sure which. I'm just trying to figure out what "game start" settings to use for an eventual AAR/Mission Log. I've been using 60% Science in my pregame testing, and it seems to work well (I don't imagine 50% science would be too horribly worse), but my 60% Funds attempt was just brutal. If if the game's contracts weren't so asinine, I wouldn't mind grinding them too much, but between the craziness of the stock contracts and the craziness of trying to work in (and learn) RemoteTech, grinding things like "Fly a propeller plane around for 40 minutes so you can conduct visual surveys" and "test the Launch Escape System while landed on Minmus" drive me crazy. Some of them are great sources of cash, but I'd prefer to keep grind to a minimum.

I'll pick up RealChutes and tinker around with it, see how it goes.

Looking at all the tech tree work, I might finally have to bite the bullet and axe KW Rocketry from my list. It makes me sad, because I especially love their late-tree heavy engines and their SRBs. Unfortunately, the early-tree stuff is too all-over-the-place right nowâ€â€the WildCat-V is in the first LFO Engine tech (same as the LV-T15 Dachshund), and it's just so good I can't in any sort of conscience use any other engine for early lifting if it's available. I will be sad to see the Vesta VR-1 go, though, since it's my pre-Terrier "space stage engine" for early flights (sorry Swivel).

Speaking of late-game engines, any idea how well this mod plays with Space-Y?

I usually do quite some survey contracts, using jet planes with attached HRBs (they can now be tweakscaled to 0.625m). I only do the occasional testing contract in orbit, nothing below that. For remote tech, I use the remote tech contract pack to pay for the sats.

But that totally depends on preference, 80% rewards is good if you do not like early kerbin survey and orbit missions. The most important part is, to leave the penalty slider at 100%.

I changed the recommendation to 70%, just in case.

I ll reconsider KW (though I recently read that it needs an update), no idea about Space-Y yet, have not checked it out post 1.0.x so far.

[Landwalker]

I ll reconsider KW (though I recently read that it needs an update), no idea about Space-Y yet, have not checked it out post 1.0.x so far.

Good to know, so I don't go diving into Space-Y blind.

No pressure or anything on KWR, it would probably do me good to cut a parts mod out (and I would believe it could benefit from an update). If nothing else, I can just cut out the 1.25m engines and a few other things and see how things go leaving all the rest in (or cut out everything except post-1.25m engines and tanks, and the SRBs). I always felt like their 1.25m fuel tanks looked a little too not-stock, anyway.

I'll have to try the HRB Jet and see how hilarious that is. I'm not the best plane pilot in the first place, so that should be a trip.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Landwalker

[Yemo]

Good to know, so I don't go diving into Space-Y blind.

No pressure or anything on KWR, it would probably do me good to cut a parts mod out (and I would believe it could benefit from an update). If nothing else, I can just cut out the 1.25m engines and a few other things and see how things go leaving all the rest in. I always felt like their 1.25m fuel tanks looked a little too not-stock, anyway.

I'll have to try the HRB Jet and see how hilarious that is. I'm not the best plane pilot in the first place, so that should be a trip.

Looking forward to your mission reports!

For inspiration, that was the Advanced Jet example craft from the old SETI-BalanceMod, using procedural parts.

The things beside the gear are actually procedural HRBs. Igor_perusco built a Me-163 on twitch, complete with skids.

There is alot of potential with procedural parts (with 0.9.1 PP support, some of the SETI-BalanceMod additions returned, from procedural probe cores, thanks to SwGustav, to procedural HRBs, thanks to LordAurelius).

Edited July 13, 2015 by Yemo

[BahamutZer00]

I recently tried out KW rocketry without using the SETI-suite, and when next to stock engines, it seems a bit overpowered where I would almost always choose a KW rocket over stock.

I've been trying the mods by necrobones, which includes the modular rocket pack, space-y, and the fuel tank plus mods. The modular rockets adds a couple of useful in-between mods for the early LFO without overtaking stock (and adds one or two 2.5 m engines to fill in gaps there as well). The space-Y engines primarily affect 3.75 -> 5 m (and maybe 7.5 m) sizes (so end-game colossal builds). IMO, I think those engines/tanks would make a good addition for balancing with SETI (and it works pretty well even without fine-tuning by Yemo). I've only made it as far as 2.5 m rockets in my current run, and am realizing I really need the 3.75 m or more rockets to get my mega-station up to space. So I'll have to build a smaller station first to test that out.

@Yemo: I didn't know about that other mod, I'll have to add it when I feel like restarting career. Still getting a feel for how the mod packs I've got running are working together.

[Yemo]

I recently tried out KW rocketry without using the SETI-suite, and when next to stock engines, it seems a bit overpowered where I would almost always choose a KW rocket over stock.

I've been trying the mods by necrobones, which includes the modular rocket pack, space-y, and the fuel tank plus mods. The modular rockets adds a couple of useful in-between mods for the early LFO without overtaking stock (and adds one or two 2.5 m engines to fill in gaps there as well). The space-Y engines primarily affect 3.75 -> 5 m (and maybe 7.5 m) sizes (so end-game colossal builds). IMO, I think those engines/tanks would make a good addition for balancing with SETI (and it works pretty well even without fine-tuning by Yemo). I've only made it as far as 2.5 m rockets in my current run, and am realizing I really need the 3.75 m or more rockets to get my mega-station up to space. So I'll have to build a smaller station first to test that out.

@Yemo: I didn't know about that other mod, I'll have to add it when I feel like restarting career. Still getting a feel for how the mod packs I've got running are working together.

Hm, I really have to take a look at KW and Space-Y.

Unfortunately the SETI-BalanceMod got totally wrecked by squads 1.0.x unmotivated disimprovements. It was the complete package.

SETIctt and SETIcontracts are actually small spin-offs from the old SETI-BalanceMod for 1.0.x. Sort of small steps to rebuild after the wrecking ball. I hope that I can relaunch the missing parts of the SETI-BalanceMod once KSP is more stable again (hoping for KSP 1.1), using github.

For an impression, the old SETI-BalanceMod info is still in post number 2 of this thread.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Yemo

[Landwalker]

Thanks for the recommendation on those three, BahamutZer00. I might give those (and Procedural Parts) a look, and drop KW Rocketry for now.

@Yemo, I was always jealous of how sweet the old Advanced Jet example lookedâ€â€interesting to know those are HRBs under the wings! Maybe I'll look at Procedural Parts at long last, after all...

[Yemo]

Thanks for the recommendation on those three, BahamutZer00. I might give those (and Procedural Parts) a look, and drop KW Rocketry for now.

@Yemo, I was always jealous of how sweet the old Advanced Jet example lookedâ€â€interesting to know those are HRBs under the wings! Maybe I'll look at Procedural Parts at long last, after all...

I will still miss the old cockpit (which had a great IVA mod) and swept wings. But the general design should now be feasible again. Maybe I ll try to rebuild it and upload the .craft file.

[nobodyhasthis]

I will still miss the old cockpit (which had a great IVA mod) and swept wings. But the general design should now be feasible again. Maybe I ll try to rebuild it and upload the .craft file.

I really miss the old parts. I have since made it a rule in my games that although the new plane cockpit is available early. It can't be used for space flight. I seem to remember the balance mod taking care of this. I hope you get time to bring back the old SETI parts that where not influenced by PP.

[nobodyhasthis]

Nice. This is just me thrown out ideas for developing stuff to 1.0.

Just going through and rebuilding my game. Noticed it was difficult now but not impossible to track changes. It is big update and each one seems to get more complicated. Bless you Yemo for doing this. As a suggestion could we not just have a excel style table of supported mods in the future. Like this...

Corvus 2 Man pod - Yes

Impact Experiments - No

Interstellar - Approved but needs cost balance

Mkerb Experiments - No

Cryo Engines - No

Tantares - Not yet, under development for phase 9

The hope is we can have a big alphabetical list of mods balances that are approved, underdevelopment or should be avoided to get the proper SETI development path. It also gives a project road map for the future.

EDIT - So far after ripping through the latest SETI update. I am almost ready to play it. It has so far taken a hour to install it correctly.

Edited July 13, 2015 by nobodyhasthis

[Yemo]

I really miss the old parts. I have since made it a rule in my games that although the new plane cockpit is available early. It can't be used for space flight. I seem to remember the balance mod taking care of this. I hope you get time to bring back the old SETI parts that where not influenced by PP.

Previously the Mk1 pod had the integrated heat shield, which made it so much more mass efficient. One of the reasons why I moved the 1.25m heat shield to the same node as the Mk1 pod in 0.9.1.

I hope to bring back the whole SETI-BalanceMod, but that will take some time. And I suspect 1.1 breaks stuff again, one step forward, one step back in terms of fully modded games...

Nice. This is just me thrown out ideas for developing stuff to 1.0.

Just going through and rebuilding my game. Noticed it was difficult now but not impossible to track changes. It is big update and each one seems to get more complicated. Bless you Yemo for doing this. As a suggestion could we not just have a excel style table of supported mods in the future. Like this...

Corvus 2 Man pod - Yes

Impact Experiments - No

Interstellar - Approved but needs cost balance

Mkerb Experiments - No

Cryo Engines - No

Tantares - Not yet, under development for phase 9

The hope is we can have a big alphabetical list of mods balances that are approved, underdevelopment or should be avoided to get the proper SETI development path. It also gives a project road map for the future.

EDIT - So far after ripping through the latest SETI update. I am almost ready to play it. It has so far taken a hour to install it correctly.

I thought about doing it like before (what is now in post #2), but then people wanted recommendations to "fill out their empty tech tree nodes", so I went with the commented screenshot in the OP.

It is planned to do it properly again.

At the moment I m working on updating that mod support screenshot and putting together a CKAN mod pack file. It will contain something like a "SETI-StarterPack". Though I m not sure about the final scope of it and not all mods are on CKAN (I m especially missing the Mk3 MiniExpansion and the SXT Mk3 CargoRamp).

It should contain very few part packs, but all the necessary gameplay/info/contract mods (and from my point of view, there are a lot of those).

I m currently missing a 1.0.4 compatible 2 man pod. Either the Corvus or the K2, but both are not yet 1.0.4 ready. Will have to check their TechTree placement again, but I really want a 2 kerbal pod in the basic setup.

I hope the 1 hour was due to considerations and mod compatibility, not any SETI-issues?

[Landwalker]

Just as a head's up for folks thinking about adding Space-Y to this: I noticed this morning that for some reason my RT-20 "Sickle" Booster isn't making any noise... I suspect some sort of conflict between Ven's Stock Revamp and Space-Y (not directly related to SETI, I don't think, but I know that Ven's Revamp is "Encouraged Content"). Fortunately, it's not a serious loss, since I hardly ever use the RT-20 anyway.

I m currently missing a 1.0.4 compatible 2 man pod. Either the Corvus or the K2, but both are not yet 1.0.4 ready. Will have to check their TechTree placement again, but I really want a 2 kerbal pod in the basic setup.

Home Grown Rockets actually has three 2-kerbal podsâ€â€the HGR-57 Radish (traditional conical shape, compatible with both 1.25m and 1.875m bases), the 0N-2 Onion "orbital module", and the Type-45 Soy-Juice "descent module". All three of these are currently located in the Basic Command Modules tech. (Edit: I stand corrected. HGR also has three more two-kerbal arrangements in the Command Modules techâ€â€the HGR PMK-1N lander-can style, the Advanced 0N-2 Onion orbital module, and the 13-3k Leek orbital module.)

I also have a two-kerbal Mk3-9 Orbital Command Pod, also in Basic Command Modules tech. I'm pretty sure that isn't stock, but I have no idea where it's actually from.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Landwalker

[Landwalker]

Question: I wasn't able to find anything in the original posts, but I've noticed lately that I don't seem to be getting any of the "rescue mission" contracts anymore. Did SETI turn these off, or increase the "requirements" to qualify for them? (If the latter, it's entirely possible I haven't gotten far enough to qualify for them yet...)

[Nori]

Yemo, playing around with your mod a bit and I noticed that you increased the mass of dmUSGoo/dmUSMat. I imagine you did this as they are far superior to the stock version. But there is a issue with this, these versions cost a lot more (the dmUSMat is 7.38x more). Even with your cost rebalance the dmUSMat is still 4x the cost, though the goo is the same. A lot of people probably wouldn't notice, but I play with KCT and cost factors into the build time of a ship and thus I pay a significant time penalty for going with the dmUSMat version.

Anyway, just saying that you might want to look at dropping the cost or some other balance option.

[Yemo]

Just as a head's up for folks thinking about adding Space-Y to this: I noticed this morning that for some reason my RT-20 "Sickle" Booster isn't making any noise... I suspect some sort of conflict between Ven's Stock Revamp and Space-Y (not directly related to SETI, I don't think, but I know that Ven's Revamp is "Encouraged Content"). Fortunately, it's not a serious loss, since I hardly ever use the RT-20 anyway.

Home Grown Rockets actually has three 2-kerbal podsâ€â€the HGR-57 Radish (traditional conical shape, compatible with both 1.25m and 1.875m bases), the 0N-2 Onion "orbital module", and the Type-45 Soy-Juice "descent module". All three of these are currently located in the Basic Command Modules tech. (Edit: I stand corrected. HGR also has three more two-kerbal arrangements in the Command Modules techâ€â€the HGR PMK-1N lander-can style, the Advanced 0N-2 Onion orbital module, and the 13-3k Leek orbital module.)

I also have a two-kerbal Mk3-9 Orbital Command Pod, also in Basic Command Modules tech. I'm pretty sure that isn't stock, but I have no idea where it's actually from.

Hm, I did not touch those boosters as far as I remember.

About the 2 kerbal pod:

Yep, HGR has lots of them, but I was rather looking for a small mod offering a single 2 kerbal pod.

The Mk3-9 is from NearFuture Spacecraft (or so). It is actually a bit too advanced and by default comes after the 3 kerbal pod (it has an advanced flight computer). But I moved it to this earlier node, for those who do not install other 2 kerbal pods. Also it is pretty heavy compared to other 2 kerbal pods anyway.

Question: I wasn't able to find anything in the original posts, but I've noticed lately that I don't seem to be getting any of the "rescue mission" contracts anymore. Did SETI turn these off, or increase the "requirements" to qualify for them? (If the latter, it's entirely possible I haven't gotten far enough to qualify for them yet...)

Hm, I did not touch them. Maybe some other contract pack? Or the career is not advanced enough.

Yemo, playing around with your mod a bit and I noticed that you increased the mass of dmUSGoo/dmUSMat. I imagine you did this as they are far superior to the stock version. But there is a issue with this, these versions cost a lot more (the dmUSMat is 7.38x more). Even with your cost rebalance the dmUSMat is still 4x the cost, though the goo is the same. A lot of people probably wouldn't notice, but I play with KCT and cost factors into the build time of a ship and thus I pay a significant time penalty for going with the dmUSMat version.

Anyway, just saying that you might want to look at dropping the cost or some other balance option.

I set the stock goo and materials bay mass to 80kg (increase for goo, decrease for materials bay, while also increasing the science return for the goo - and making them non-collectable). The US version masses were just adjusted to the new stock experiments.

I did not change the cost of the universal storage parts, as I do not officially support universal storage at the moment, the imbalances in costs exist without SETIctt.

The reason for that non-support is precisely those imbalances. Be it cost imbalances or converter/mass imbalances (TAC LifeSupport/DMagic experiments).

I dealt with those imbalances for the old SETI-BalanceMod, but at the moment I want to concentrate on the tech tree, while leaving part balancing mainly to the part mod authors.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and I made a SETI-StarterPack.ckan file, which I intend to include in the next download:

http://www./download/gd1sdv67bzbydkg/SETI-StarterPack.ckan

As said above, the Mk3 Expansion Pack and the SXT Mk3 Cargo Ramp MiniPack are missing, because they are not on ckan.

Thanks to NathanKell, I tried to adjut the Procedural Fairings again, on a fresh install.

It seems to work now, so I ll probably finish that config for the next small update.