RoverDude

@Serino - Nertea and I will have exactly the same nodes. 100% overlap. Because we use the same tree. If you only install USI mods, you may not see some nodes light up (and vice versa), but make no bones about it... it's the same tree behind the scenes. That's the entire point The easiest way to use this is precisely what Nertea is doing. He's providing a stable framework we can build off of... in the context of our own mods. And since it's just nodes (which rarely change, if ever) then maintenance is pretty much zero. Counter to that, I add and move parts around every week or two for my mods (I have half a dozen new parts in this week's release alone, plus part deprecation, etc.). If I depended on a third party to maintain those configs, or had the misfortune of players using an old version of those node configs, I would be completely hosed. It's a non-starter. Now, what I could see happen that IS in line with what you're saying, is if someone were to take Nertea's final layout and publish MM configs for popular mods that are NOT part of CTT to put them in new places, just as the different custom trees out there work today with ATC (an example will be KSPI, if Fractal_UK doesn't do this himself) But that's not the modders doing it, and based on Nert's comment above, that's not going to be Nertea doing it, nor would it make sense for CTT as it's counter to what it is supposed to be (a node framework for people to leverage). But there is most definitely space for it to be done via MM... and it sounds like you're volunteering I look forward to your release thread

@anonish - Context is kinda important The context of those statements was in using tree-switching as a way to have multiple trees simultaneously. And it's sub-optimal. If a mod played nicely with CTT... they would either use CTT, suggest a new node for CTT, or be a perfect puzzle piece of goodness with no overlaps or confusion. I am not confident in that last bit I will bet a cookie that within two weeks of launch, we have a tree conflict which in turn is going to a mess in our mod threads. But that's for modders to sort out among themselves (or through pressure of our user base) - there's no bit of curly braces that will make people play well together. Not saying it's a bad thing to switch trees on the fly - it's an excellent feature, and vastly better than forcing a single choice (which is horribly bad). But it's not an optimal solution (And I don't mean that in a negative way, just that as you said yourself, given the choice between a shared tree and this, the shared tree is better). Still, much better than what we have currently and it's a perfectly valid fallback (similar to how our fallback for resources works today, or how ORS used to work before it was broken as a multi-mod system).

It's over on the General Add-on Affairs forum. I can say that Nertea (since he's running the project) and anything USI (i.e. everything I do) will be on board. Fractal_UK expressed the possibility of doing both (CTT and his own tree), but have not seen any feedback from him RE KSPI support recently.

Other mods Teaser stuff for the thread in general:

@Sarda - DShriver is correct. I'll double check masses and such, but mine should be comparable to the NFT ones. And if not in use don't leave them on - use secondary systems. There are also refuel options via KERT. @Howkong - Author not authors And hover is a FireSpitter feature so hit that thread on how to use it, I expect they have the docs you need.

@Jinks... Sorry, No. As a modder with a large set of mods, the option of requiring MM for config simply offers no value, and if anything adds negative value because now a have a bunch of work to do vs. just establishing my dependency and being done with this. Bear in mind this is the case where, as a modder (and one who's 110% behind anything that helps with standardization and helps our users) will just take the hard dependency and call it a day. Easy peasy. (edit) Naturally if this suddenly breaks (as we saw with 0.25) then I'd just do a service patch and revert the tech tree. But in my case, having stock nodes as a fallback is sub-optimal, and I don't want to propagate that unless forced. Also our 0.25 issue was pretty much a licensing problem. The issue was fixed pretty quick, but because people are grinches, we could not distribute a fix. @Serino - In re-reading your post, you may not realize that Nertea is not including or dictating WHERE stuff goes. That's a horribly thorny problem. He's just making a web of nodes. There's no need for a maintainer to move stuff around because there's nothing to move around. We, as modders, are simply picking which tech tree to tie our horse to. And given I have a huge overlap with NFT, having myself and Nertea use the same tree is going to rock. There will be config files... for the people who just want to be compatible and take advantage of this tree *if* it's there (or use a stock tree or a custom tree if it's not). But that's not the default case as relevant to this thread. That being said, I fully expect you will see MM configs pop up to shuffle things around, but that's going to be something the community will do on their own - for example, I can pretty much guarantee that if Fractal_UK does not include his own config with Interstellar to support CTT, someone is going to make a KSPI version that fits in this tree within a week of launch, just because we have a lot of overlap in users (and making them switch trees back and forth in the R&D center is a sub-optimal solution) Folks are kinda overcomplicating what is in effect a very simple solution. We have a set of nodes, no different than stock. The entire point of which is that as a player, I select my tree, and everything just works. From a modder's perspective: Don't need a custom node? Since stock nodes are not being deleted, anything stock... just works. Want a custom node but still support stock, but don't want the hard dependency? Awesome. Make an MM config with a stock fallback for your parts. Done. Want a custom tree for your large mod and like what they have in CTT, and really don't want to deal with shoehorning into stock (this is the land where NFT, USI, and KSPI play)? Rock on! Here are a few choices: Want awesome interop (NFT/MKS/Karbonite/Anything USI land) on a shared playground? Sweet. Use CTT. Take the hard dependency, and either bundle, use CKAN, or tell people in your thread when they see no parts that they need to download this. Want the option of interop but use your own tree for folks who JUST have your mod (this is KSPI land)? No problemo - just include a config that works with CTT so your users that have, say, MKS as well as KSPI have an easy tech tree to work with. Like the idea of CTT but are concerned because the tech nodes don't fit your vision for your mod, but still don't want to be a jerk to users? Speak up! Now is the time to give Nertea feedback and see about making sure your tech node needs are addressed. None of the above? No interest in interop? Peace out. Do your thing, just don't be surprised when the community rejects isolationism and starts making compatability packs to make your mod play with others. Offended by the very idea of people working together towards interop and want to grinch it up? See above

@starstrider42 oh no debate, that's more of a delivery concern. But either way we land with a single shared tree not ten bolted - together trees with five separate branched distributions, or worse yet, incompatible trees where players are forced to choose mod a vs mod b

Yep, just add or mm a converter

Then you need more floaties

Sorry I'm not sure I understand what you're saying... The point of a community tree is that we all share the same tree, Simple as that. No different than how CRP works. So if you install Karbonite, you have exactly the same set of nodes as Near Future, and vice versa. So my job is incredibly easy - I just toss stuff in via config like I always have, because I bundle this tree with my mods, no different than how I bundle FireSpitter or CRP. You will have two exceptions to this (and again, exceptions not rules). A mod or someone extending a mod may choose to have their parts appear either in the stock tree or the CTT if it's present (i.e. TAC-LS). Or a mod, like KSPI, may choose to have their own tree but also have a configuration that works with the CTT. I think the only person discussing a separate tree for their mod was Fractal_UK - which is kinda contrary to the idea of a community tech tree. Now what folks choose to do with TechManager is a whole different kettle of fish - that's just a tool that facilitates making trees. But make no bones about it, the point of this project (CTT, the thread you're in) is a *shared* tree that several of us will use. I for one (and I expect Nertea as well) plan on using what comes out of this as the sole tech tree for our mods. Distributing a unique USI tree in addition to distributing CTT makes no sense, since CTT *is* the unique tree. Hence, why I was pretty firm about not steering into bad places when the whole 'mods should have separate trees' bit threatened to poison this thread, because that is precisely the opposite of what a community tech tree should be. (And by tree we're referring to node layouts).

That's pretty much what I'm doing... the entire point for mods to use this is to take advantage of this and distribute it as a core part of their mod. I know I won't have any MM configs, and given I probably have as many parts as Nertea, I didn't even blink at the idea of having to do a tech tree run with my stuff.

I put back the old texture in the new version

By design, it's meant to be incredibly hard. Which is why your choices are sun, Eve's surface, or eeloo. Each has a different challenge. Given that I've seen people fly back 80-million fund hauls from Eeloo already, scarcity is a good thing.

Coming about beautifully. Custom icons would also be incredibly sweet (saw your cross post). I'll give the nodes another pass but so far I think we're in incredibly good shape. I have one of my own constellation releases this weekend, but figure what I will do is right after, convert everything I have to the new tree for my next one. At that point I fully expect we'll start seeing other folks hop on board either with MM configs by the community or by direct support.

@sober667 - I've tested the low profile claw and it essentially acts as your landing legs - the claw pads have colliders. Resource wise, not many new ones - Uraninite is likely, along with some new converters for water, liquid hydrogen, etc.

Yep, I think ElectricCharge nomenclature is the Viet Nam of KSP. What I have seen as the most consistent, both in use and on things like the RTG, batteries, etc. is the 1 EC/S = 1000 Watts 1 EC = 1000 Joules

This rocks! RE the fusion drives and upcoming torch ships - I'll fit those at the far end of the tree, likely in KSPI-land since mine are comparable balance wise to KSPI's.

May be some COM stuff, is it still doing this in the experimental version?

Looks excellent. I can see FTT using a combination of heavy construction and gigantic rocketry. I'd also consider anything around asteroid construction in the heavy construction node as well. Maybe replace that with the moniker orbital construction or have it as an offshoot somewhere? I'll likely share some of the Future Tech nodes with KSPI for my fusion drives as well as an upcoming 5m torch ship, which will be on par with the Alcubierre drive tech wise. For ISRU I would consider (when we get into the weeds) of putting miniaturization later in the tree - so you get big bulky converters first, then tiny ones. (Edit) Where do the NFT reactors come into play? That's where mine would be as well.

@rottielover - Thanks! @Akira_R - correct, not touching this as Vanguard already has it covered and my plate is full full full Thanks, but you must be on an old version because the current one bundled with srvpack has the new TAC values... SAS?

(Warning typing from mobile) they should provide the same DV ton for ton with stock nukes, my baseline being 6700 dv at 200 tons. Likely reactor is tossing them off, so a slight buff is not emiss. Oh. And you're getting a 5m torch ship engine.

(Summary stuff written on a mobile phone). So from my personal standpoint, this specific project (CTT) should land where a single tree configuration used by several mods is distributed, with an agreed to layout of the tech tree and each mod responsible for the placement of their parts in that tree, and each mod distributing the same config. Full stop.

Again, no offense, you're treating the project for which this very thread was started as kinda a second class citizen. To be clear, I don't expect Nertea to deal with two trees, nor do two configs. I know I have no intention of doing a separate tree and a separate config to share... I ask again, why not share? The fact that Nertea and I can do this without even blinking (and let's be clear, between the two of us we hit a LOT of the larger mods that have tech) is the entire point of this thread. Wanting to go it alone is the exception, by no stretch the rule. And again, it continues to disappoint me how quickly other folks go in the direction of outright squandering what few shots we have at solid interop - because at the end of the day, all that does is screw over the users. Again. I'm pleased that Fractal is considering participation in a shared set of nodes. That rocks. But let's be clear, from where I stand that's pretty much the default with an option to go it alone, not the other way around. Sorry for being so blunt, but I think the characterization of this project has started to get off track and I feel like it's being pushed once again into isolationism, which is bad for everyone, except the isolationist.

Good. So I'll toss the ball back to Nertea then It would be wise to be on option C before a release, or we will have an excessive amount of sadness when people can't use the mods together. RE Distro, the reality is that this would not be a separate mod, it would be a core part of the USI constellation as well as NFT for starters (no different than how KSPI distributes it's own tech tree), likely others based on addoption. Hence why it's a pretty important bit, since stuff will break day one if we don't have option C locked down. Since this is pretty much the discussion thread FOR the Community Tech Tree, now would be a good time to address how you would like to see KSPI integrated, since Nertea is working on the nodes.

Via config - how is it with the experimental version? I made it 5m but can bump it