Yemo

No worries, it is a common question for SETIctt (3 of them in the last 24 hours or so), everyone is just so used to stock. - - - Updated - - - By the way, how did you notice SETI? Is there some new blog or video entry about it?

If you are using SETIctt by any chance: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/106130?p=2174543&viewfull=1#post2174543 Hint: The tooltip in the VAB/SPH has "collectible" marked with a red X for mystery goo and materials bay.

Having empty nodes is perfectly fine when using the CTT. It is a feature by squad that the empty ones are not hidden anymore for 1.0.x tech tree modding.

Good luck! PS: Did you install using the .ckan mod pack download in the SETI thread called SETI-ModPack-1-Basic? The second tech tree screenshot also gives an overview of other supported mods.

It is SETIctt, explanation is right here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/106130?p=2174543&viewfull=1#post2174543 Afair, the change is made in the science settings config within the SETIctt folder and is for all materials bay and mystery goo, not just universal storage.

@nobodyhasthis: That sounds very interesting! @Gfurst: This was the planned progression for mystery goo and materials bay: Transmit: 30%, single use Scientist reset + transmit: 30%, multi use Return: 100%, single use Cyclotron (from StationScience) + Scientist: 100%, multi use Desired gameplay effects: 1. Instead of just cramming every science experiment on a mission, the player has to think about whether it is worth it at this stage of the game. Even for manned missions. 2. Full science spamming made harder. You cant just use a mini one kerbal science hopper on minmus in the early game and then only return the single kerbal, if you want those 2 high yield experiments. But later on you can station a cyclotron in minmus orbit and use it as a base for 100% transmission. - - - Updated - - - Did anyone check this code in the SETI-settings.cfg? @PART [*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]:HAS[~minimumCrew[0]]]:NEEDS[RemoteTech]:FOR[SETIctt] { %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {} } I cant check at the moment, if this code is ok/necessary.

Looking at the file without the ability to test today, what about this part? @PART [*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]:HAS[~minimumCrew[0]]]:NEEDS[RemoteTech]:FOR[SETIctt] { %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {} } It has been a while since I modded remote tech and I m not sure anymore what this is for. Could anyone check please? Does it give probe functionality to command pods (eg if they are empty)? I really cant remember. For the mod packs I only want to use recommend and suggest, the depends are handled by the mods themselves. Previously, ckan exported mod packs only used depend. Originally there were at least 3 mod packs planned, in order of complexity, but with squads 1.1 announced "features", I ll wait for that to develop them further. If you have any suggestions, I ll keep them in mind for KSP 1.1+. Advanced progression seems to have redundancies with SETI contract, though I havent taken a look at it in a long time. For KSP 1.1+, I consider changing the contracts from the current click-to-accept to the auto-accept (record type) one. That would solve the issue of having to decline regular ones if eg the 2-star slots are filled up. Though it means that users have to check their active contracts in addition to checking available contracts. The SETIcontracts are intended to be a progression campaign. For players who just want to get paid for whatever mission they do, SETIcontracts might not be the right pack. The tourism pack deals with the tourist contracts. While I dislike many stock contracts, imho they should not come after the right tech is available, but a bit before. So that tech can be developed to fulfil missions. Also keep in mind, that you can build rocket planes very early, or prop planes using KAX (eg with SRBs/HRBs to hop to 18km altitude). In KSP 0.90 with the SETI-BalanceMod, I always played that way. Unfortunately the squad cost unlock "balance" is non-existant, so I would not recommend it.

Damn. I m not at the computer with the game installed at the moment. If anyone can come up with a config to resolve this and test it, I could copy paste and upload it. Good! Unfortunately SRBs are still more expensive than HRBs due to the procedural SRB bug... Many mods distribute a .version file, but not the mini KSP-AVC plugin. That dependency makes sure that users are are aware of newer versions, in case they have manually installed mods in addition to the ckan ones. Or if the ckan version is, for whatever reason, not updated. How so? The .ckan SETI-ModPack-1-Basic from the front page should include the most necessary mods (except for SXT MiniPack Mk3 Cargo Ramp, which is not on ckan). Then just the usual suspects (eg KIS, KAS, ...) depending on how much complexity you want (eg USI Life Support vs TAC Life Support, up to KSPIextended).

@gerishnakov: Thank you very much for the fixes. @all: Sorry for the inconveniences. SETI CommunityTechTree v0.9.2.1 (for KSP 1.0.4) Fixes Fixed RemoteTech compatibility, thank you very much gerishnakov

HGR is supported since 0.9.1, especially because of the great 1.875m diameter, which imho fits perfectly. Although it has some balancing issues, that is not much of a problem right now, since KSP has no balance anyway. And while we are on the topic of balance, I tried my best in making the procedural SRBs and HRBs "balanced". Unfortunately procedural parts is bugged, so the procedural SRB always has a base cost of 256 funds, which I can not get rid off. Also I can not define separate ISPs for SRBs and HRBs... If you are using ckan, I also added some part mod recommendations. Mostly the ones which are already in the SETI-ModPack-1-Basic. SETI CommunityTechTree v0.9.2 (for KSP 1.0.4) Fixes Rough SRB/HRB rebalance, thank you for the notice innomin8 Procedural SRBs are bugged, they have a base cost of 256 which I can not change MobileProcessingLab is now considered a "station", thank you for the notice Targa ProbeCore EC changes only if original EC is below 200, thank you very much Shaggygoblin and Nori Integrated 160km antenna (with RemoteTech) fixed, thank you very much Rybec Semi-Saturatable Reaction Wheels compatibility config, thank you very much Rokanov SETI-CTT Mod Support RLA Stockalike Lithobreak Exploration Technologies

Yeah, that is a possibility. Though fixing such bugs is extremely low on their priority list (stock bug fix mod still fixes things which are in game for many versions now). Have you tried setting them from none to none, instead of deleting them?

The HRBs use solid fuel + oxidizer instead of just solid fuel with integrated oxidizer. Thus they can be throttled and switched off. It seems that due to ProceduralParts limitations, they will have to get the same ISP as the SRBs, though they retain the advantage of the separate oxidizer (which can be provided in with a procedural fuel tank, thus allowing a split of masses). I currently face the problem that procedural SRBs have some kind of baseCost of roughly 255 funds. I do not know how to deactivate/change that. If anyone knows, please let me know. The 160km integrated just saves you the DP-10 for launches and other short range com. I rebalanced the DP-10 to be more useful for eg low orbit networks and espcially atmospheric craft connecting to low orbit networks.

Hey, I m rebalancing procedural SRBs, but I have a problem with the costs. While I can easily apply a cost modifier to the tank and the srb thruster, there seems to be a base? cost which I can not lower. This base cost is so high, that RT-10 sized procedural SRBs are always more costly than the RT-10 itself. Does anyone know how I can change that 3rd cost parameter? Thank you very much!

I m not sure if that helps you, but when I wanted to have an arrow from one node to another one directly beneath it and set it from Bottom to Top, the arrow was not displayed. Though I do not know if it is a graphical bug or it does not like the "from bottom to top".

RL interfered with modding on the last weekend, but I hope to finish 0.9.2 this weekend. That is the current status, though I still have the problem with procedural SRBs and HRBs having the same ISP... **Fixes** * SRB rebalance, thank you for the notice innomin8 * MobileProcessingLab is now considered a "station", thank you for the notice Targa * ProbeCore EC changes only if original EC is below 200, thank you very much Shaggygoblin and Nori * Integrated 160km antenna (with RemoteTech) fixed, thank you very much Rybec * Semi-Saturatable Reaction Wheels compatibility config, thank you very much Rokanov **SETI-CTT Mod Support** * RLA Stockalike * Lithobreak Exploration Technologies If I m missing any fixes, please tell me. It has been quite some time since the last version. Tantares will have to wait since I need to do some work on the contracts first.

I m pretty sure you have an outdated module manager. Please delete all module managers from your gamedata folder and reinstall module manager via ckan. If that does not fix it, please post a screenshot of your gamedata folder and the ckan window (displaying installed mods) in the SETI thread.

Ah, I thought you might have SETIcontracts, but I forgot that I deactivated the record contracts for "InitialContracts" as well. Besides the record contracts, I think you need to reach space for KSP to unlock the procecurally generated contracts. I would prefer it if you only need to fulfill eg one contract for the procedural ones to show up. But I do not know of a way to change that. So you just need to shoot any vessel beyond 70k altitude and new contracts should pop up.

Other than that, please post a screenshot of your ContractPacks folder and your GameData folder.

SETI is more than a tech tree, for example it not only starts with probes but also changes probe cores (SAS, EC, mass and so on) and science experiments (telemetry experiment added to probe cores thanks to LordAurelius). While the parent CTT structure is visible, it has quite a lot of changes all over the place and adjusts part placement. You should not have empty "in-between" nodes, if you install it using the ckan mod pack from the thread. Karbonite Scoops are at advScienceTech, together with most of the resource extraction. The CC-R2 connector port should be available with advFuelSystems, the electromagnet is currently at nanolathing.

Ah, ok. Well, then my idea is something like a specialized rcs component. Which should improve handling of eg launch stages or massive bulky vessels without significant part cound increase (except maybe for more monoprop storage) or drag. For the squad early career holes, have you considered another progression system? Also VenStockRevamp fills some of those holes. Like another tech tree (eg OpenTree or Engineering or one of the others), contracts (from the ContractConfigurator thread) or combined systems like BTSM, RealismOverhaul or SETI (I m working on the latter one, link is in my signature, take a look at the CKAN mod pack)? About the SXT MiniGoo, keep in mind that the radial one does not need much structural integrity compared to the inline one. For SETI I made the stock radial one larger anyway (together with some other changes) and reused the model for a radial materials bay part (while shrinking the stack materials bay to 0.625m diameter).

While you can use tweakscale for most of that, there are some exceptions: 1.875m engines would be nice (on top of the HGR ones). Especially when you use the 2.5m to multiple 1.25m adapters and tweakscale them to 3.75m base (so 1.25m becomes 1.875m), so the engines are useful even if 1.875m tanks are not used. Inline Goo: Provided by a SXT MiniPack Monoprop reaction wheel: That is a great idea, especially when the saturatable reaction wheel mod is used, with more sane torque values. It could be one model which is rescaled for the different sizes. Eg a 3.75m model (for texture quality), but the part rescales it to 1.25m or so (for the initial unlock). Then tweakscale can be used for all sizes. I propose a simple ring model with 4, 8 or 12 thrusters especially designed to keep initial stages in line, so only 2 dimensions of thrust are needed, instead of 3. The 4 thruster (maybe multiple nozzles per "thruster") config in red (unable to spin the rocket), the 8 thruster version in blue and the 12 combines them: Due to the shape, the nozzles can be completely hidden within the diameter, nothing to "stick out". The part would be very flat but contain some monoprop, comparable to a normal monoprop tank of that volume.

Hardly suprising given that the tech tree aspect of SETI is a massive addon to the CTT...

The example given was very simplified (I listed most of the command parts some time ago, this time I just picked 3). Also the hitchiker combo has space for 4 kerbals instead of 3 and if you consider cockpits (and their torque) and other parts like the lander cans mentioned above, it only gets worse. The underlying problem is, that there is no overall concept of gameplay balance. On top of the simple stat issues, the underlying mechanics are not balanced. Electric Charge vs itself (only made bearable by the lack of stock background processing) ReactionWheels vs ControlThrusters CrashTolerances vs Parachutes vs LandingLegs Manned vs Unmanned (based on the proposed 1.1 "feauture" description, this one even gets a lot worse!!) Atmospheric vs SpaceFlightComponents Fuel tanks vs themselves (eg compare the monoprop empty masses to capacity) and so on... And as soon as you deal with the Manned vs Unmanned imbalance by installing eg TAC LifeSupport you can not use the 45m/s crash tolerance anymore, because of the g-forces. Thus by dealing with one imbalance, you increase other imbalances. My idea of a good base balance is, that the parts are balanced for gameplay as they are and are not made more imbalanced by adding complexity/balancing mods on top of that.

If you are not using realism overhaul for the progression, you may want to take a look at SETI, using the ckan basic mod pack file from the SETI thread. It offers a much better career than stock, including tech and contract progression, especially the early and mid game is much better. There is also a tech tree screenshot with recommended mods in that thread.

Yep, I can not possibly recheck everything and redo many changes every patch without knowing when it ends and/or what changes next and what is somewhat stable. Also Squad clearly stated/showed that they do not care for balancing new features/patches at all, let alone rebalance old parts, which they promised for 1.0. Eg Mk1 command pod: 0.8tons, 1 kerbal Mk1-2 command pod: 4 tons, 3 kerbals Hitchhiker + probe core: 2.5 tons, 4 kerbals As I said above, it took me about 2 minutes to find horrible, totally avoidable balancing issues with the antenna range mechanic proposed for 1.1. And I still can not see any gameplay advantage provided by the 1.0.x implementation of the heat mechanic. It was a bug party without any tangible gameplay gain. A feature for its own sake, instead of just asking the Deadly Reentry modder... A balance mod needs a basis to work upon.