Yemo

I just read about an agent loading issue over here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/124211 Maybe bring this issue to the attention of nightingale in this thread, as he has a much better understanding of the contract system then I do. Ah, will have to take a look at AtomicAge and the new MarkIV. No idea about the contract packs, sorry. I assume you just get duplicate missions for the same objectives, but I m not sure about it. If you try and find any issues, please do not hesitate to report them here as well. The landing contracts are pretty lenient anyway (only the command part has to survive the landing), more like an inspiration for roleplay as are all the contracts. I will have to fix the ProceduralParts/FAR bug first (and thus release a new SETIctt version), but the landing contract issue is definately on my high priority to do list. - - - Updated - - - Nearly all of the stuff from ScienceRevisitedRevisited is done by SETIctt already with different priorities (eg in SETIctt the numerical experiments give 100% science), some stuff might conflict (though I guess just the latest change is used in that instance). Anyway with SETIctt I would recommend to uninstall SRR.

SETIctt is much more than a tech tree at the moment. It has some elements of the the old BalanceMod (until KSP is in a state for which rebooting the BalanceMod is worthwhile), especially concerning science and probes (for unmanned starts) and so on. It is not too far from stock (eg compared to realism overhaul), but quite noticeable when you are used to stock (eg mystery goo and material bay rebalance). There is no need to use SETIcontracts together with SETIctt, the framework is fully modular. Although I have not tested with the stock contracts in a long time, they should work as well (though I would probably install the InitialContracts mini spinoff if I do not use SETIcontracts). Of course any other unmanned first contract pack is highly recommended. Whoops, I forgot to change the MM patch for RealChutes and SETIcontracts when I changed the contract structure. Will have to update this for the next version. It indeed only checks for stock parachutes even if RealChutes is installed. Thank you for the bug report. At the moment this is low on my priority list for 3 reasons. 1. There is some maintenance effort, especially considering compatibility with stock texture reusers (SXT). 2. DDS has decreased the memory footpring and with KSP 64bit for Linux, there is little memory reason, especially considering the potential compatibility issues with something like SXT. 3. I found another, simpler way to reduce clutter from 2 of the worst VAB clutter categories (wings and utilities for TAC LifeSupport), by making special nodes. So I ll most likely save me the compatibility trouble until the SETI-BalanceMod reboot. Will have to look into the omni switching off, thank you for the bug report!

For landers, I strongly recommend Dr. Jet's ChopShop, it has 2 awesome drop tank designs (1+2+2 and 1+1 mushroom). They are not very early, but much earlier than fuel lines.

Just for clarification if anyone else finds this thread: Szkeptik almost certainly did not install the base CommunityTechTree, which is a requirement for SETIctt to work.

Not far enough, since players kept beelining towards them. They just enable players to continue with bad stock design habits after a short grind. Making the grind more tedious maybe increases the incentive to work on proper craft design instead of just adding more boosters/asparagus to a bad/oversized stock designs. It is a transition from the horribly imbalanced stock ksp to a very roughly balanced gameplay, mainly because you grow used to what you encounter first. In reality you do not see fuel lines as implemented in ksp at the moment so far, so they should be pretty late.

Ah, ok. Will have to look into the RemoteTech contracts then. Yep, the stock ksp contract system is unfortunately not well suited for that kind of progression. You could try the more advanced mods, especially KSPI Extended and NearFuture. So far there is no list of mods stating which nodes will be filled by what mod and there will be empty nodes remaining in any case (there simply are no part mods for some nodes). That empty nodes can not just be hidden is a "feature" of 1.0.x tech tree modding as designed by squad.

I liked the slightly red fins on the LancerII, they added to the atmosphere. What I forgot about NewHorizons, I did not find any mod pack for it, so making a new pack specifically for that might be well worth the effort. About OuterPlanets, I have considered extending SETIcontracts to that, but then preferred to focus on other parts. Especially SETIctt mod support and adding some flavor contracts (eg records) to SETIcontract as well as another contract pack idea which I m thinking about. After the joolean tour and the joolean atmosphere, there is little uniqueness in exploration missions anyway. It basically becomes a repetition with other destinations. Except for the landing on a big world without atmosphere, such a contract is missing at the moment. - - - Updated - - - Also note, that CKAN seems to be stuck on the 0.9.1.2 version of SETIctt at the moment. I do not know why, hope it was not me and that it is resolved soon.

Honestly if I wanted to have contracts for something as radical as New Horizons, I would work on an entirely new contract pack instead of modifying an existing one. Personally I would start with a small scope and then flesh it out later, based on the experience with other, similar contract packs (eg like SETI), but improving upon them. Start with contracts from the beginning until reaching orbit around Kerbin (eg something small like the InitialContracts pack). Even without description flavor and the most basic mission parameters (eg reachState or so). Just the basics to make it work. Then take it from there. I would advise to keep the progression ambigous at first (not specifying manned or unmanned, so it is compatible with all tech trees). And then maybe just add specific manned contracts later on. I would also recommend using something like the SETI system to keep track of progression. Every contract writes its own variable if completed, so that it is easy to rearrange stuff later without breaking existing games too much. Also make sure to name the contracts uniquely (I missed that opportunity for the early SETI contracts, but did so for the later ones, just name your contract nhReachSpace instead of reachSpace (nh new horizon or whatever you want to call your contract pack). It is hard at first, but properly setting it up from the beginning allows you to quickly expand the system with simple copy pasting and changing a few variables.

Welcome on board! 10 more should be doable ;-). Added a new category to the OP for mission reports and updated the mod recommendation/support picture for all the new mods added in the last few updates. Now reading the latest mission report! - - - Updated - - - Really like the look of your mission reports (if I may be so bold and repost 2 of your pictures):

Ah, thank you. Will have to take another look. On an unrelated note: There seems to be a problem with a mod version update for SETI-CommunityTechTree. It was updated via kerbalstuff to 0.9.1.3 more than half a day ago or so, but CKAN still shows 0.9.1.2 as the latest version. In CKAN-meta, it shows that 0.9.1 was edited 4 hours ago and was the last to be edited, while 0.9.1.2 is 5 days old.

Have you looked at the SETIctt config for reference? Where did you get the name of the K2 Command Pod from? I remember it being shorter.

Then you are missing this mod: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/119971 It automatically stores crew reports into the science container without the EVA dance. Manned and unmanned SETIcontracts: Manned contracts say so in the title/description, if there is no such specification, contracts can be completed by probes and manned vessels. Attempting an unspecified contracts with a manned vessel is mostly a bad habit from stock, no space agency would send a manned mission if that is not part of the requirements. Also, I wanted to keep the contracts as open as possible. So if users really want to send a manned mission for such a contract, they can do so. It would not be logical that they have to EVA the kerbal to complete the contract. Powered Kerbin Landing: I m not sure why the landing contract disappeared, but generally try declining 2 and 3 star contracts if you are missing SETI contracts. It is a ksp limitation that I can not force them to show up, if the 2 and 3 star slots are blocked by other contracts. If you did not accept the powered landing contract, it should become available and stay so until completed. If declining other 2 star contracts does not bring it back, please upload your savegame, I ll try to find out what happened. Minmus&Kerbol: Leaving Kerbin SoI (thus reaching high Kerbol orbit) only requires about 100 more deltaV than a Mun intercept, so should be comparable to getting to space low above the Mun. You can do a Minmus gravity assist (though the dV saved is miniscule) to complete the mission in one go. The only limitation is the RemoteTech connection. But with basicScience and SETIctt, you already get the KR-7 dish (which is needed for Mun anyway). That one has a range of 90Mm, while Kerbin SoI ends at less than 85Mm (when high Kerbol begins). Essentially you should be able to complete the Minmus&Kerbol mission with about the same craft, which you used for the Mun flyby mission (provided you used a KR-7 on that). It mostly a matter of getting rid of bad stock habits/limitations in thinking. Yep, but I hoped for improvements to the class system for many versions now. They only made it worse with every version. About the experiments, I d say give it a try. It is certainly something to get used to, but as from the response above, in many cases we just got accustomed to bad stock habits/gameplay/incentives. On the other hand, I removed the partial values from mystery goo and science jr and so on. You do not only get 70% or so for your first return and then get diminishing returns for repetitions.

Hey, great little mod. Really helps with the focus on gameplay instead of tedious workarounds for limitations. About CKAN: I only know about how it works with kerbalstuff. There you only have to leave the CKAN box ticked when you first upload your mod to kerbalstuff and the license must follow the CKAN/NetKAN license scheme (https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/CKAN/blob/master/CKAN.schema, bottom of that page). There is no further need for maintenance. You just update your mod download, the rest ist done automatically. It would allow the inclusion of the mod into meta-modpacks (.ckan install files) and the inclusion into "recommendations" for other mods on CKAN. Anyway, CKAN support is a one-time effort, if set up properly.

I believe they are case sensitive. Try "simpleCommandModules" and "enhancedSurvivability".

I recommend against RealFuels with SETIctt at the moment (and have no idea about other mods with real fuels). Scientists are only for resetting experiments and special functions (labs). I would make all those arbitrary distinctions irrelevant, if I could. Until then, I make them irrelevant whereever I can do so with little effort. Overwriting agents? Hm, I only add an agent, as far as I understand it. Maybe CC deactivates an agent if certain stock contract types are deactivated? That is the only other interaction with stock which comes to mind: CONTRACT_CONFIGURATOR { disabledContractType = RecordTrackContract disabledContractType = ExploreBody disabledContractType = WorldFirstContract } Whoops, sorry. I did not know that FAR now adds modules. In that case, the current MM patches form SETIctt break (inadvertently remove) them for some parts. Will be fixed for the next version. Thank you for the bug report.

0 prefixes are by SETIctt, so PPs do not change position in VAB list when new parts are researched. Also, FAR now adds modules (havent used it for some time), which are broken by SETIctt at the moment (due to bad code from SETIctt), for some parts. I will correct this in the next SETIctt version. Sorry for the inconvenience.

USI Life Support does not have special configs for command pods. You could copy paste and adjust the techtree config from SETIctt.

Hey, maybe that went amiss with all the updates? I basically need the export function without the version numbers. On a related note: How to distribute meta mod packs within CKAN? Is there a way how a meta mod pack can show up in the mod list or anywhere inside CKAN without having to manually download the .ckan file?

Yep, ksp tech tree modding "feature", nothing I can do about it. Alright, implemented. I also readjusted the values, they are now perfectly in line with the fuel switch values. In relative terms, the absolute values are still based on the stock tanks, which makes them as horribly imbalanced as stock tanks are... I guess not looking at the specific values is the only way to go at the moment. Non of this is adressed in SETIctt (nearly everything was adressed in the old BalanceMod). Alright, I ll work on some initial automatic record contracts for the next version. I ll try to adjust them to the FinalFrontier ribbons... It is a progression: Transmit: 30%, non-repeatable Scientist+Transmit: 30%, repeatable Return: 100%, non-repeatable Cyclotron (from StationScience): 100% transmission, repeatable (when cleaned out by scientist) So you do not have to return them to kerbin, just to the Science Station (eg in orbit around Kerbin) with the Cyclotron, you could refuel them there as well. So you can send out fully reuseable science probes in 0.625m with a docking port jr on top. Or a larger one with multiple of those experiments. PS: Scientists do not give additional science in SETIctt. The XP system is totally broken, I try to remove its effects wherever I can. I refuse to accept that having to send a kerbal to another planet to teach him/her how to repair rover wheels is a gameplay improvement... SETI CommunityTechTree v0.9.1.3 (for KSP 1.0.4) Procedural Parts Procedural Tanks cost rebalances (much lower dry costs) Procedural Probe Core is now showing up Procedural Fuel Tank and Nose Cone have LH2/OX & LH2 options for CryogenicEngines SETI-CTT Mod Support AB Launchers (5m Energia parts) Cryo Engines Fixes TweakScale removed from probes edit: Also, I m really thinking about Tantares. Is anyone working on a config for that? With Beale on "vacation", there is at least a chance I can catch up with the new part production of this pack .

Using interstellar fuel switch, I did an experiment. For the same total mass, the Volcano/LH2/OX combination is always superior to the Poodle/LFO combination int terms of dV, vac TWR and for atmo TWR they are playing in different worlds anyways. Except for funds (which are usually negligible), the Poodle is simply outclassed.

Is it intentional, that eg the "VL-1 'Volcano' Cryogenic Rocket Engine" is strictly better than the Poodle stock engine? Less mass, much better thrust, enormously better atmo ISP, much better vac ISP...

I can only add to the suggestion above by Dr. Jet: Renaming of the mod to "Foldable Parts", or "Deployable Parts" or something. Since people do not search for "discreet". And KerbalStuff, maybe? This work is outstanding, especially for non-oxygen atmosphere craft.

A suggestion for the Universal Docking Ports: Removal of the 0.625m option for the 2.5m and 3.75m versions. Thus the 2.5m and 3.75m versions can be made passable for CLS. The idea behind it is, that those sizes are rarely if at all used for 0.625m connections. But instead, the 1.25m minimum diameter allows for crew transfer to 1.25m, 2.5 and 3.75m vessels. As if there were big docking rings just added around a normal 1.25m port. Eg like those ones in the bottom left corner, but with the additional option to connect to 1.25m as well:

One-way rockets, rocket & prop planes as well as simple rovers. Everything a young space program needs!

Might I suggest LH2/OX for the combo name and LiquidHydrogen for the normal one (just to be in line with the others, but I m fine with LH2 as well)? Since LH2/OX is the name used for the normal tanks using interstellar fuel switch.