Yemo

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...

And I found an issue while installing OPM. The OPM version file is outside of the OPM folder, which is problematic for installing. - - - Updated - - - If people reread the descriptions of an existing antenna, which, according to my experience, is rarely the case. - - - Updated - - - Also, the range of the GX-256 actually decreases when OPM is installed, while the GX-512 range stays at 300Gm, but the GX1024 jumps from 400Gm to 750Gm.

Wait, you are using USI Life Support and TAC Life Support? That would not work.

Thank you very much. Ah, ok that would ensure basic compatibility. Though I just finished the SETIctt - Sigma config anyway. Yep, kind of. I just wanted to ensure compatibility. But with the info from Olympic1 and the SETIctt-TechTree-Sigma config, there is no need for me to make upscaled duplicates of RT antennas ;-). Thank you all! - - - Updated - - - Hm, I noticed a problem with Sigma. It reduces the range of the GigaDish1 from 400Gm to 100Gm. If Sigma is thus installed onto an existing savegame, it would break existing network designs? Without OPM installed.

Hey, could anyone tell me how far out the furthest new planet is (for communication range mods)?

From my experience it is not worth trying to balance something against stock, since stock is extremely imbalanced itself. I actually rebalanced ProceduralParts for my old 0.90 SETI BalanceMod (still available from the second post in the SETI thread), which was possible because I also dealt with the major stock imbalances. And for a long time the SETI-BalanceMod required PP and discarded the stock fuel tanks and stuff by default. At the moment I m actually in the last phase of reconfiguring/extending PP for SETIctt, as before, this is mainly possible because I deal with the most horrible tech tree balancing issues of stock as well (not to the extent of the old SETI-BalanceMod, but it is at least bearable). Again, trying to balance against a horrible imbalanced system is a headache (because it is ultimately impossible). When in doubt, just try to get close and leave the rest to "house-rules"/"roleplaying", as that is necessary for stock imbalances anyway. For example the 1 kerbal Mk1 pod has a mass of 0.8 tons, the Mk1-2 pod for 3 kerbals has a mass of 4 tons, the 4 kerbal hitchhiker has a mass of 2.4 tons (+ eg a probe core for control). There is absolutely no gameplay reason to ever use a Mk1-2 pod given the ingame stats. It is just roleplay. If you wish, we could discuss what rebalances may be useful for stock PP as well, after I finish the next SETIctt update (today).

RemoteTech: With RemoteTechXF, remote tech is much less of a hassle when you forget to point your dishes correctly. Essentially it allows you to point your dishes even if you do not have a connection. Something like a failsave mechanism. SETI + RemoteTech: SETIctt adds a 18Gm dish at the electrics node, for early probe missions to Eve and Duna. SETIctt also changes the command station requirements to 2 kerbals instead of 6. So you could eg have a 2 kerbal craft in orbit which controls a rover on the ground. SETI + ProceduralParts: SETIctt will (from 0.9.1 on) integrate many of the procedural parts extensions and tweaks from the old SETI-BalanceMod. From tank type options (Karbonite) to new parts like Procedural Hybrid Rocket Boosters (thanks to LordAurelius) and Procedural Probe Cores (thanks to SwGustav). It will also provide some more textures, eg for planes and decouplers (thanks to SwGustav). TweakScale I would also recommend TweakScale when used wisely, especially for adapters, on which SETIctt relies upon. Adjustable Landing Gear That should be stock. RealChutes Stock ones are just horribly unbalanced in terms of mass, especially for small probes. B9 Procedural With the next SETIctt version, you will have the option to not research all those stock wing clutter parts and just work with B9Procedural and some special stock wings. Mk3 MiniExpansion and SXT Mk3 Ramp MiniPack Otherwise the early Mk3 Cargo Bays will be useless with SETIctt. OSE Workshop For making those KIS parts in space. CargoTransportationSolutions (the 1.0.4 version by Olympic1, from the last thread pages) - - - Updated - - - Oh and Procedural Fairings. But I would edit the common.cfg in its folder and just set all minimum sizes to 0.1 from the start, deleting the other restrictions (eg miniaturization), while setting all the maximum sizes to 50, also deleting all the other restrictions. Then delete all the dummy parts at the bottom, and it would work ok. Unfortunately it does not allow MM modding, as far as I can tell.

You are welcome! 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)?

Could anyone else test the config which was linked by Felger? Eg just put it into the GameData folder, and try to make a procedural fairing base smaller than 1m without having miniaturization researched? I just can not make it work. Thank you very much!

At the moment (if I do not encounter any more unforeseen issues), I plan for a release within the next 36 hours... - - - Updated - - - If you make a screenshot/imgur mission report blog, you could post it here, it would really spice up all the recent text walls. Or at least link it here. That would be awesome.

The ability to resize the procedural fairing bases is now limited to tech node unlocks by the common.cfg. Unfortunately I seem to be unable to alter those values using module manager. And I really do not want to start distributing custom config files again. For example, this is an excerpt from that common.cfg: PROCFAIRINGS_MINDIAMETER { start = 1.00 miniaturization = 0.400 sandbox = 0.1 } PROCFAIRINGS_MAXDIAMETER { start = 1.50 advAerodynamics = 4 heavyAerodynamics = 12 experimentalAerodynamics = 30 sandbox = 50 } If it is not my error in understanding, I hope they fix this shortcoming (especially for those tech tree which do not use the stock nodes as a basis. It works for SETIctt at the moment, but some of the unlocks are just too late or in the wrong place. Actually I m working on HGR at the moment, the 1.875m size would nicely fit into the new rocket/propulsion progression planned for the next update. Though I can not guarantee that I can finish those HGR configs for 0.9.1. That update will be massive anyway. KW Rocketry is pretty low on my mod support list. Together with Tantares and B9Aerospace, which are also nice but just very big. If someone is interested in contributing a config for those for addition to the SETIctt download, that would be great. Though I strongly recommend waiting for 0.9.1, as there are quite some changes to the tech tree and the additional mod support should give a good indication for the intended progression. edit: Also KW seems to need an update.

It deactivates those stock contract sets: CONTRACT_CONFIGURATOR { disabledContractType = RecordTrackContract disabledContractType = ExploreBody disabledContractType = WorldFirstContract } The record contracts were totally OP, the ExploreBody contracts followed a horrible progression curve and were non-declineable and the WorldFirstContracts (iirc) were buggy for probes. As far as I know, it only influences newly offered contracts, though given recent experiences, I would not put it beyond squad to disimprove in that area as well. Of course you could go SETIcontracts\CC-contracts\SETI-Contract-General.cfg and delete some of those lines or the whole bracket. But I would not recommend it. Also, there is a list of contract packs I would try, if I would start a new career: Anomaly Surveyor Base Construction Field Research Kerbal Aircraft Builders Kerbin Space Station RemoteTech Contract Pack SETI-Contracts SCANsat Contract Pack Tourism Plus

Yep, but the problem is, I do not only want to modify nodes from a later GameData folder, i even have to modify MM patches from later folders. So the later GameData folder has a patch like :NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]:FOR[universalStorage], then my specific patch goes in with :NEEDS[universalStorage]:AFTER[universalStorage]:FOR[sETIctt], followed by my general patch with :AFTER[sETIctt]. And I wish it was always that simple . - - - Updated - - - Oh, and regarding the update. It is bigger as expected (as usual), but work is progressing nicely. The main issue so far is, that the new ProceduralFairings seems to be incompatible with tech tree modding. At least I can not make it work. Which is a shame.

Search your gamedata folders file contents for EnableSignalDelay ?

Wow, mod authors last activity in mod thread is less than a week ago, and people are already fearing for a mod funeral.

Hm, that is really odd. I just tried with your config, and I can not make the fairing base smaller than 1m in career before researching miniaturization. I thought it was the usual problem of the dll reading out the values before MM had a chance to alter them, or even reading them out from the file directly? Like it was with ActionGroupsExtended, before the change? I wanted to delete it, I thought for !something = whatever, the "whatever" part is only a dummy?

Hey, I just tried to configure the procedural fairing diameter settings for my tech tree mod, using module manager statements, like this one: @PROCFAIRINGS_MINDIAMETER:NEEDS[ProceduralFairings]:AFTER[ProceduralFairings]:FOR[sETIctt] { %start = 0.10 !miniaturization = 0.400 } But I still can not make a fairing base smaller than 1m in career mode. Basically proceduralFairings can now only be used for the stock tech tree with the values set in that file? I can hardly tell my CKAN users to overwrite that file manually after every update. Is limiting dimensions really worthwhile at the cost of only working for the stock tech tree, since FuelTank size is the defining rocket diameter limit anyway?

Just checked. It indeed locks the fuelLines again. I could go on a rant again, how it complicates tech tree modding if saves are affected in such a way. And how it makes no sense whats-o-ever to relock them but have them still clutter up the tech tree in 2 places. But I guess it is like fighting windmills. If they want to make their game mechanics worse, so be it. I m sorry for the inconvinience, it was not intentional. Unfortunately I do not know how to fix it for future updates. If you really want to use the fuel lines, you could go to the SETIctt\MM-TechTree\SETI-TechTree-SQUAD.cfg file and replace this section //---FTX-2 External Fuel Duct @PART[fuelLine]:FOR[SETIctt] { @TechRequired = highPerformanceFuelSystems } with that one //---FTX-2 External Fuel Duct @PART[fuelLine]:FOR[SETIctt] { @TechRequired = advFuelSystems } Well, not fully supported. But that section will be shut down anyway, when life support moves to enhancedSurvivability again. I see the radial tanks mainly as parts for landers and rovers, on which they look great, imho. I ll just move them to enhanced Survivability as well, to concentrate life support parts there. Yep, it was not about the food as a resource, it was about enabling beyond kerbin SoI missions, food containers were just the means to achieve that. Anyway, with PP it is not practical, so it will be left to roleplaying. Well, it depends on boot times. But I rarely play full campaign KSP these days, mainly specific missions and modding, so windows is ok for that. I m no expert on module manager. But here is my reasoning behind it: Since MM goes through the folders alphabetically and some mods already have CTT module manager patches, the :AFTER[xy] should ensure that my MM patch comes later, even if the mods GameData folder comes after SETIctt. The :FOR[sETIctt] is for applying general patches (I often forget it now, but it was very important in the old SETI-BalanceMod). For example I want to double all probe core EC values. But I also want to change a mod specific probe cores absolute base EC value. So I would try a specific patch using :AFTER[mod] and :FOR[sETIctt]. The problem is, if my "double-EC" patch is in the SETIctt folder, it might get applied before the specific one, since that one would only come :AFTER[mod]. So I add :AFTER[sETIctt] to the general patch to ensure that it gets applied after the specific patches... I essentially want to avoid the :FINAL statement whereever possible, because that one is a massive compatibility headache without end. My main beef with Universal Storage is, that the US TAC Life Support recyclers are so imbalanced. Imho there is but one gameplay reason to use TAC Life Support over other, simpler life support mods: Recycler diversity You have to really think about recyclers, if you want to use them. I do not like the mass-balancing of TAC LifeSupport recyclers (I changed it for SETIctt and SETI-BalanceMod), but at least there is a progression. The large recyclers are heavier, but provide for more kerbals. But here come the US TAC LifeSuppport recyclers. They weigh a lot less, but provide for far, far more kerbals than the original TAC Life Support ones... Essentially you stick one US TAC LifeSupport recycler on a massive space station/base, and you are set. No need to think, one small wedge can support about 19 kerbals (water purifier or so)... My proposal (what I implemented for the old SETI-BalanceMod): One wedge supports 1.02 kerbals, based on the values from the big TAC LifeSupport converters, which support 9.18 kerbals. On the mass side, I like the 0.155 tons (I would prefer 0.16tons for modular balancing, but that is nitpicking and I can easily set it myself). For the conversion values, just take the big TAC LifeSupport converters as reference, but set a conversion factor of 1.02 (not 1.0, the extra 0.02 is a safety net for calculations and temporary inactivity - no power, kerbal on EVA and so on). Also the EC definition for the converter parts: 1EC/s = 1kW = 1kJ/s Currently the US Alkaline Fuel Cell has a mass of 0.155 tons, capable of producing 16EC/s, using Hydrogen and Oxygen. Compared to the stock Fuel Cell, which has a mass of 50kg, capable of producing 1.5EC/s, using LiquidFuel and Oxidizer. 1EC/s = 1kW = 1kJ/s ! Everything else is a compatibility nightmare. And if the stock solar panels do not follow that, so be it. I do not use fuel cells instead of solar panels. A fuel cell using Hydrogen and Oxygen should be in line with other converters using hydrogen and oxygen. And hydrogen and oxygen are (to my knowledge) used by mods which follow the 1EC/s = 1kW = 1kJ/s convention, except for UniversalStorage. I really like Universal Storage! It is an amazing mod, but I like at least somewhat balanced, fully modded (TAC, KSPI Extended, RemoteTech...) gameplay more. edit: Stock is imbalanced enough, if I choose a life support mod, I really do not want it to become imbalanced due to another mod adding totally OP parts (recyclers).

Hm, it sounds more like you are looking for the BoxSat mod?

Whoa, did they change the mechanic? That is news to me, will investigate tomorrow. That would be a real problem for tech tree updates in general.

(In this case: Unfortunately,) Already unlocked parts stay unlocked, if they are shifted around in the tech tree. The part will be shown in its old and in its new place, but there is no gameplay effect. Will happen to a lot of parts once 0.9.1 is released. With such important parts like fuelLines, you could only roleplay it (like with so many things in ksp) and refrain from using them until unlocking their new position.

Thank you very much for your offer! About the "online" aspect, it is more like without github I can work without internet for a week without having to worry, about doing double work and reintegration, because the stuff on github is worked upon. Until KSP 1.1/BalanceMod reboot, I just feel more comfortable with the current way. But if I may, I would gladly come back to your offer once I m ready to fully start again. I m switching between linux and windows, though I tend to use the former for actual playing and the latter for modding. First of all, thank you for your detailed feedback. There seem to be some misunderstandings: 1. In 0.9.0.2, TAC life support is split between 2 nodes, enhancedSurvivability for oxygen and water, and recycling/LifeSupport for food. US is not fully supported, so I m not responsible for the location of the parts. I just saw no need to move water and oxygen, only to move them again in the next version. The other parts were intended to stay at LifeSupport node. 2. I see food not primarily as "food", but as the resource which extends life support beyond 360 days (+ the stuff in the pods). At least it would have avoided the possibility to send a kerbal to Duna with only 45 science nodes researched... 3. The US radial tanks are imho intended for rovers and landers and so on. Anyway, that plan is scrapped now. All Life support containers (TAC and USI) go into enhancedSurvivability. Except the TAC Life Support clutter parts, which go into their own special 1 science node (cant make it 0 science), directly attached to enhancedSurvivability. So PP users can just avoid this node and everyone else just have to spend 1 more science and 2 more clicks. Which imho is not too much to ask for, from people who play with TAC LifeSupport... Because there is a strong link between the historic development of larger heat shields and crew pods. It also has the nice side effect of discouraging some players from using a Mk1 Inline Cockpit as a space capsule, since the Mk1 Pod comes with the 1.25m heat shield anyway. Small probes still have access to the 0.625m heat shield from VenStockRevamp, which stays at the survivability node. Mun and Minmus do not need shielded probes anyway and the Orbit+Recovery contract can easily be done with a 0.625m heat shield. Have you looked at the US TAC LifeSupport recyclers? They are so out of whack, I would have to either hide or rebalance them (I did the latter for the old SETI-BalanceMod, but at the moment I just want to focus on mod support, so if a mod provides such imbalanced parts, I just reserve the right to not officially support it). Well, reducing clutter was one of the main reasons why I started this whole SETI thing. It is just an additional 2 clicks + 1 science point for clutter users, which is imho very reasonable compared to the advantages for non-clutter users. Oh, and it is totally playable right now.

Thank you very much for the update, exactly what I needed for SETIctt support!

Any update on this in sight? Really helps with base building.

Do you by any chance have SETIctt installed, but did not install the requirements of SETIctt?