Yemo

You could try the SETI-CommunityTechTree. It is still recommended to play it with 60% science return if you have additional science mods installed (eg DMagicOrbitalScience), or 70% or so without those.

Hm, that is strange. I tested both of those vessels and both completed the manned Kerbin Landing contract. Engine of first one blew off, as it had not enough atmospheric TWR, Engine of second one blew off as it had not enough ground clearance. But the contract is pretty lenient, as long as the pod + kerbal survive, it will complete the contract... Have you tried canceling the contract and taking it again? (You might have to decline other 2star or so contracts, so it shows up again)? For the vessel design, you could use an HRB, and use beams or girders to widen the landing base, since an HRB is pretty high for a lander. You might also want to limit the thrust to half or so. Consider using the sepratrons upside down and fire them when you touch down, if they hae enough TWR, they will press you into the ground, preventing you from tipping over. You could also drastically reduce your mass, by using a command seat + TakeCommand (mod). This would probably allow the 909 to have sufficient TWR for the job. VenStockRevamp introduces a LV-900, which is much better for this task, having much more atmo thrust.

SETIctt would naturally conflict with other tech tree mods (except CTT of course). SETIcontracts could conflict with other general contract progression mods (not the specific ones like AnomalySurveyContracts and RemoteTech and so on). Could you provide a screenshot of your GameData and ContractPack folders? Are you using the KSP 64bit for windows "hack"?

Yep, I got used to the time conversion, but I have to keep it in mind for contracts, since RSS players use 24h days. So I only use hours in the files. Did you reach an altitude of 500m with your vessel? That is the tricky part, you need to get to 500m and then safely land without parachutes or aero parts. Should work the same as the unmanned landing contract. If that does not work, could you provide a screenshot of you vessel?

A (non-savegame breaking) tech tree revison is underway. I already started in 0.9.0 with the aerospace techs doing some minor rearrangements and an addition to the aerospace tech line. Now in 0.9.0.2 I continue to rearrange some lines, especially the actuator/composites swap and some other stuff around that corner. The enhancedSurvivability subline was moved downwards. A lot of new/changed interdependencies were formed in those areas as well. Essentially, more nodes depend on the construction line. For 0.9.1 I plan to flesh out the rocketry line with some new nodes. The current changes in that corner were a preparation for those rearrangements. I also plan to add a new TAC LifeSupport only node between EarlyCommandModules and enhancedSurvivability, intended to contain the oxygen and water storage parts (the food storage parts were moved to the LifeSupport node, which is the new title of the Recycling node). The parent of that TAC LifeSupport only node is planned to be the EarlyCommandModules node (vertical parent). As stated above, there might be some minor inconveniences for existing savegames, but since everything you already researched stays unlocked, there is nothing savegame breaking. The major change in 0.9.0.2 is, that the fuel lines are considerably moved backwards and the B9 Procedural Parts are available much earlier at earlyAviation. SETI CommunityTechTree v0.9.0.2 (for KSP 1.0.4) TechTree changes Some initial reordering in preparation for 0.9.1 overhaul of propulsion/fuelSystems area Composites and Actuator tech line positions swapped NuclearPropulsion additionally requires precisionPropulsion AdvancedFuelSystems requires advConstruction instead of propulsionSystems HighPerformanceFuelSystems additionally requires advMetalworks SupersonicFlight additionally requires advConstruction HighAltitudeFlight additionally requires specializedConstruction HypersonicFlight additionally requires composites BasicCommandModules additionally requires enhancedSurvivability Recycling node retitled to "Life Support" FuelLines much later @highPerformanceFuelSystems Mk2-R parachute moved to enhancedSurvivability (since Squad made it larger than the Mk16...) 3.75m Heatshield later @advSurvivability (yeah, one less empty node ;-) ) Docking Port Sr. later @composites TAC LifeSupport First step of TAC LifeSupport rearrangement Food containers later @recycling/LifeSupport node (kerbals still survive 360hours without food) TACLS WaterSplitter moved to hydroponics/EarlyOrbitalStations USI LifeSupport New USI LifeSupport parts (including UniversalStorage ones) moved to appropriate nodes B9 Procedural All B9 Procedural Parts moved to earlyAviation, so you can now build a proper biplane (with KAX)

I might be misinterpreting some of the latest instances, eg when people changed more than removing old module managers. But I m pretty sure I had a case where someone had a pre 2.6.2 module manager installed in addition to later ones and it messed up the techtree mod. Will have to search for it tomorrow or so.

I actually grew to like the challenge of building 30 part planes, like the example jets for the old SETI-BalanceMod. Nevertheless, such a limit does not make sense, so abolishing it would be the way to go. Unfortunately it would make VAB upgrades useless at the moment, since I already made ActionGroups available from the start. You are welcome. I only hope Quill18 fixes the issues with his install, it kind of gives a bad impression looking at the glitched out tech tree (also he must be missing quite some nodes, including the one for larger than 1.25m heatshields). Thank you! If you want an epic SETI game, I recommend the hard reward settings (not the hard penalties, those just increase the grind), that really forces you to reconsider your designs/missions/progression decisions. Personally I prefer 50% science returns with DMagic installed. Whoops, I started supporting USI LifeSupport before those parts were released, so I just did not take them into account for my configs. Will remedy that and move the new parts further back, thank you for the notice. HGR is definately on my list (I nearly supported it for the old SETI-BalanceMod, together with Tantares, but it got shot down by KSP 1.0.x before I got there). I can not promise to support it any time soon though, it has a lot of parts and more essential mods (especially ProceduralParts) are higher on my priority list. Though I always liked that it introduces 1.875m rocket engines, which works very well with the large to multi-small adapters, tweakscale and 3.75m fuel tanks... Will take another look at it. On another note, I just watched the last Quill18 twitch recording. He had the Minmus & Kerbol mission. It seems as if he was so much in the mindset of stock KSP, that he immediately built a large manned vessel for a part of this mission, instead of even considering just shooting a small probe. Even though he uses TAC LifeSupport. Another one of those habits from stock is, that he immediately aimed for the fuel lines in the tech tree. Which in turn will make manned missions for everything even easier, since asparagus drastically helps with big payloads. Unfortunately he already reached the fuel lines at the end of the episode, but for everyone else, I m really considering putting those fuel lines much further back. From the 160 science node advancedFuelSystems to the 550 node highPerformanceFuelSystems. Which needs the R&D building level 3. It would be much more in line with reality and imho it would really benefit the TechTree experience. Mid-game massive payloads (eg station parts, long range manned missions) would really cost more and orbital assembly would be more incentivised. It would really make sense to build a station in LKO first, instead of just asparagus it to Duna or so... The fuel lines would come at the same tech level as the first colonization techs, which would give a nice progression feeling to it. Like in reality, further than LKO bases would not only become feasible due to habitation advances, but also due to propulsion/engineering progress.

For the next version, would it be possible to change the vessel restriction unlocks between VAB/SPH and LaunchPad? For example it would be more realistic if the dimension restrictions was bound to the VAB/SPH upgrade level, while mass remains bound to the LaunchPad level and part count would be irrelevant. (The irrelevant part count can already be achieved by setting it to -1, it would just be for ease of use). If possible, it could be done with dummy variables, like //Mass, Size, PartCount - 0: none, 1: VAB/SPH, 2: LaunchPad/Runway Limits = 2, 1, 0 Also is there a way to separate VAB/LaunchPad and SPH/Runway values? Especially regarding dimensions, so that I could eg set the maxHeight for the VAB to be equal to the maxLength in the SPH or so.

Hey, I wanted to thank you for all the effort you put into this and the CustomBarnKit (very much looking forward to the ability to extend building levels)! I have quite a lot of support requests in the SETI thread of which many seem to be related to having multiple module manager versions installed. I put an example screenshot and so on in my OP advising to delete all older MMs, but I m wondering if it is possible to implement a fratricide function into the modulemanager.dll? Where the youngest MM version kills all the older brothers in GameData, or at least "quarantines" them somehow?

Optimally I would like to have more steps for the building progression and a more reasonable limitation setup, including separate stats for SPH and VAB. maxMass for the launch pad upgrades maxDimensions for the VAB/SPH upgrades (but the vertical VAB limit = horizontal SPH limit and so on...) no part limits But I wanted to wait until CustomBarnKit allows for more steps in the progression. Then set really tight initial limits (but still allowing for early planes) and smaller steps. I ll have to rethink whether the "no part limits" would work.

Those are very much the areas I dislike myself, together with the horrible part "balance" and the player harassment by locking action groups away 1 Kerbal command pod: 0.8 tons 3 Kerbal command pod: 4 tons *censored... They were the basis for my 0.90 SETI-BalanceMod, where I - Extensively rebalanced masses, experiments, EC and parts in general - Rebalanced the TechTree progression (starting with probes and aircraft) - Introduced a new sensible contract progression (not offering Duna right after the first Mun contract) - Refined the old MPL - The only thing beyond my control was the horrible experience system, where you need to send a kerbal to another planet to teach him to repair wheels... Then came 1.0.x and shot the SETI-BalanceMod dead for no good reason. I managed to work on the TechTree and Contracts again, so those are ok again. Recently, I introduced a config for my SETIctt which fixes the hiring cost of kerbals and unlocks action groups from the start, if CustomBarnKit is installed. But, instead of fixing the abysmal experience system, they expanded it to other areas and restricted config modding. Especially the MPL is a balancing disaster and today I learned, that one of the config parameters is defined as an integer to prevent nerfing it too much. *censored... If anyone could write a plugin which sets all kerbal experience to 5 stars right from the start, that would be great! And if anyone could write a plugin which returns the old MPL behaviour (module), that would be really helpful for managing this "balancing" disaster!

Thank you very much! I set it to 1 for both MPL and the StationScience Lab. To keep the latter one competitive, it researches quite a bit faster while only requiring 3 kerbals. The new "hotfix" update also (temporarily) contains the CTT itself (with license and attribution and so on). This should prevent some of the install issues due to missing dependencies, which results in a glitched and incomplete TechTree. I prefer to direct people to the thread of the mod I build upon, but given the circumstances at the moment, I feel that an exception is ok in this case. Looking forward to the next KSP videos by Quill18 (with RemoteTech,TAC LifeSupport and SETI)! Download: SETI CommunityTechTree v0.9.0.1 (for KSP 1.0.4) Packaging Changes The SETIctt download now includes (redistributes) the CTT (by Nertea) itself This should avoid some of the install issues, especially considering recent events/circumstances Please make sure you only have the latest ModuleManager installed Science Rebalancing "Someone" at Squad decided to set one of the MobileProcessingLab multipliers to be an integer Which severely restricts rebalancing of this imbalanced part/module and this is undocumented There is no other reason to do so, other than to restrict/punish config modding I hereby protest against this kind of intentional modding annoyance/restriction So I had to set that multiplier to 1 again, for the MPL... To make the StationScience lab superior, it now has a lower researchTime exponent and only a 3 kerbal requirement I can only urge Squad to get their stuff together again and rethink their priorities Or hire someone who does it for them, those are gamedev kindergarten mistakes/errors in judgement There is a reason why KSP forums and twitch channels are so deserted compared to pre 1.0 release tl,dr: Integer multiplier for modding config, *censored..., whats next, binary for mass values?

Hm, I ve never experienced those misplaced kerbals before. But I do see some issue with your GameData folder: 1. Only use the latest module manager, never multiple ones. (Maybe delete everything below "WaypointManager" folder and then put the latest modulemanager in, all the other necessary files should get rebuild, and you get rid of all the unnecessary ones). 2. The CommunityTechTree mod is required for SETIctt to work (Quill18 forgot that too, thats why his tech tree looked so glitched and rather small). 3. I strongly recommend CustomBarnKit with SETIctt, you will have action groups from the start and Kerbals have a fixed hiring fee. From the OP, that is how it should look like if every SETI mod is installed with requirements + KerbalEngineer (CustomBarnKit is missing, have to update the screenshot):

That sounds like a serious issue. As a matter of fact, I just experienced some myself, with KAX propellers not working and the fixed "long-leg" landing gear resulting in my plane weirdly bouncing off the runway as if gravity was hacked. I currently have no idea what the problem is with either of them. I checked the HRB again, but I found no problems at all and it was not changed in the last versions. The "long-leg" landing gear was not changed by me at all, neither was the KAX propeller (except for the unlocking tech). Could you upload a screenshot of your GameData folder and your ContractPacks folder? Thank you very much for the info on quills mod pack, I m very much looking forward to seeing him with with KSP!

When you try SETI, you can install KAX (KerbalAircraftExpansion) for very early propeller planes. Then you can strap a booster like a HybridRocketBooster (provided with SETI thanks to LordAurelius) to the early plane to get to those high altitudes. The HRB is a booster which can be shut off and restarted. There are several other biomes around around KSC. With SETI, you can build a rover with 4 science total and explore the KSC, if you need more science.

I suggest trying another TechTree/Contract campaign/career, like SETI. The progression is much better, especially for beginners, because 1. Useful adapters are available very early, as are rovers, struts, launch clamps and so on 2. You start with probes, which allows very small and cheap rockets. If something goes wrong, not much of your funds and your time gets lost. 3. You have early access to airplanes, eg for those survey contracts 4. The contracts actually follow a campaign, you wont get the Duna landing contract right after your first Mun mission. edit: It really seems like the stock progression is the problem, in addition to the answers given by others to your specific questions.

Well, gliding is possible depending on the mass to lift ratio. So you would have to test or calculate. Same goes for aerobreaking (I hope you have aerobrakes?), try or calculate/guesstimate, but the Duna atmo is very thin. Failure is part of the fun. Though personally I try to minimize my costs of failure by limiting the scope when trying something new. That is why I recommended a minimal mission first. I just checked and I can build a complete Duna/Eve probe mission (4 experiments, landing legs and so on) with 20 parts and 6 tons. For such small craft, launch windows especially to Duna are much less of a concern, since it is fairly easy to add another 1-2km/s dV. But you already built that giant thing, might as well test with that directly. If that is the challenge/mission you want, go for it. Worst case, just load an earlier save and try something different.

I meant it more like, send probes first and then a giant ship with kerbals on board, not small probes on your giant ship. My first interplanetary missions (probes) are usually below 18t and 30 parts (depending on installed mods of course), for the whole mission... edit: I just built a 20part/6ton atmospheric lander probe with 5km/s dV (should be enough for Eve and Duna), lander legs, Com Dish, parachute and 4 light experiments (2 of them from DMagic), without upgrading R&D...

Well, for SETI+RemoteTech, every probe core gets an integrated 160km omni range antenna for the following purposes: 1. Launch/Ascent/AtmosphereCommunication 2. Short range com without increasing part count, eg between a probe rover and a probe lander 3. Range well below the Com16 LKO-KSC would be fine, but Mun/Minmus (with KSC upgrade) would be far too much. I do not know how to implement an omni antenna below the Com16 without making the Com16 essentially redundant.

My problem is, that except for edge cases, the range of an omni antenna only really depends on the dish. So regardless whether I set the integrated range to 1m or 6500m, it makes the Comm-16 redundant (except for those very short ranges). Which is a problem for any diversity regarding short range omnis. The integrated could be close coms only, but long enough to allow omni communication for eg base ranges (10km or so) between 2 of them. But that is very close to the Comm16, which makes the latter one nearly redundant. Also it should reach something like high Kerbin orbit for launches (so to KSC).

I suggest making CTT a required mod instead of redistributing it. That way people are directed to the CTT thread for those questions and would more easily see that unnecessary nodes are a "feature" of 1.0.x tech tree modding. As far as I know, there is already a plugin dealing with that in the CTT thread, though I m not sure about issues.

That makes it pretty hard to add new antennas. For example for my SETI mods I add a 160km omni antenna to every probe core. I looked at the configs, especially the Communotron 16. It had an additive range set to about 6.5km. The range between 2 Communotron is irrelevantly small (does it work this way)? I have no idea how i could balance the integrated antennas with something like that. I could set it to 1m range, then there is effectively no difference to the Comm-16 when talking to the KSC, making the latter completely irrelevant. Also the range between two probe cores would be non-existant, when 2 Comm16 already have such a low range. If I set the range higher, the Comm16 is irrelevant again. tl,dr: I see no way to effectively balance a short range antenna with the additive settings.

It looks cool, though for a first interplanetary mission, I d recommend going minimal first. So (small) probes before kerbals to scout out the destinations and test basic concepts for those bodies. Like a lander for Ike (no atmosphere) and what works on Duna (the atmosphere has no oxygen, so jets do not work, but eg electric probs from USI Exploration or KAX will). Do it more like a real space program, unmanned and minimal first.

For deactivating stock contracts: https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/wiki/Miscellaneous For a progression techtree/contract framework: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/106130

Your active vessel needs to point one of its dishes to one of your comsats in line of sight. If it leaves the line of sight to that sat, you need to point at another one. Either you always change that manually, or you need plenty of dishes. That is one of the reasons why a lower orbit com network with omni antenna is preferred. So that you do not need to worry with that in kerbin orbit.