Yemo

Honestly, it does/did not take a prophet to predict issues when a 1.0 version is released without proper beta, while even adding lots of features to such a 1.0 version. There have been warnings about this since the earliest ages of product releases in general and since last year for KSP 1.0 in particular. It was all perfectly predictable, from the bugs (surprisingly few, considering the feature additions, overall "relatively" good job!) to the on target criticism, to the "misguided" criticism. I agree the criticism at the testers/QA is misguided, but customers tend to overreact in front of the people they actually can see, if the "responsible" people keep hiding in the background and refuse to acknowledge there "responsibility". You cant really complain that some customers are venting where they shouldnt, if you hide where they should/could. Isnt it a bit cynical to, despite lots of warnings, build a house much too close to the ocean and then shout at the tide for rising uncomfortably close to your house? 1.0 was a great content update, it was just not a great release. If you had not called it release (but relabeled 1.0.2 to 1.0), this would not have happened as it did. Labels evoke expectations, "mislabeling" provokes discontent, this is marketing/sales/psychology 101, not rocket science.

Actually, a paying customer has every right to complain about the product he has paid for. That kind of is the deal when you sell something. You are not the sole owner anymore. You actually exchange money for entitlement, which is kind of the definition of entitlement. It is not like something gifted, it comes from somewhere. And in this case, it comes from a contract. When an artist sells his/her work, that decision/contract comes with obligations, stipulated ones and percieved ones. KSP is published (1.0) and sold. You want more leniency regarding criticism? Dont sell and most importantly, do not declare it to be 1.0 aka "released". It is that simple.

Hm, seems the new module manager is capable of changing the tech tree. Although there is still the issue of the unused but required nodes. Thank you for your offer. However with squad strategically placing looks and feature list before modding friendlyness (building upgrades, techtree and so on) or bug fixing and gameplay balancing, I m hesitant to put time into a new tech tree. So I ll maybe just support the new CTT, when it works and correct some stuff for basic compatiblity with 1.0, but will not develop SETI further under those circumstances. I m sorry for that, but I can not and do not want to work against the the devs direction for the game, because I can not win and the costs in terms of workload will only increase. And the last update made pretty clear where the train is heading, for those who did not pick up the hints from 0.90 and the cancellation of a proper beta. Short term monetizability/marketability is now the benchmark for development.

I supported the CTT so that I have less work with it than doing another tech tree and because it offered a solid basis. Now Squad decided to change the stock tree in a modding unfriendly way (shifting nodes around for no reason, creating dead ends, removing experimental nodes not used by stock parts, creating superficial choices like extra tank nodes), while making it non-MM moddable, not fixing serious layout/progression issues (unmanned tech for 1000 science gives a single probe core with a bit larger diameter) and decreasing functionality compared to TechManager. And CTT seems to be set to change with it. So I have to recheck everything just to get a worse state than before? That is seriously aggrevating and a non acceptable basis for future development. Also I can not use the CTT nodes, because 1. they are license restricted and 2. I would make myself dependent on the CTT again. I do not want to have to jump every time squad decides to make parts of the game worse than before, just because they feel like rushing an update without community feedback for monetary reasons. Also, the tech tree seems to be non-moddable at the moment with MM and I still can not find configs to alter the building upgrade progression, which was introduced 4 months ago. I guess fancy new IVAs and shaky cam were more important than moddability, at least for selling copies. So at the moment, there simply is no SETI development. Cant make a balance mod without half way proper and stable tech tree. And squads priorities (which are always spottable by changes in quality control) seem to have shifted from moddability to stuff which looks good in videos and pictures and feature lists. It is not like there is effort involved in externalizing the building upgrade parameters, if you construct it around that. The only reason for hardcoding those parameters is a strategic decision to make them non moddable, which should have been a warning sign for a "balance" mod when 0.90 was released. Now they release a tech tree config, apparently without consulting the people who made the previous basis for modded tech trees (TechManager) or the person who makes the tool for changing configs for KSP (ModuleManager). On the other hand, they give out the prereleases to twitch streamers, who seem to have looked at KSP for 2 minutes before doing the stream, for marketing reasons...

Hey, I have an idea on how to improve the interstellar fuel switch, especially should you release it as a separate dll download. Could you add something like a size factor to it, like the scaling factor from the TAC life support converters? For example with the TAC life support converters, the base values do not need to be adjusted for larger versions. You can just increase the factor eg from 3 to 9. This makes adding such a module via MM statements much easier, since the factor could just be calculated by MM itself, using the standard mass of the components as a basis. While the fuel resources can be changed independently of the factor, accounting for mod specific resourses like argon or karbonite.

With the latest unmotivated disimprovements to the already not-so-good stock tech tree layout and thus the forced workload without benefit when supporting it or other tech trees based on it (eg CTT), I decided to start working on my own tech tree, independent of unmotivated meddling for its own sake. So that I waste less time in future updates and have more time for gameplay improvements.

Yes, the new tree seems to be more specialized for stock and less open to extensions to the end. Command capsules for example is a dead end now, with no room to fit something like the Taurus HCV.

In my opinion, this is an opportunity for the CTT project to change into something more than before. I propose a 2 part strategy, based on the stock tech tree. Part 1: Tech Node naming convention/basis a) Define the IDs of tech nodes which are useful in addition to the new stock tree nodes. Those could be the ones used in the 0.90 CTT. Make those node names public domain, thus usable by all the other tech trees, eg Adios, Road to Kosmos, KSAEA and Mod Oriented Tech Tree. That would provide a community naming basis not only for part mods, but also for tech tree mods. If those tech tree mods need additional nodes they can just add them, but there would be a common basis, thus increasing compatibility between tech trees with each other and tech trees with part mods. For example tech trees starting with probes could just move the unmanned probes to an earlier position, other trees would put aero nodes earlier. Part 2: CTT itself a) A tech tree like the old CTT, based around the new stock tech tree, with the public domain techs placed around it, like before. This would act as the basis for part mods, espcially those which do not quite fit into the stock tree, like NearFuture, KSPI extended, colonization. Now if other tech trees want to support those special mods, they just add the public domain nodes where they would fit for them.

I m not especially happy about the new stock tech tree layout, it seems to be worse than the previous stock tree and shifts around existing nodes for its own sake, instead of just adding some. For example command capsules is a dead end now, construction related nodes spread out more than before, the later unmanned nodes seem to only contain one probe core each, just a different size (which makes no sense for 1000 science or so), while nuclear is still at 300 science. From the SETI perspective, there is little benefit from doing the workload to adjust to the new stock basis, without having any benefit from it in terms of gameplay improvements. Especially with the prospect that squad might shift nodes around again for no good reason. I can not see anything in the layout of the new tree that justifies shifting nodes around from the previous tree instead of just adding to it in terms of nodes, quite the contrary. While I m willing to change for improvements, I m really unhappy about having to change now for no improvements at all (looking at the layout of the new stock tree); just because someone felt the need to shuffle stuff around for 1.0 for its own sake (eg scienceTech later and new node basicScience at the exact same position as the old scienceTech).

I had 106k funds before the second mission, which includes the advances from selectable contracts 3 and 4. So around 70k without those advances after finishing missions 1 and 2 (launch and scientific data). Well, I do not see the improvement in the layout of the new tech tree, quite the contrary, only a small improvement in part positioning within the tree (some aero parts earlier). The display (all nodes visible) is a great improvement, the moddability just does what was possible before with techmanager. Though to make full use of that, facility upgrades need to be moddable, for which I did not find the configs so far... So, as stated before, with the new CTT likely based on the new stock tech tree, which offers no benefits for quite some workload, I can hardly justify adjusting to the new CTT only to have to make unmotivated adjustments again, when stock disimproves again. I like modding for improvements, not modding in circles. But I also can hardly justify putting effort into a new tech tree, when I can not mod the building upgrades to make use of it.

While I do like the new "everything visible" aspect of the tech tree, as far as I can tell so far, the tech tree itself is worse than before. It seems to be less open for modding and more specifically fitted to the set stock game and its parts. Like having dead ends, eg the command modules are now a dead end in the middle of the tree. Also construction related nodes are all over the tree now, and the landing progression makes no sense. What is worst, is the totally unmotivated shifting around of tech nodes, eg scienceTech to the back, introducing a new node "basicScience" where the other one was. There is a node called "largeProbes" costing 1000 science, offering nothing else than a higher diameter probe core without any advantages. Honestly it mostly feels like shifting around stuff for its own sake, without concept, need or benefit to the game (except for putting some aircraft stuff earlier, which is a good move). Though why you have to pay 550 science to get the standardCanard is beyond me, or 1000 science for larger elevons, when nuclear propulsion costs 300 science... And probe cores are still much too late. I understand that it is appealing to put manned capsules at the start. But I do not see the need to put unmanned stuff so far back. Simple large to small adapters for making engine clusters are still at the 550 science node and thermo and baro at the 45 and 90 nodes, while you start with mystery goo... Honestly, I now kind of regret using the CTT. I guess the new CTT will be based on stock again, which is now a worse starting point than before. So I m seriously considering dumping stock and CTT and making my own tech tree, so that I do not have to touch everything again just because squad feels the unmotivated need to shuffle around some nodes... And why has every damn late game probe core its own very high cost tech node? L’art pour l’art, I guess. tl;dr: The new tech tree is an inconsequential disimprovement. PS: When you force players and modders to adjust to a new tech tree, at least make it a noticable improvement over the previous one, and certainly not a disimprovement.

I understand/support that the default/easy settings should be very forgiving, but when I select "hard", I do not want to be swimming in funds after 5 minutes. It is like playing a shooter, you select hard mode and are practically running around in god mode. Sorry, but an issue as apparent and influencial like that does not belong into a release version. Difficulty settings are really balancing 101, and there is practically no effort neccessary in making sure that such imbalances do not occur after 5 minutes gametime.

Thank you, I ll correct it in the next small patch! Very nice! So I just started KSP 1.0. I played 5 minutes on hard mode (10k starting funds, 60% rewards for everything), launching one vessel. Before launching my second vessel, I have 106k funds and 21 science, without even getting science from the launch pad. For reference, the first vessel costs 2930 funds, both second tier science nodes cost 5 science, the third tier nodes are like before (20,18,15). I m not sure what they were talking about when "balancing" the game. In 0.90 the science was totally imbalanced in mid game. 1.0 is totally imbalanced after 5 minutes... Or I just have a different notion of "balance". I guess my second mission goes to the Mun or so, on hard mode... I just hope moddability is increased again, after the last decrease with the hard coded facilities... I expected issues, I did not expect to find them within 5 minutes. And I did not eve strap lots of boosters on, to get more record contracts completed.

Hm, if every part mod creates its own tech tree nodes, the result is a major mod compatibility issue, growing with every mod installed.

For the next update, could you please remove those :FINAL statements from your CTT configs? Also, can you make the settings MM configurable? Checking for the values after MM applies its patches. Since there are so many mods out there having config files, people could just make their own MM file, changing the values for all their mods without problems and sharing them (eg for the multiplayer mod).

He started a new save. I saw the settings. 10k starting funds, fund rewards set to 60%. He had 70k after completing the first launch (Mk1 pod with new half sized RT-10 booster and parachute to a few thousand meters altitude), he got another 30k advances from selecting the next contracts. Part costs were roughly the same as before. Ridiculous. What I found most surprising was, that he did not even care about that. He spent a lot of time showing new IVAs and stuff, but not a single remark about that horrendous balancing for the for the FIRST mission. I mean, it is not something hidden behind a subcategory of a late game contract. It is after the FIRST contract, on HARD settings. It seems that with 100% rewards, you could call career a sandbox with achievement like "contracts" just for flavor, without gameplay significance. I wish I could say "judging too early", but it is the freaking FIRST 10minutes and the funds balance is out the window...

Just saw DasValdez launch his first craft in a 1.0 career in hard mode, to a few km height. He had 100,000 funds before his second launch, in hard mode! ROFL

So, I just saw someone complete his first mission in a KSP 1.0 career game. He had about 100,000 funds after launching his first vessel to a few km height, with HARD mode settings... ROFL:confused: Though there are some nice new IVAs and a shaky camera effect. I think personally I will stay with 0.90 for a while, for a progression game...

Excellent, thank you very much! Looking forward to it!

Hey, great to see it updated and on KerbalStuff! FYI, SETI supports it since the last version as well. Some things to consider: 1. Distributing the ModuleManager in the zip is totally ok, as long as it is in the GameData folder and not in the ChopShop folder itself. A proper CKAN integration has install instructions, stating that only the Chop Shop folder is copied into GameData and the other stuff in the zip is not touched. Furthermore the NetKAN file should state ModuleManger as a dependency. Ah, I just saw that Dazpoet integrated ChopShop to NetKAN with those install instructions, so you can put the module manager dll back into the GameData in your download. 2. The tricoupler alpha worked fine for me (with VenStockRevamp). You could simply make its appearance dependent on whether VenStockRevamp is installed: PART:NEEDS[VenStockRevamp] { name = wide-tri Or you could use stock textures as default and switch to VenStockRevamp textures using MM statments? 3. When doing the SETI MM statements, I noticed that those LED headlights are extremely bright for their small size. Would it be possible to tweak their max/default brightness to something between the stock Illuminator 1 and Illuminator 2? Thank you very much.

It is planned to support it, however the mod author did not even balance it rudimentary, yet. So like with infernal robotics rework, the parts work, but they are not balanced in this state of development (eg impact tolerance). An a related note: There is already a Taurus HCV (command pod only) config in SETI v0.8.9, but I can not put that mod on the supported list, since it has some major technical deficiencies at the moment (missing bracket in the config, TAC life support resource definitions without checking for TAC life support, wrong resource amounts and so on). And the mod maker does not plan to correct that before 1.0. And on another related note: KSPI extended is compatible with SETI, it has the naming scheme and so on. But it is in the process of shifting resources and tanks (to community resource pack and fuel switchable tanks) and at the moment, the dev progress seems to be heavily focused on technical details instead of gameplay balancing.

Thank you. I plan to release something of a wrap up version for KSP 0.90, which will be called SETI-BalanceMod-v0.9. It may have very few changes, but just act as a milestone. It will surely be released some time after KSP 1.0, depending on the KSP 1.0 changes and how fast other mods are ported to 1.0 (and therefore how fast I can work on SETI for 1.0) Hm, I can not reproduce this. The PP-HRB in my installs has the same dry mass as the PP-SRB. Since KSP 1.0 introduces new landing gear and is so close (Monday), I ll have to wait for that and then take a look, thank you! Interesting, IR really is evolving! Oh, I have to update the dev section. And I will add Ship Manifest to StationPartsExpansion, thank you! Hotfix Version 0.8.9.1 Fixes maxTemp fixes for DeadlyReentry Fixed some TweakScale Exponents for engines Corrected thrust for QuizTech 5nozzle engine Fixed OrbitalSurveys Science costs increase Other changes High ISP nukes later @improvedNuclearPropulsion Nuclear Propulsion TechNode in CTT costs 450 science, instead of 300 KR-2L rebalanced, much higher thrust and atmo ISP

Hey, I m wondering how I can define the cost exponent for tweakscale using MM? @PART [*] { @MODULE[TweakScale] { TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS { ???????????????? } } }

It does not break saves! Though if you are not updating from the last dev version, then there are quite some balancing changes to consider, especially regarding monoprop. But as with every update, making a backup of your save folder is recommended.

I ll put the Semi Saturatable Reaction Wheels back in the mods list! New Version 0.8.9 Contracts Stock progression contracts (explore body) removed, since they could not be cancelled and blocked the list New "Space Exploration & Technology Initiative" agency to identify SETI contracts (though it still uses the stock image) Powered Landing contracts do not allow aero parts on vessel (wings, nose cones, intakes) Many manned missions do not require a "return Home", thus making the choice of vessel more flexible (Apollo Style, Stations) Science Experiments Mystery Goo and Materials Bay have half the previous mass (160kg instead of 320kg) Mystery Goo rewards increased from 10/13 to 18/23 science New automatic surface sample experiment from Lord Aurelius "StockScienceTweaks" included (@unmannedTech) Updated biome mask of Barometer Experiment from "StockScienceTweaks", now biome dependent when flying low, no ground readings Nerfed TemperatureScan and Barometer considerably, to rebalance the early science gains Nerfed Accelerometer and Gravimeter considerably, but they are available earlier @basicRocketry/electronics Acc/Grav got their physics significance back, rebalanced their costs and masses Many DMagic Experiments nerfed by 1/6th to 1/3rd Many DMagic Experiment parts shuffled around in the tech tree and many have reduced mass of only 20kg instead of 40kg Extended Mod Support ASET Stack Inline Lights (non-tweakscale stack lights can be used as washers between procedural and tweakscale parts!) Dr. Jet's Chop Shop K2 Command Pod Mk1 Cargo Bay QuizTech QuizTech Aero Pack Station Parts Expansion NEW/Reintroduced Parts, updated Autopruner file New RoveMate Roverbody with integrated probe core and reaction wheel under "command" category FAR likes normal nose cones much better than procedural ones... So the normal ones are brought back If you use AutoPruner, then unprune with the old autopruner file and reprune with the new one Procedural Parts Monoprop tank capacity per volume drastically increased Procedural Probe Core with Battery tank type option (much less dense than Procedural Battery) Procedural Structural Element and Nose Cone restricted like the other procedural parts Procedural Structural Element and Nose Cone with low density battery option and fuel tank options Therefore a low density procedural battery is available at the start! New Procedural KAS Life Support Container! Decreased minimum volume of procedural boosters TechTree changes CTT "Recycling" node now requires "scienceTech" instead of only "survivability" CTT AdvancedRecycling/Hydroponics node renamed to Orbital Stations CTT Orbital Surveys node costs increased from 90 to 160 Station Hubs moved to "OrbitalStations" with CTT installed Various chutes earlier, most at survivability and enhancedSurvivability Various rover parts shifted from the "landing" tech line to the "space exploration" line Launch Escape System and Mk1-2 cover much earlier Mk1 Cockpit shifted to aerodynamicSystems Mk2 Lander Can earlier @specializedControl Mk3 Space Shuttle Nose Cone later @heavyAerodynamics Basic ladder earlier @stability Small Adjustable Landing Gear earlier @stability Procedural Alkaline Fuel Cell earlier @survivability Procedural Battery earlier @survivability Some more basic structural parts moved to generalConstruction Hardpoints earlier eg small one @stability RLA Spinnaker LFO engine (75kN thrust, 0.625m diameter) earlier @generalRocketry VenStockRevamp SnubOtron earlier @generalRocketry Standard Nose Cone earlier @start Protective Nose Cone later @heavyRocketry KAS/KIS parts shuffled around the tech tree, generally earlier KipEng Low Profile Station parts later @Orbital Stations (CTT) or specializedConstruction Clamp-o-tron docking port with integrated parachute earlier @advMetalworks MicroGoo and micro materials bay later @exoticAlloys Rebalances & Adjustments All parts should now have DeadlyReentry compatible maxTemp values 2+ kerbal Command pods default ablative shielding decreased, maxAblative Shielding increased Massive nerf to the costs of Nukes Solar Array masses and tweakscale exponents (costs, masses) unified, flat solar panels lighter PackRat Rover Front moved to command category, since it has a probe core Utility Parts with Crew capacity have KAS storage (maxSize is 20*CrewCapacity) Fairings have 0 prefix, structural fairings moved to aerodynamics with the other fairing parts Launch Escape System rebalanced (eg lighter) and now under propulsion instead of utility Vernor Engine nerfed (costs and ISP) ISP for TurboJet Engines corrected (lowered ISP a lot), except XJ-48k Vector, which had the right ISP Stayputnik and OKTO 2 cores lighter, OKTO 2 mass is now exactly OKTO mass + 0.3 torque reaction wheel Monoprop thrusters and tanks rebalanced (higher capacity tanks, lower isp engines, less mass & cost RCS) Non-procedural nose cones reintroduced, because FAR likes them much better than the procedural ones... Non-procedural nose cones rebalanced in terms of mass and costs, also renamed Non-Procedural Boosters sometimes heavily rebalanced to be in line with the procedural ones Procedural Nose Cones are surface attachable and accept surface attachments Non-procedural decouplers and separators have tweakscale configs TCS Cargo Bays rebalanced GingerCorp 8way station hub a bit heavier @2 tons instead of 1.8 HECS probe core gets a small reaction wheel Micronode (non-rockomax one) now allows radial attachment Jet engine costs rebalanced LFI Basic Jet Engine rated at Ma0.95 instead of Ma1.2 Structural Girder costs rebalanced Small Landing Gear has physics significance and mass of 50kg Hardpoints rebalanced Mk2-R Parachute case rescaled to fit the actually contained chute BaseMount part from Habitat Pack now supports tweakscale A bit lower entry costs for LV-T45 KAX Heavy Jet fuel tank rebalanced to be in line with procedural parts Mk1 Cockpit heavier at 1.1 tons instead of 1, but has working intakes Mk1 Liquid Fuel rebalanced to be in line with procedural parts O-10 Monoprop engine rescaled (rescaleFactor 2.83) and TweakScaled added MPR-5R Monoprop engine rescaled (rescaleFactor 0.8) Universal Docking Port 2.5m a bit heavier Minor Changes and Fixes Mk1-2 Pod mass reduced by 100kg, because of the modding unfriendly VenStockRevamp MM statements Mainsail Gimbal restored to stock value for VenStockRevamp, which used a buggy MM statement Universal Storage Hexacore mass corrected Habitats corrected HERP pod had the wrong mass, it was too light TR-18D Stack Separator node position fix (especially for StockPartRevamp) Deleted TweakScale configs from DMagic Science Experiments Shrouded Solar Panels renamed to "Retractable"