Yemo

Good to hear. Thinking about a craft set for FAR/proceduralFairings only, instead or in addition to the maxMods, which requires RemoteTech. Great news! The Kerbal renaming will be prominent in twitch channels! The Kerbin Habitat contract is not planned out yet. I m thinking about a test base/habitat/biosphere relatively close to the KSC, but at least 4km away from it (to be outside of physics range). But that is probably only in the description, if people want to "cheat" and build it on the runway, they can do so (with the massive fps drop for other KSC operations). On the other hand, if people want to build it in the mountains, desert or on the poles, they may do that as well. Included in the OP, thank you for the suggestion! I do not know, I only use them for first stages. Added to the OP, thank you for suggesting it! Except for the "heavyControl" node (which will get a part in 0.7.7), I do not know of any unpopulated (and visible) ones with only the required mods installed. Maybe you can elaborate which nodes you mean? Or are you talking about the whole possible CTT?

I have no idea. I have not tested SETI without the stock parts + the mods listed under "INSTALL". The balancing focus is the CommunityTechTree (which includes all nodes from the stock tech tree) with stock parts + anywhere from the "bold" mods to all supported mods in the OP. As SwGustav said, progression issues are likely. If you try it out, I would appreciate your feedback on it. And if it does not work, maybe take a look at the other tech tree mods, which are linked at the bottom of the original post. The 2 main problems for FAR are: 1. Oversteering - adjust the control surfaces (eg 50% pitch, yaw, roll) or use smaller control surfaces 2. Bleeding of speed when you want to (without flipping over), due to lack of airbrakes and adjustable gear braking power (for the latter, there is a mod linked in the OP, TweakableWheels or so) Yep, the procedural LFT is so far forward, because it is also used to store aircraft fuel for the stability unlocks. If you use the stock winglets, make them smaller (TweakScale) and lower their response for the small rockets. SAS is planned to be on all probe cores from 0.7.7 onwards. The first probe core (HECS) will get SAS through the SETI-Settings.cfg, so it can be easily turned off by players. You can download the new config here: SETI-Settings.cfg I will have time to work on it tomorrow, so 0.7.7 will be released before the weekend. There will be a lot of balancing changes, from aircraft parts to SRBs. edit: Editor Extensions suggested in first post, thank you SwGustav.

While the cockpit and passenger parts look great, the cargo fuselage parts and the ramp part seem to have broken textures. Their lighting seems to ignore the model itself and other attached models. While they seem to register where the light sources are, the shadows and brightness are not correctly displayed. I have no idea why it works on the passenger fuselage, but not on the cargo bays parts.

About stock contracts: Yep, they are annoyingly unbalanced. Like the stock progression, which sends you to Duna (not declinable) after landing on the Mun for the first time. And the sat contracts... It is like the internet, some great ones, lots of good/ok ones, and a bunch of crap for good measure. I might deal with the stock progression contracts in the future, but I m not sure the sat ones are within my "scope". Maybe some other contract configurator mod will deal with them. Given the size of their heads, it is probably an exosceleton with life support functions (if the head is not largely bone, it would need life support in addition to the exoskeleton). But 90kg... Their head bones must be made of gold or so for that kind of density. Will do that in the next update, thx. Yeah, even after decreasing the Mk1-2 pod weight by 10%, the Mk3 cockpit is still relatively unbalanced. Just edited them, they are strongly recommended. New mod recommendation: Tweakable Wheels It lets you change the braking power of landing gear and wheels, thus preventing tip overs! - - - Updated - - - That is an outstanding mod, not only for VTOL, but also for non-Landertron powered landings! Added to the OP!

Sorry, forgot the link: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/109790 It basically changes craft masses if kerbals are inside. But it also allows the tweaking of the mass of a kerbal via a settings.cfg. Which affects kerbal mass in EVA as well, changing the density and thus the "floatability". Kerbals can not swim with Better Buoyance, because they weigh over 90kg! So I would tweak that to 50 or less...

Thank you both, it will be part of 0.7.7, and I m checking the other mod command pods for CLS compatibility as well. While I can land with FAR, carefully, it is just too tedious without airbrakes (even with them, it requires the right terrain). So I nearly exclusively land vertically with parachutes in the early career, thats also the reason why the provided SETI SPH craft have very carefully placed parachutes for one landing, if you want to land a second time, just place a second set of chutes in similar positions ;-). Yeah, while the initial altitude contracts are ok without SAS (just increase the TWR and disable wing control surfaces, so with a good start, heading does not change after a few hundred meters), the orbit one starts to be annoying. I wanted SAS to be a tech unlock for the first probe core @ stability, but until that is implemented, maybe SAS for the first probe core is better than what we have now, in terms of frustration. Tweakable Everything allows you to put twice as much torque power on, compared to the specified number. That should help. And the 3.75m reaction wheel planned for 0.7.7. About the Better Buoyancy, the Mk1 command pod is very dense now, so it would be more like an SSSR command pod intended for landings on the ground, though it does barely swim in water if splashed down. But the Kerbals floating 1m below the surface annoy me a lot, will have to strongly recommend Kerbal Mass Changer (which is relatively new and in alpha), if it is installed. Will have to test it for another version after 0.7.7, too much other stuff to do.

I do not think it has physics implications beyond the docking port part count, as docking ports fuse the parts together while attached. For part count reduction, I recommend welding part sets int he VAB (like the reactor to the docking port in this case): http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107273

Hm, I do not think so. But maybe Cpt. Kipard is willing to make a new docking port set for this purpose out of his existing ones if asked nicely, maybe he even allows redistribution with KSPI extended under his license (readme in the download)? Like his Universal Docking port set, but with 0.625m non-androgynous ports in the center (derived from his 1.25m non-androgynous ports). That would result in "size compatibility" without giving up on the non-androgynous restrictions.

You are welcome! In general, 50% rewards should make the game "harder". So that is working as intended, I guess. The problem is, that the current late game tech tree is only the middle of the community tech tree. And even up to this point, there are lots of unused science nodes at the moment, especially concerning research extraction and habitation. KSPI integration should seriously restrict that fealing of late game science abundance with "normal/moderate" settings, and Kolonization would add to that. About the 50% science reward specifically, I m testing the game progression, running with 50/50/50 rewards and 100/100 costs. I have quite some early game "routine" consisting of the following steps: 1. Temp and Pressure from launch pad 2. 18km contract: Temp and Pressure from flying and from flying high 3./4. manned18km: Crew reports from launch pad, flying and flying high, Temp&Pressure&Crew report from splashed down (the high altitude rocket will use a decoupler in 0.7.7) 3./4./5. reachSpace: Temp from space 4./5.+ Use (rocket)planes to get science from other Kerbin biomes, shores and grassland is easy, desert after getting materials bay/magnetometer, so that it is worth it after that, materials bay/magnetometer in space and then crew reports from space Those 7-12 science missions should yield more than enough to allow flights to the mun. I m hesitant about changes to the biome science, because I want to stay compatible with other mods (and hopefully an updated science library) without too many alterations. The crew/eva biome switch was a worthy exception, also because it is easy to remember. There are however 2 major stock issues bugging me, for which I would make exceptions: 1. Photo recon Honestly, the most prolific/publicly available science report concerning space exploration, and no trace of it in the stock game. I want a camera which I can put on probes and then take pictures. I know about mods adding cameras, and they will certainly be included! 2. Telemetry Sputnik had no science experiments on board, but the telemetry data alone provided lots of information about the upper atmosphere... The thread is definately moving faster, since it is in the release forum . A great idea! While I do not have the time for it at the moment, Ship Manifest is strongly recommended anyway and I welcome the addition to it! Imho KW Rocketry and B9Aerospace are more like mod packs than mods. They open their catalog/buffet and you are "supposed" to choose from it. For example KW has those fairings, which are entirely substituted by procedural fairings. B9Aerospace has lots of wings, most of them are substituted by the B9 procedurals. That said, they will both work well (more or less) with SETI, I just did not have the time (yet) to sort them out and break off the redundant parts (and make some balance adjustments, looking at you, reaction wheels...). Edit: Given my backlog, full support in the next weeks is very unlikely. For the near and mid term future: Especially the B9 part catalog has many interesting and gameplay changing/influencing options, most are already fully compatible/balanced for 0.7.7. In fact, I just spoke with bac9 on the weekend, and will use the B9 stock jet engine rebalances (made by Taverius) from version 0.7.7 onwards. This will not only be a step towards engine balance, it will also make it easier to pick and choose from the B9 catalog without integration issues. 0.7.7 will also strongly recommend the usage of the B9 airbrakes, they just make landings so much easier/realistic. Hm, will take another look. At the moment, the procedural structural parts do not count for "connected living space", will have to work on that.

Great addition! Just wanted to add, that not all solar panels are retractable based on StockRebalance by stupid_chris and CaptRobau: //OX-4W 2x3 Photovoltaic Panels @PART[solarPanels3]:FOR[SETI] { @title = Electrics: Solar Panels OX-4W 2x3 @MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel] { retractable = false } }

I think they are only standard 1.25m, but they are high quality, so it would be easy to just use the textures/meshes for larger parts as well with simple "rescale factor" changes.

Sorry, not ignoring you, I just do not have an idea, but I quoted you for visibility . Or in other words, game balance ;-). @Northstar1989: Just wanted to thank you for your input, it is great to have someone with detailed technical knowledge on board.

That would be great. Instead of using stock docking ports, you could recommend to install the Non-Androgynous Docking Port mod and (tweak)scale them for the reactors: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/73005 The non-androgynous way would emphasize the need for a special reactor connection. Unfortunately, Kethane seems to be not updated for 0.90, so the Regolith based Karbonite is more viable at the moment.

For your next kerbal face : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2k0PZCPQMk

All but first are kinda nitpicking, but Utility category is the biggest currently. Just trying to help reduce it. Thank you! For the near future I want to concentrate on part mod support, so even the current plan in the OP will take quite some time to complete. I will implement the odd contract here and there (eg manned Duna landing), but some of the contracts, like the stations ones, need more part mods anyway (especially colonization/habitat). And then I want to review/flesh out the existing contracts. Though the plan is not set in stone (I added 5 nodes or so since the first iteration), I currently do not plan to extend the scope of it. My preference is for compatibility with other contract systems, like RemoteTech, Anomalies, "Interstellar" (with the awesome CC, I guess that it is only a matter of time until someone makes such a config). The SETI-Contracts are just planned as a core system for the main progression. ad1. The non slanted C7 looks good to go. That reminds me, the Rockomax Brand Adapter 02 might be worth bringing back. Although procedural parts can take the spot, it is quite useful for station building, requiring less clicks than setting up a procedural part for only one part catalog slot. ad2. I want to leave the landing gears in the game for compatibility. Also, KAX will most likely get a bogie 4wheel landing gear in the future, which would better compliment the normal KAX one, than the adjustable ones. ad3. While part saving in terms of launch restrictions would not be a point at this stage, part count is the thing that brings the pc to its knees with larger vessels, eg when docking a major transport to a major station. ad4. That is a good question. I do not know, never really looked at the larger versions. Thinking about it, I could rebalance the 1.25m versions for 3 kerbals, so it could be used for the manned Duna mission and smaller stations, while leaving the 2.5m version for 9 kerbals.

Ah, sorry, misformulated the question. I have edited it now.

Hey, I looked over the last pages and did a google search (not easy searchinf for FAR, lots of hits). The Basic Jet from stock has 150kN thrust, while all other air breathers are nerfed to 50% of their stock thrust values. edit: Is there a specific reason why the basic jet engine is not nerfed with the rest of them? Btw, this mod is absolutely great!

No worries, I ve raised a few false flags myself and I got quite some ideas while bug hunting . Thank you! Hm, I ll take a look. But that reminds me, I wanted to scale the 2.5m reaction wheel to 3.75m as a new part for the "heavyControl" node. AJE looks like a good solution, from the technical point of view. I will probably "strongly recommend" it when using FAR. Which takes the engine balancing off my workload. Although the "engine" values follow the real world engines very closely, the balance in-game seems to be off. If I build a plane using the AJE balanced engines, but only weighing half as much as the real world plane, the performance is abysmal. When the real world jet could go 550km/h at sea level without afterburner, the half weight ksp jet could barely get to 400km/h... And it was certainly not fun. Considering SETI-BalanceMod is a gameplay mod, not a realism one, I consider boosting the FAR thrust of air breathers by 30%-40% through the SETI-Settings.cfg (so air breathers have 65%-70% instead of 50% of their stock thrust with FAR). So people who want realism can comment it out/remove it via settings, everyone else (using FAR) should use AJE with it and still have fun flying aircraft...# edit: Fixed the mistakes, sorry for the wrong name. Will take a look at cargo solutions!

Use TweakableEverything, set the RGB values lower to get less of that "color", if you set all lower, you have a less bright "white" light. edit: I should reload the page before posting...

Sure, but nearly every jet has air brakes or lift spoilers that can act as air brakes (prop planes can use the increase in drag from slowing done the props.) And there are many other ways complimenting those basic ways to increase drag when desired. The problem is, KSP is lacking those very basic drag increasing methods... And there are none of the supplemental ways available in stock, counter thrust is the only workaround without installing mods. No airbrakes, no lift spoilers used as air brakes, no reverse thrust, no drogue chutes, no decelerons, nothing... And the landing gear brakes are balanced for the soup stock atmosphere.

Well, I posted in the FAR is hard thead a while ago. There are many issues that make FAR hard, but most of them are based on compatibility issues (eg fairing bases upside down or something like that) and stock problems. Considering FAR (and NEAR) is the only aerodynamics model for KSP (imho, stock cant be really considered an aerodynamics model), which is added on top of an existing game, it does a great job. Aside from the general plane building (CoL behind CoM) and the stuff explained here by keptin, http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/52080 oversteering and lack of airbrakes are the 2 greatest issues for FAR usage. Oversteering due to the OP reaction wheels and due to untweaked (use Tweakable Everything) control surfaces accounts for most of the problems (read: loss of control) in flight. For landing, the inability to bleed off speed when you want it, is the major issue. Usage of airbrakes is recommended. If you do not want to install them, use sets of rearward pointed sepratrons to shorten the distance you need to come to a stop. If you place/angle them right, they make for great landing helps, you can even use multiple stages of them. Or use drogue chutes from RealChutes! Identify an issue and then find ways to overcome it! It took me a while, but it is like swimming or driving, once you can do it, you wonder how you were ever unable to do it.

The Kerbonov Cockpit looks straight forward and thus relatively easy to adjust, will take a closer look at it. Also, the fairings base would greatly profit from a decoupler which is often on top of it anyway, thank you for the config! Especially the part saving would be nice, will have to take a look at the weight to not make procedural decouplers obsolete. Thank you for the suggestions! Hm, that is strange. I tried a minimal setup with CC 0.6.5 and Initial Contracts as well, but it gave 5 or so "Input is null" errors per set, instead of the 2 "Input is null" errors and the exception "Null Reference Exceptions" you got per "set". So when nightingale and I were talking about harmless errors, we meant the "Input is null" ones. Exceptions are much more serious, but they didnt show up when I tried it. About the wiki, "Altitude" is part of the "AltitudeRecord" parameter type, while "minAltitude" and "maxAltitude" are part of the "ReachState" parameter types. I have no idea how you were able to mix one into the other and it works. I used the ReachState minAltitude contract for many patches now, and there were no bug reports, just the harmless errors in the debug log. The "AltitudeRecord" parameter afaik references the stock altitude records, which can only be completed by manned vessels. Replacing that parameter type was actually the main intent behind the initial contracts, so people could complete the 18km contract by using probes. In the post a few pages back, you somehow used ReachState with Altitude, while in the video you used AltitudeRecord with Altitude and a manned vessel, to complete it (which would just work like the stock contracts). I hope nightingale reads this, no idea where the exceptions with ReachState and minAltitude come from, I can not reproduce them. edit: You are not using KSP 64bit for windows, by any chance?

Those parts look great, thank you for your work! I wonder where you got those 6 bladed props from, which can be seen in the third picture of your first imgur gallery?

Yep, thats roughly the plan, based on the configs by FreeThinker and Olympic1 for the CTT. I plan to shift aircraft engines towards B9 values for balance and compatibility in 0.7.7. That will result in quite some changes from the current state and will necessitate a redesign of most aircraft. I like your design , but I ll have to wait, if bac9 wants to comment on prop balance and based on that, the props will change as well. edit: So the sample craft will get updates including the new engine stats. edit2: Isnt the center of mass now too far forward on your plane? Offsetting the wings to a more forward location would probably increase flight characteristics, if I m not missing something. About the Better Buoyancy, I wanted to do that together with USI Survivability (and the floaties it provides). Thinking about it, that might be a nice little mod support package for 0.7.7, together with the aircraft engine balance and some fixes.

Hey, the idea about the 2.5m port sounds great. Especially regarding the 2+6 port hub. Replacing the vertical ones with 2.5m node would allow the the use of both 1.25m and 2.5m docking ports, thus increasing flexibility without increasing part count. Thank you for your consideration!