Yemo

I encountered the issue with the "Escape the atmosphere" contract. I did the "manned 18km altitude" contract and then separately afterwards the "escape the atmosphere" one. Strangely the latter one was not completed when I crossed the 70km space boundary as before. However it was completed when I hit about 87km altitude. In another try I completed it at about the same altitude. However I m wondering whether it has to to with the time between finishing the manned altitude contract and the escape atmosphere one, rather than the particular altitude. For now, I made all contracts cancellable, however that does not apply to currently active and offered contracts (those seem to be stored in the save file), as far as I can tell. New Version 0.7.2 Contracts Rebalanced early contracts All SETI-Contracts can now be cancelled (eg to deal with bugs) WARNING: There is still a problem with the "Leave the atmosphere" contract You sometimes need a higher altitude/longer time above 70km for completion, or wait some time after completing a previous contract It seems to happen, if you complete the manned 18km altitude contract right before the "leave the atmosphere" contract New early progression contracts, please see the image in the OP of the forum thread Extended Mod Support Adjustable Landing Gear Bahamuto Dynamics Portable Science Container (backpack) Sample craft files Separated craft folders: One with the current craft for minimal dependency installs (ProceduralParts, TweakScale, DeadlyReentry for Recoverable Probe) New craft folder for fully modded install (dV and TWR settings for FAR, DP-10 for RemoteTech, TAC life support requirements, UniversalStorage, etc...) New lander and manned Orbiter sample craft Rebalances and Adjustments Earlier stock TurboJet (for those Survey Kerbin contracts), BahamutoDynamics provides an advanced TurboJet DeltaWing and SmallDeltaWing removed (leftovers from 0.7.0) Minor Changes and Fixes

I need help testing the revised contracts for version 7.2. Unfortunately I have only limited time available at the moment, thus I can not fully (in all circumstances) test the contracts myself. It would be great if you could help with that. All remarks/recommendations will help, so I can finally release 7.2 in the coming days. Especially the contract progression, the fulfillment parameters and the fund balancing of the later contracts needs some input. You can download the new contracts here (please merge the SETI folder in the download with your current SETI folder and overwrite the 2 existing files): edit: Contracts are now part of the 0.7.2 release, but feedback is still needed for balancing! A new career and using the S.A.V.E mod and quicksaves in general are recommended for easier testing. Please let me know about your findings (and whether you play with FAR/DeadlyReentry for funds balancing) The following progression/contracts should be in the download (though the first 3 contracts are available from the start):

Thank you for the tip, I will change the contract to using the VPG. While 40 min are bearable, I will later introduce much longer duration contracts, which have to work for inactive vessels. I have no idea how it can not work. The contract uses one of the simplest parameters/structures I can think of. I just tested the contract with minimal mods and with full mods. Both times I just had to bring a vessel beyond 70km. With FAR I was able to do this with the start techs, just HECS, NoseCone, Thruster @ 10kN and DP-10. With minimal mods, I didnt need the DP-10 but set the thruster to 0.625m diameter and 3.5m length @ 20kN. Launching straight up, the contract was completed after passing the 70km mark. I did not have electricity at that point either. Do you and PeterPan use any mods which are not listed in the original post? Do you have the latest version of ContractConfigurator installed? Can you please try out a new campaign and just try to fulfill the contract with the start/basic setup (eg by giving yourself science at the start, for testing)? The light source helps when you want to start your reentry burn in orbit. Also, I can not think of a reason to not have simple lights available at the start. It would be a progression for its own sake. Honestly, I only left the stronger lights further back, because I did not want to clutter the start tech anymore. Imho progression for its own sake is only annoying. I can understand why a basic rocket program does not have access to planes (neither of the real world rocket programs had its own planes in the beginning), but not having access to simple light sources would be quite a stretch. I agree that with FAR, and some other stuff, 1 part has quite some value, but then again I prefer to leave that decision to the player without too many artificial restrictions. Also, I generally try to plan ahead and have a larger mod compatibility in mind, than what I can currently test. For that reason, KerbalConstructionTime springs to mind, where the early progression can take quite some time (certainly longer than a day).

@Papa_Joe: Thank you for the clarification. I will probably split the patch then. Ship Manifest is one of those no parts/huge gameplay effect mods, offering a sizeable increase in comfort as well as great new gameplay mechanics/strategies (eg how to return since). I m looking forward to playing with it without the need for house rules ;-). Thank you. I considered RealFuels, but decided against it because I simply do not have the time to support it. It has major consequences for balancing and especially for balance/compatibility testing in new versions (I would have to test updates not only on stock and fully modded, but also with and without RealFuels), which takes up most of my time anyway. About the "shape" progression. I really do not quite understand this, it seems to me like an "artificial" progression (which I do not like). Thats why I removed it for nearly all the other procedural parts. You can take a look at the original PP configs and my module manager config for procedural parts and then just remove the restrictions yourself. It takes a bit to get used to mm statements and the whole structure, but it is really useful for customization of the game without having to edit after every update. Putting the B9 omni lights at the start was a conscious choice. I was simply annoyed of handling my vessels when they are in the shadow of Kerbin/Mun whatever. So I searched for simple, color configurable position/self illumination lights and put them at the beginning to remove that problem. Now, for as little as 1 part cost, I can at least easily see the orientation of my vessel at all times. Also, should that mod be used in some video/stream in the future, a small omni light can make the difference between "cant see anything" and "at least I can figure out whats going on". Thank you for the PreciseNode suggestion, I dont know why it is not recommended (since I use it), will remedy that oversight in a minute.

tl;dr The necessity for a "common" inclusive tech tree is obvious and there will be casualties, but there is quite some room for casualty reduction from CTT side. So, the stock tree is insufficient, KSPI tech tree lacks "compatibility" nodes (for eg base building), there are quite some other tech trees, but they do not include all the stock nodes for basic compatiblity due to more radical changes. Imho, CTT is a good compromise, thats one of the reasons I support/use the CTT. From my point of view, enhanced survivability and recycling are too cheap, but I modded that with mm configs. There are some other things I would like to be different, but for an inclusive tech tree, excluding "too special" interests is key. I can not comment in detail on the renaming of nodes compared to KSPI, it certainly makes the life of KSPI modders more difficult. If that was necessary/useful, I dont know. I do know, that supporting two or even more "versions" of a mod is a nightmare, in terms of balancing and support. Since my mod uses the stock tech tree and the CTT, this problem is something I have to deal with, though not nearly at the scale of KSPI vs CTT. Again weighing compatiblity vs my own vision, I tried to keep it manageable. If I personally would start to mod KSPI, with the experience I gained during the last weeks and especially the last days (MKS/OKS/Karbonite inclusion), I would honestly drop the KSPI tree itself I would require/support only the CTT. I wish I knew sooner, to give you a warning @FreeThinker. Given the current situation, I would recommend to migrate to the CTT, since you do not have to deal with every compatibility yourself, other people will make their or other mods compatible with the CTT. Which saves quite a lot of time in the long run. Now about the shortcomings/issues of the CTT at the moment. While the CTT does a good job for compatibility, it certainly needs improvements in documentation/first user friendlyness, to prevent frustration among users and modders. 1. One of the reasons why I support it over other tech trees was, that it had an overview of the tree accessible from the forum thread. I could see how it progressed and what the nodes are called without having to install it, while most other trees only provide an ingame screenshot. Unfortunately, this overview is "hidden" behind a link. It would be a great improvement if the overview could be more/directly visible in the CTT OP. 2. When I first tried the CTT, I had no idea how it worked. I did not know that I could not use it on an existing save, I did not know that selecting "stock KSP" ingame would just show the stock tree, without reassigning parts (since parts are assigned as soon as the CTT install is detected, regardless of your ingame selection). So a visible disclaimer on how to use (and not use) the CTT is imho necessary to prevent quite some frustration. Red highlighting right beside the download would be great (though even that is sometimes not enough, as I learned from my mods thread...) I believe it is something like a perspective bias. People who are used to handle mods/tech trees often, forget that new users will not know something they themselves are very accustomed to. Like not being able to use it on existing saves. While some criticism might be too harsh/ill formulated, just discarding (imho legit) criticism without differentiation and sending people to do their own stuff leaves a bit of a sour taste as well. There is some seniority creep going on in this forum, which is not a healthy development for a community. And while we are on this issue, it is especially frustrating when there is a "community" label on a mod, and then legit "community" concerns are brushed off in that fashion. The community is not only based on long term members who know their way around. PS: And having said that, I will now take a look at my own disclaimers/documentation...

Will take a look at that in the future, thank you for the suggestion. @Errol: Yes, it is more an emergency/no time delay mechanism. Cant wait for MKS/OKS, but I ll wait until the bugs have been figured out and hopefully procedural storage tanks are available. But it will integrate into an existing campaign, if you want to start before "support"... - - - Updated - - - Other than that, Papa_Joe from the ShipManifestMod announced the implementation of a "pull-request" which will make the mod compatible with SETI-BalanceMod. So the next 0.7.2 will hopefully support ShipManifest, adjustableLandingGear and KAS/EVA PortableScienceContainer. Also some more contracts will be implemented.

The cost of Procedural Parts in general are based on the size you choose and the contents in case of tanks. About the SETI-BalanceMod vs stock "balance": Since stock is not balanced (planned for 1.0), there are differences to give it a "better" balance than in stock. The sizes are compromises because with some mods (like DeadlyReentry, FAR) you need additional parts for your vessels, but the 30 part building restriction is not moddable. For further questions regarding SETI-BalanceMod, we should go to its thread, it would be a bit off topic here ;-). Back on topic: The CommunityTechTree is a great idea to allow more flexibility without sacrificing compatibility.

You can use the mod in my signature to start unmanned, there are some more changes though and it is not as much a "complete conversion" as BTSM.

Yes, but 64bit is a buggy mess, thats why many mods do not support it for windows. Better to have a RAM limit, than to have unforseeable crashes all the time. Some mods supported it before .025 or so, thats the version when 64bit got even more unstable, so mod authors dropped support.

RAM beyond 6 gb or so (3.5GB max for the game or so) is irrelevant, since you cant use 64bit if you want an at least somewhat stable game... Most mods use the standard tech tree, some have their own additions, BetterThanStartingManned is a special case which has its own tech tree and does not work with most mods. There are some other tech tree mods around, but most build upon the standard tree. The link to one of them is in my signature.

I use a custom difficulty, since I m testing my mod (link in signature). Have to buy components, 50% rewards, 150% penalties (since they are only really relevant for upgrade costs).

Yes, at this time, only 2 Kerbals are needed to establish "local remote command capability". Also, you do not need the later probe cores, every probe core can do that now (except HECS). At the moment, the weight difference between the probe cores (except HECS) is not dependent on their function itself, but by the power/magnitude of their supporting internal components, like stabilizer torque and battery power. I wish I knew how to give probe cores (or any components) tech dependent upgrades, like the remotetech omni antenna or the proceduralparts updates. Then I could gradually indroduce this function. Given this restriction, I (again) traded some progression for long term usability of the components. Not sure whether to set the required number of Kerbals to 2 or 3. Three would be better and the Mk 1-2 command pod would be great for that. On the other hand, 2 is great for the non-R&D upgrade game. A Mk1 command pod and a lander can (together with a small OKTO2 core) would fulfill the 2 Kerbals requirement. Eg you did not yet extend the sat network to Minmus (because you wait for another dish or so), but the contract says, first land unmanned, then a manned landing. You could now create a vessel which fulfills the "local remote command" requirements and attach a small probe lander to this vessel. You make a highly elliptical orbit above the planned landing site with the command vessel and then land with the small probe. This gives you more flexibility in your approach, but afaik, a full KSC connection is still necessary to transmit science from the lander.

Thank you, totally missed it over the naming issue. I put adjustable landing gear on my short list, thank you for the suggestion. Better landing gear is really useful, especially with the procedural wings, and the great jet engines from bahamuto dynamics need support as well. About the system rescale, I did not try yet. The contract payouts are also set with stock in mind, but that can be easily adjusted with the custom difficulty sliders. Contracts in general might be a problem, since I do not load the (buggy, because only achievable by manned vessels) altitude contracts from stock and replaced them with only 2 altitude contracts. While that makes some sense for the "unchallenging" stock sizes, it might be lacking for the resized version. Also keep in mind, that squad decided to make the building upgrades non moddable. So relatively tighter part and weight limits compared with the fewer starting contracts might produce problems/challenges).

I do not know of any, but that would be very helpful. Even when using the multipurpose colony modules for MKS/OKS, it is quite heavy on the parts catalog due to the storage containers. While I think PP has enough textures (eg the tile ones would look good for storage), configs would be really great.

Thank you for this great mod! I m the author of the SETI-BalanceMod (link in signatur) and would like to recommend Ship Manifest in the mods list. Unfortunately there is a compatibility issue. Your mod allows to transfer science around the ship, but does not care about intentional restrictions. A science module config looks like this one from the stock material bay: MODULE { name = ModuleScienceExperiment experimentID = mobileMaterialsLab experimentActionName = Observe Materials Bay resetActionName = Reset Materials Bay useStaging = False useActionGroups = True hideUIwhenUnavailable = True xmitDataScalar = 0.2 FxModules = 0 dataIsCollectable = True collectActionName = Collect Data interactionRange = 1.2 } For balancing reasons, some mods intend certain science experiments to be non-collectable, by setting "dataIsCollectable = False", so that the data either has to be transmitted at the xmitDataScalar value or the experiment itself returned to Kerbin. It would be really great, if your algorithms could check that setting, when attempting to transfer science around the vessel. Thank you very much, Yemo

Yeah, like 5thHorseman and I said, apples, mustangs, windows, allianz, spiegel... Sure, it has benefits and drawbacks. Ehm, you are mad at me and thus do not use (freeload) the mod I did for free? I do not understand the logic. I do not know from where you get the idea of the license concerns. That argumentation is so out of this world that I m not sure whether to giggle at this trolling or angrily call for better socioeconomic education in schools. In fact I remember a lawsuit from Allianz (insurance company), sueing people for using the word Allianz (which simply means alliance) in other contexts. Rofl. Next, Apple sues people for using "I" in sentences, because it is an infringement on their iphones and ipads.... The mod is called the SETI-BalanceMod in almost all instances. There is no ksp related SETI mod (I checked before using SETI). An rl-SETI mod would be called SEKI anyways, since the planet is called Kerbin, not Terra. Using the same acronyms for multiple, distinctly different purposes is extremely common. Again, please educate yourself before flaming (your first posts where reasonable/legit inquiries/concerns, but it goes in the wrong direction). Here you go: [TABLE] [TR] [TH]Possible Meanings[/TH] [TH]Rank[/TH] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SETI: Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence[/TD] [TD]***[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SETI: Silly Effort to Investigate[/TD] [TD]***[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SETI: Secure Enterprise Technology Initiatives[/TD] [TD]***[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SETI: Science Engineering and Technology Institute[/TD] [TD]***[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SETI: Search for the Extra Tiny[/TD] [TD]**[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SETI: Science Engineering and Technology Institutions[/TD] [TD]**[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SETI: slow extensor tibiae motoneuron[/TD] [TD]**[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SETI: Solidarity for East Timor and Indonesia[/TD] [TD]**[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SETI: Shaft Engine Test Instrumentation[/TD] [TD]**[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SETI: Summer English Teaching Institute[/TD] [TD]**[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SETI: Systems Engineering and Technical[/TD] [TD]**[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SETI: Self Employment Tax Initiative[/TD] [TD]**[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SETI: Supported Employment Training Initiative[/TD] [TD]**[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SETI: System Engineering Team Integrated[/TD] [TD]*[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SETI: Sciences Exactes Technologie Informatique[/TD] [TD]*[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SETI: Sexuality Education Training Institute[/TD] [TD]*[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SETI: Standard Edition for Intel[/TD] [TD]*[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SETI: Summer Educational Technology Institute[/TD] [TD]*[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SETI: Seach for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence[/TD] [TD]*[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SETI: Software Engineering Tools Information[/TD] [TD]*[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SETI: Spectrally Efficient Target Imaging[/TD] [TD]*[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]SETI: Science Education and Technical Information[/TD] [TD]*[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] I do not understand some of them, but well, thats what turns up searching for SETI. "Misuse of the acronym"... See above... About the "better things to do, than make a mod", well, then I thank you for taking the time to entertain me and the other people reading this thread. Also, thanks for bumping this thread, but it is heading off-topic... Seriously, it was a legit question/remark at the start, the rest was totally unnecessary... Have fun with other mods/stock, if you are so offended by something like this. Or take a step back, sleep over it and reconsider, we all have bad days.

Professional: I was searching for an acronym containing some specific letters. And since it had to be a "name" instead of a technical acronym, speakability (best in multi languages) was necessary as well. Combinations which provide no clear differentiation between spellings are also bad, that removes anything with two vocals behind each other and discourages 2 "unfriendly" consonants together. Also, the "I" had to be in the beginning or the end and from the previous argument, ITES would be unclear ( ITs or ITES?). ISET is too close to SAT and so on... If you start thinking about it, it is not so easy. Practical: It was catchy, contained the right letters and provided flexibility for other future uses. It is almost always used as SETI-BalanceMod, there should not be any doubt what the mod is about . It is like in most product names, an eye catcher and memory anchor. Now, a Mustang is a horse or a car, but when the car was released, it was just a catchy name... There might even be some rl-SETI related stuff in the (distant) future of this mod (please keep in mind that rl-SETI starts with SEARCH, not finding...) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, we moved to the release sub-forum. Thus version 0.7.1 had some adjustments to readme and license clarification (thank you NathanKell). Also, the contracts are slowly expanded, you find the new progress section in post 2 of this thread. Please keep in mind that contracts are WIP and quite some stuff is still on the to do list. Contract Configurator is WIP itself and not all planned options/configurations/parameters are currently available. Feedback and suggestions for the contracts would be great! New Version 0.7.1 Contracts Rebalanced early contracts New progression contracts for Mun/Minmus, Kerbol, Duna Stock contracts for the above targets unfortunately still in place, because they cant be deactivated/modded independently Taking a look at other contract packs is recommended (eg. SCANsat, RemoteTech) Rebalances and Adjustments All probe cores (except first one) are two way capable, requires 2 Kerbals in the controlling vessel This enables eg using probe landers without KSC connection, when there is a connection to remote control vessels/stations SRBs cheaper Minor Changes and Fixes

I planned to make parts of my mod available without the rest of it, for easier install and use with other mods. They would have been developed together with the rest, but would need their own information. So a complete separation in 2 threads would not make sense and a second post would have allowed linkability to the "spinoff" specific parts. But I guess we cant have nice things, since a little trolling fun is much more important... No problem, was quite surprised myself, as most/many release threads use a second post in general, not only ksp.

It is not possible to double post without waiting some time, hence I asked for no replies until I could do that second post.

My mod is done, I just wanted the second post in the thread for documentation, as is custom with modding release threads in forums.

I do not understand how that is connected to the issue at hand.

It may have been funny, but at the cost of my time and effort. Which is a great way to discourage people from spending time on modding the game for free. - - - Updated - - - I have a reason to do so and denying its existence without even asking about it, is frankly a bit condescending.

what a great community

One part of modding is the release of the mod on the forum. And it is necessary/useful/common to reserve the first post in the thread for documentation or additional infos. Unfortunately an immediate reply leads to an "update" of the first post, instead of a new post. If I open a thread and want to wait for this "feature" to give me permission to double post, something like this happens: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108943 I dont find that very funny, after spending quite some time modding the game and thus increasing its value for free. So how can I double post without waiting? And by the way, reporting posts gets me a 504 Gateway Time-out...

thanks, so no release