Gfurst

In case some of you hadn't noticed yet, there has been quite a turmoil over the new tech tree and how career progression seems badly made. References: - WOW-Any-vanilla-hard-difficulty-career-mode-players-get-to-the-mun-yet? - What-do-you-think-of-the-new-tech-tree - And yet another suggestion for a different tech tree type My suggestion goes a bit further, and is inspired and based on some comments from the mentioned threads. KSP begun with as a sandbox only game, which badly implemented a career mode afterwards, definitely not the strong point of the Dev team, some people even mentioned that the new tech tree might have been designed in Kerbal land. I have to mention, they did an amazing job with new aero and thermo dynamic stuff. The career mode however, is a bit sad for a (now released) game, specially for new players. Thing is, you start the career with a very limited and restricting game, going through a lot of grind to unlock further stuff. As the game progresses and new parts are unlocked, if gets easier and easier, not because you've acquired knowledge and practice though. The early game feels more like a challenge to veteran players than anything else, just image how new players will feel coming into this . Instead of limiting the players choice, I feel the game should progress instead as mission and eras: First go for flight in Kerbin, then try sub-orbital rockets, orbital capsules, EVA, Mun fly-by, then landing and so on. Beginning with a 0.625 ballistic rocket instead of a one part rocket, most of us still don't understand how we have manned flight before even getting a very use-less early probe. The progression of one mission to another and performing key experiments (and maybe accumulating science points) is what leads to new eras of exploration. Note that it is not limiting parts for early game, but instead a full set of lower tech parts, and as progress goes on, access to more advanced techniques, better capacity to weight tanks, more efficient engines, and so on. This is also to provide a meaningful progression for new players as they learn the basics of space flight, getting into first orbit, the learning to go to moons, then leaving the Kerbin system and so on. Being a smoother progression that doesn't limit the player all that much. The first stages are more of a an tutorial for newer players, then the game gets more and more open to exploration as it depends more on player choices. Just look at Buzz Aldrin's game, I didn't particularly like it that much but it sure gives a very nice example of space program exploration progression. There a couple of additions to make this progression even better, based on the mod Kerbal Construction Time, this is to simply give some to actually build and assemble crafts. Right now the only time progression that happens is the time it takes for completing flights, getting from one point to another. This is a major must have for a decent career progression. Another needed and useful feature would be to have procedural tanks and modular fuels, allowing for a proper shapes and capacity, you only carry what you need. This will help a lot with part clutter, and will fit nicely with tech progression, advanced technologies allows for more variation and such, conical tanks, and etc. Heck, you don't even need to build a lot of newer models and parts for the technological progression, just changing stats, possibilities and maybe throw in a new textures and its done. Another mod inspired addition is Remote Tech, not only to make antennas and probes useful, but required, giving a whole lot planning challenge for the late game. Note that this is all mostly done, as it is based off mods. And realistic speaking, you developers are probably not the best out to plan this career progression idea. Well, just the recent changes you made to the tech tree API show that, its basically saying: its in your hands now, we leave to the community to plan out a better tree. With that in mind I suggest to either hire new people, or use some of the very brilliant fan and modders. Or even just make an API with this progression in design and a very basic system and then let we come out with the neat stuff. As I've said before, this is not to bash on the devs, the release version brought some of our dreams to reality, with dynamics we couldn't have dreamed of. But the career game is quite an oddity, something not in the same level of greatness as the rest of the game is. Specially if its discouraging new players, on the already steep to learn curve. Please let me know of your thoughts on this, pull this up to bring attention to the devs. Useful additions are also appreciative, and I'll sure add them up here for reference. Cheers!

Errr yeah, this is a quite simple mod so should be easy enough. I wonder how thing simple as this hasn't been made stock yet. This and RCS, sound effects, clouds and etc.

I did test, did you read the rest of the post? (Or maybe doing properly documented and controlled tests too) Well I was quite sleepy, so maybe the writing doesn't make a lot of sense. Summarizing: the white a red effects seems to be high pressure and high heating due to excess velocity in a certain pressure altitude. Reaching trans-sonic flight gave me some intense high-pressure effects, but after breaking it, going at around ~1.7 mach at higher altitude, the effects went away. But this was misleading, I was still going supersonic flight, high pressure, with increasing drag and lots of temperature gain at the rocket top, this caused my fairing to explode in a couple of the test, something forcing me to slow down. So a rewrite of the observations := Be careful as supersonic effects are still happening even without the visual effects, high drag and overheating. This also led me to wonder, as you climb altitude how does the speed of sound varies? I was believing that mach was high in higher atmosphere, but its actually the reverse isn't it? Sound travels faster in higher density medium. Can some clarify this? As mentioned above, Terminal velocity is not a constant. It depends a lot on aerodynamics and atmosphere pressure, it never was a good indicator to optimal velocities. Now the real issue is sonic speed, when going transsonic and higher a lot more of drag is created, specially in bad aero designs. However, I suspect going lower than trans-sonic isn't going to get you very far either. There probably is a mach speed sweet spot. Also related, in the above test I did, I get a lot efficiency, around 2400~2600dV only, but its was pretty much like an ballistic missile, and had to fight the high heating effetcs. - - - Updated - - - Answering to my own question above: Wikipedia is our friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Altitude_variation_and_implications_for_atmospheric_acoustics and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Mach_number Basically Mach speed depends on pressure, density, humidity, temperature and a bunch of other things. As the atmosphere lowers pressure so does density, so its a trade-off, humidity I don't believe matters on KSP, so the main factor for sound speed is temperature (as it also is for Earth). The temperature drops up to the lower atmosphere, so does mach speed, after that it actually has higher temperature gradient, so does mach speed increase. Considering the complexity of newer aero and thermo dynamics, I think it most surely holds up for KSP, but some testing would actually help.

Yeah yeah, I know but what I've meant is: If we start getting mach effects can we reliably say its passing the transsonic to supersonic barrier? I did some test and it seems that no, with the debug info for heat and aero on watching some tests flight. It was a rather small probe with the stock resource scanning(wanted to test that) the 45 small engine and two SRB on the sides. TWR 2.1 dV of 6000 After launching and just letting the rocket do its turn on aero alone, at first the orcket quickly breaks the transonic barrier, giving some mach effects. these pass out and stabilizes at around 1.6~1.8 mach. Some of the test if I was going too shallow and too fast the front of the rocket, eg stock fairing, bit bigger sized due to Scan part, start to gain a LOT of temperature, this temp conducts to other parts, but the result is the fairing blowing up some of the time (without any of the mach or heat effects). Which leads to observation number 1: Watchout fairings will overheat too, the visual indication was on the stage sequence Anyway, some of the test went through ok and I had minimal input on the ascent curve, resulting as mentioned before around the horizon at 35k with is pretty optimal, It actually saved up a lot of fuel, more or less 2500 dV used. and thats even getting 100k or more altitude, the result is that with 35k altitude aiming at the horizon you have very little drag and a very shallow ascent, the apoapsis half around the world, and the final orbit nearly done. Very neat! observation number 2: We may be able to perform even more efficient ascents than 2700dV, in a ballistic rocket like vessel I've made it around 2500 only

Yeppp, right now the new tech tree and progression of career mode is killing it for me. The game starts hard and limited. Its pretty much annoying at the very least. I'm going to wait for mods to settle with the new version, maybe an redesign of the tree, and then try again.

I'm reading on another, the tech tree one. Career seems to need a desperate overhaul, It seems more like an challenge to experienced players, more like anything else. How the hell does one game starts hard and gets easier?

Completely agree, as one other commenter mentioned, I can see a movement going this way. Career mode should be easy, tutorial like for the first set of missions and then get more open to player choice and possibilities. Progression shouldn't be about limiting parts, but instead let us be creative and give progression as sets of parts that gets better from one step to another. Right now indeed it feels more like a challenge for we experienced players. By the way, did you notice the new module manager came out allowing for the modding of techs.

Somebody mentioned a lot of changes where made to the underlying techtree mechanics... Has anybody noticed a good tech progress substitute yet? (or at least a announcement so I know where to look) Currently the tech tree seems to be mocking my OCD.

Yeah, the effects are quite tense now. With the camera wobble and sound effects puts you right on the edge of your seat. Only thing missing now is the breaking the sound barrier sound boom. By the way, is it safe to say now that whenever you get the high pressure effect, that its going trans-sonic, and burning up is hypersonic or something?

LoL, flying headless. more like zero control modules. But its actually interesting. Imagine a ghost ship flying the skies... Actually I was interested if its possible to make something like the Virgin Galactic plane. Hull up a smaller space ship with a plane detach and ignite engines. My question is, if detaching from the previous vessel would it still keep pilot assistant on safely to let you take control of the other vessel until safe?

These were my options, explaining. Doing the API changes and preset configurations, the end result should things easier for further improvements. Including the UI change and improved simulations. Keep control, its your baby afterall, You've been the most generous dictator But also accept other people willing to help, I don't know how its done right now, but tools like github are really helpful for people that commit little bits of code at a time. Take a look at basically every linux system out there, is the collaboration of several different people all around the world, it should be a big mess, but turns out quite ok.

Dang it, I think I've missed this one.... ARGHH angry at KSP for bad progression planning.... these kind of missions should be like records, always active... Thats about what I have right now. Tier 3 research (up to the 90 points ones), 330k bucks, but I stupidly spent over a 110k tinkering with the policy stuff, and respectively earned zero science from it.

Thanks, I'm also guessing this will be unbelievable useful for better ascent profiles, but a bit cheaty though. One thing a didn't understand, will the command keys works as they do in regular assisted pilot? eg, pitching up changes pitch to hold not actual pitch controls.

Really liked this idea, that science is unlocked not by science points but achievements and goals you complete. it would surely give a much better progression to the game. AS the tech tree, needs to be streamlined, like someone else said, one bench for engines, oother for structures and whatnots. Meaning, one you get bigger engine, you get all parts related to 2.5, then get engines more efficient later, and so one.

Seriously, how is that even possible? Yep, some parts make no sense at all, the rockomax brand adapter comes before and actual 2.5 parts. the three people pod is waaaayyyy down the list. Contracts asking me to test a Skipper engine in Flight when It would be heavier than anything I have combined... Swept back wings placed on plane without any plane structural parts... Pretty weird stuff... How much high tech are ladders by the way?

Oh god the career mode is hard, After a few hours I'm struggling with science and lack of funds. I skipped the 0.9 version so I'm bit lagging behind, after the stupid decision to try out policies, I wasted 110k valuable bucks for zero science. Now I got two contracts I can't complete, aero surveys from up too 19k altitude, which is impossible with simple early game spaceplane. None of my facilities upgraded yet, I'm still struggling to get a probe to orbit let alone a moon fly-by, not to mention no node planner or trajectory view =O I'm dead. Btw: had a lot of grind, building up smallish sort of rover, with the engine and spaceplane early gears, leading the scientist to collect few bits of science in each of the KSC biomes, a bit of a hassle but saved me up. =O Scientist can reset experiments OHHHHHH awesome!!!! this is much much neeeded, isn't there a limit to the amount of experiments pods can take? Anyway, how are you guys struggling with money and how to earn more? Contracts add a tidy bit but not much of help.

Idem!! That was the lure of the "unmanned program something" mod. Lighter rockets and probes that get further earlier on would seem ideal. Right now I'm kinda stuck in career mode, finding it really hard to progress, between science being limited and short on money for building upgrades. Keep in mind I'm playing o moderate difficulty, and made a terrible mistake of choosing a policy for science which cost me 110k bucks and gave null science so far, as its not accumulative. Well I skipped the 0.9 version. How do I cheat to get my money back?

Good to know, I love efficient ascent profiles. But as it happens playing on career mode now and mostly without SAS and fighting off wobliness, its quite hard to keep on course, let alone maintain the curve. Getting off initially with lower TWR helps sure, is there any way to maintain course instead of mechjeb?

Did anybody noticed pressing the X key also stops time-warp? Makes sense but is kinda annoying. Search the cfg file and there is no binding.

AS someone else asked: How are clouds not part of stock KSP yet? Anyway, so guys is this currently working or not, seems to be pretty old. Maybe it should be adopted.

Here was I wondering if Dmagic was doing it magic when I see this post update. Cheers!!! I definetely like Scansat mode better. First, because its not only about resources, but also terrain, biome and etc, giving a nice progression and purpose for smallish probes. Secondly to also give a time progression and additional science rewards for the game. I'll patiently wait for the compatibility update and future mode when its due.

Hey guys, just popping in to say hello. Actually I too went once for skydiving, I went solo but had chute auto pull from the plane. Still one of the greatest experiences ever. That and actually piloting the plane. Just wanted to ask, how is the state of this mod for the current version? On the description for a kerbal engineer it says he can fix things, that lead me believe something this mods was made somewhat stock, but I've guess parts don't have random failures do they?

That acceleration without drag really is an issue, at first I thought it could be something to do with stages still being loaded in the physics range. I didn't test this it yet though. Btw, the heating effects are pretty dangerous indeed, I had pretty tense time trying to get down a small craft without shielding from low orbit, had to keep the engine pointed as shield and even do a powered brake or things would blow up. One probe core even blew up on ascent just out of pressure heating.

By the way, just wanted to point out something: The new stock dynamics somewhat seems better than older version of FAR, Just tested though with a small plane craft that I was capable of building with early career mode parts. The really small craft seems pretty stable and is quite agile, now descent and losing speed seems much more accurate, as I've mentioned before with previously well build craft, loosing speed for landing was a big hassle and I practically couldn't stall the craft. Now loosing speed with going for a descend and/or nearly stall seems much better, the landing got a lot easier, even considering the bumpingness of the runway at level 0. At the same time though, with the new revamp of engines thrust and etc, I can't even get higher than 13k altitude, which also seems accurate and harder for some contracts.

Hey just tried out the new version after a long time away. I like it very much, seems to be getting better and better, though some of the balancing of previous balancing seems to be gone, now the auto-pilot is much less responsive. Though with a bit of tweaking of the PID limits and stuff its a bit better. One thing I didn't expect is the new SAS stuff, whats its purpose and how does it work? How is the SSAS, surface SAS? And also I quickly noted, that with this we can activate the custom SAS even when there's no SAS control on the ship, no pilot and whatnot, so it could be a little cheatey in career mode. Have you thought about separating buttons for both modes so to have quicker access? Edit: excuse me, I just thought to go to the first page and check out the description on the SAS stuff