DarkonZ

Nope! Won't play nice with ETT. I posted a model config a while back and got no response. I'm close to finalizing my ETT config including the regex string replacements. PM me in a day or so, and i'll send you a config that deals with the tech stuff. Use at your own risk!

ShotgunNinja, Are the actual scrubber efficiency values hard coded or cumulative? For example 'Scrubber efficiency = Scrubber efficiency + 10' per tech upgrade. Since ETT is branch based and does stuff rather wildly, it is easy for the end user to side step science for a really long time. In my ETT config, I thought (My opinion) that the first scrubber upgrade [tech0] would go somewhere in the science branch to simulate a new invention. The rest would probably be placed in the manned space exploration branch further out. If the efficiency values are cumulative, no problems. The problem shows up when the end user plows into the manned space exploration branch picking up scrubber upgrades [tech1->tech3] and then goes back to the science branch to snag [tech0]. If hard-coded, I'd assume the user would end up with a scrubber efficiency much worse then what they previously had. Sure, I could just put all [tech0->tech3] upgrades in the manned space exploration branch and be done with it, but that branch seems a bit cramped and expensive. Thought I'd toss a scrubber upgrade elsewhere. Hope all that made sense. Thanks!

If you're itching for a quick fix and have the experience, you can change your saved games with a simple text editor. Search for and find these: name = ResearchAndDevelopment name = Funding They would like this when you find them: SCENARIO { name = ResearchAndDevelopment scene = 7, 8, 5, 6 sci = 16.70879 Tech } SCENARIO { name = Funding scene = 7, 8, 5, 6 funds = 13041.917115271 } Change the "sci" and "funds" value to what you want. Leave that decimal number alone. In this case, sci = 516.70879 will give 500 free science points. Hate to admit it, but I do this from time to time.

I thought this thread was dead a while back. Thanks johnqevil and FireX. Glad to know someone may have picked up on what I en-cryptically suggested. Streetwind? No!, I want to play KSP. I want to build and design rockets. I want massive deep space mining rockets and stations (<-Orbit or planet side). I want to boldly go and mine stuff only kerbals should. I want to ship that stuff back to kerbin, produce various products and sell them in a simulated market. USI Kolonization System? Heard of it, never tried it. But it sounds reasonably close to what I intended at the time. Actually, I may have written down a plan for this mod somewhere. I recall trying to think of other 'already' created mods that have a partial functionality I'd need to look at. Oh well.

Ahhh... I didn't consider that! I think Kerbalism sets it all up as purely tech node based. Not that I checked... How about if I ask you a more basic question?. Forget about what other mods do/define/change. What if stock KSP had scrubber efficiency to deal with. Where would you place those upgrades on the ETT tech tree? Trust me, my choices on this are bound for disaster. Should you answer this, then at least my own configs can be used and a FAKE kerbalism config can finally be called *.cfg. Look, no pressure, but it would help!

Preaching to the choir man!!! Oh yes!

Just checked on Alternate Resource Panel and it looks like it might get its full 1.1 update soon enough... I've got some resource icons just for kerbalism in case anyone might want them. Namely, the shielding icon. Got tired of the text only read out pretty quick. Basically, all I did was take the Icons already supplied and put a small "K" in front of it. Maybe SN could create a 'Misc' directory and files like this could be included. Just a thought: |--Misc |--KSPAlternateResourcePanel |--Icons-Player |--Shielding.png Something like that?

@ShotgunNinja So there ya go. By no means should this be considered a config file. Precisely why I suggest you keep it as *.txt. If anyone using ETT DOES actually use this as a config, I've managed to make ETT fit with kerbalism defaults, and pushed the first scrubber tech elsewhere. Wrong. It's just plain wrong, but at least its a start. Also, I might have managed to tick off Probus on the ETT thread with a couple of dumb questions. Hopefully, he ignores that and chimes in on where the scrubber efficiency should go. I think the reply I got from him mentioned a newer ETT may not need MM patches. I've no idea what that means. 'z_EngineeringTechTree.txt': // =========================================================================== // Adjust general parts to better match ETT // =========================================================================== // Greenhouse @PART[Greenhouse]:NEEDS[zETT]:AFTER[Kerbalism] { @TechRequired = hydroponics } // =========================================================================== // Rearrange early experiments to better match ETT [WIP] // =========================================================================== @PART[sensorThermometer]:NEEDS[zETT]:FINAL { @TechRequired = start } @PART[sensorBarometer]:NEEDS[zETT]:FINAL { @TechRequired = engineering101 @cost = 1000 } @PART[GooExperiment]:NEEDS[zETT]:FINAL { @TechRequired = basicScience @entryCost = 1500 } @PART[science_module]:NEEDS[zETT]:FINAL { @TechRequired = spaceExploration } @PART[Large_Crewed_Lab]:NEEDS[zETT]:FINAL { @TechRequired = scienceTech } // =========================================================================== // Adjust SCRUBBER EFFICIENCY to better match ETT [WIP] // =========================================================================== // In ETT miniaturization -> Micro Rocketry .625 // scienceTech -> Invention (WIP?) @ScrubberEfficiency:NEEDS[zETT]:FINAL { @tech0 = advExploration @tech1 = precisionEngineering @tech2 = scienceTech @tech3 = experimentalScience } // |-- =========================================================================== // |-- Restore ETT description strings and/or just append/delete // |-- "[Improve scrubber efficiency]" ??? // |-- =========================================================================== @TechTree:NEEDS[zETT]:FINAL { @RDNode:HAS[#id[miniaturization]] { @description = These aren't your standard hobby miniature models. We've been assured they look good enough to actually fly. } @RDNode:HAS[#id[advExploration]] { @description = They are Self-Deploying Astronaut Mobility Enhancement Devices, I don't know what you mean by "ladders". [Improve scrubber efficiency] } // ------------------ // @RDNode:HAS[#id[miniaturization]] // { // @description = These aren't your standard hobby miniature models. We've been assured they look good enough to actually fly. BUBBA_1 // } // @RDNode:HAS[#id[advExploration]] // { // @description = They are Self-Deploying Astronaut Mobility Enhancement Devices, I don't know what you mean by "ladders". [Improve scrubber efficiency] // } // ----------------- // And so on.... }

Take it easy Probus. I didn't intend sarcasm nor do I intend to create drama. Unfortunately, when this newbie gets frustrated, he tends to forget how to read. The problems I had were ALL my own in that ETT came in behind my own config patches and wiped them out. ->ETT is godlike. The sooner you realize that the sooner you'll be happy.<- Yes, your sarcasm is appreciated and helpful. Now on a more serious note, and hopefully I haven't ticked you off so much, but I have a question regarding Kerbalism. In that mod scrubber efficiency is based on tech. When you research new tech, a small black box pops up telling you that you've just increased scrubber efficiency. The values involved look like this: ScrubberEfficiency { tech0 = miniaturization tech1 = precisionEngineering tech2 = scienceTech tech3 = experimentalScience } Clearly, that won't work so well with ETT. Since I just started with ETT and am not a science type at all, I can't possibly come up with correct tech slots. Could I beg ask the question of how YOU would re-arrange that tech regarding ETT? Sure, I could easily assume scrubbers won't be in unmanned or pure aero-flight, but where else SHOULD they be. I figure it this way, if YOU state it, then its law. Done deal and no arguing. BTW - ETT is a step or three above a "just for fun" mod. Any suggestions appreciated,

I'll second that for sure. Funny you can't toggle MJ partless. By now, I'd figure most don't care about playing a purist game. Maybe I'm wrong!

ShotgunNinja, Glad to see you popped in before taking a break. You deserve it, and we can wait. As for MeVed and Box of Something and everyone else: Go back up in this thread and re-read the post from ShotgunNinja that has the image. That was placed there for a reason. If core KSP110_1230 is suspect, everything built after that is suspect! -->[Unless you two think KSP is now perfect?] The more people do this kind of thing the harder it gets on the modder. Esp. when the modder suspects core KSP110_1230 isn't quit right. Does anyone try to reproduce things under vanilla KSP? Does anyone try to reproduce things under vanilla KSP + the mod in question? Does anyone check the logs (2 of them?) Really? Actually, it's not that difficult to do. An extra 30 minutes on OUR part is not a big deal. For SN, he's probably trying to shoot down bugs that don't exist and never did! Not his fault. This ultimately leads to a huge amount of wasted time on his part. Time better used to Dev the mod. Just say'in... -- ShotgunNinja, I've recently decided the ETT was the tech tree I want to stick with. Of course, you know it spreads stuff all over the place. I was shocked to see a tiny black box show up telling me I just increased my scrubber tech when the tech node was called 6.5 rocketry. Clearly, ETT needs some Kerbalism love. Unfortunately, I'm not qualified enough to make the decisions needed to fit Kerbalism into ETT. Would it be possible I can just put up "z_EngineeringTechTree.txt". Yup, notice how I spelled that. At least I can save you a massive 18.6 seconds of time. Well, at least until someone drops by with far more knowledge of what ETT intends. Since it isn't an actual config file, I don't suppose it would matter. But you'd have the model for a config ready to go when needed.

I'm only posting this for fun, . Kerbal Joint Reinforcement is the next best thing since sliced cheese. Way better than bread!

@DrNuke Thanks! I thought the config had all the node chains defined correctly (as far as this newbie was concerned), but it never crossed my mind (nor did I check) the node might be hidden. In CTT, none of the nodes are hidden. Not a one! Regarding what you say, how does that account for the other 8 or 9 lines that have 'hideEmpty = True'? Did the dev(s) do that on purpose? Since I'm no expert at MM, would it be safe to assume I could create a personal patch that makes sure "ALL" ETT tech nodes get 'hideEmpty = False' regardless? Anyway, thanks again,

@ShotgunNinja That's a bit of a NO-NO right now. Keep the GUI unique, simple, and straightforward. Just the facts man. Besides, is the normal KSP resources tab user friendly? Last I checked you can't slide that around at all.

@ShotgunNinja Liked the post you made with the image. Pictures can speak volumes. In contrast to seemingly everyone else, I'm glad I'm not alone in my opinions. I was wondering why a small part wasn't include with the mod in the first place. But don't worry.... Famous dude. You'll get famous regardless.

KSP 110_1230 ETT v20160205 Indeed, Wow, what a monstrosity ETT is. That's a good thing BTW! Should have looked more into this way sooner. So I recently got KSP 110_1230 up and added this mod. First thing I noticed were two broken lines way out on the left side of the tree. I think near Advanced Electro-Magnetic Systems and GriddedThrusters. There are some lines there, but they don't connect to anything. Something mucked up with the config? While I'm at it. How come ETT seems godlike whenever I try to change around parts in my own MM configs? All I wanted to do was to take the stock thermo part, already modified by another mod with MM, and stick it to TechRequired = start. That fails with ETT always seeming to win. I've made a few of my own MM configs and I've yet to run into this. Don't bother pointing me at the MM docs (Read that stuff a 1000 times), cuz that won't magically make everything all right. Clearly, I'm missing something basic. Any suggestions? Would it have anything to do with this? @TechTree:FOR[zETT] // September 12th, 2015 { !RDNode,* //Delete all research nodes { } // Add ETT nodes back starting with place holders for many CTT nodes. Oh well, a salute to the ETT dev(s). Excellent work.

ShotgunN, Too bad you don't have a version of 0.9.9.1 for KSP 1.0.5. I finally got KSP 110_1230 setup and it seems to be behaving somewhat liquid-poorly. Come to think of it, the pre-release wasn't all that impressive either. Besides, nearly half the mods I use have yet to be updated. From the looks of it, that's going to take a looong time, or maybe not at all. Of the mods that I do have installed, most of them seem a little wonky in some way or another. Hopefully, with your 1.1.0 version you'll get slammed with a ton of new posts, questions, stupid posts, suggestions, bug reports and contributions. Wait, the flood gates have already opened. Supposedly, that will be a good thing...? Well, maybe not so much for the modder. It's possible I'm confused, but I have a question regarding the scrubber efficiency values. Are these somehow hard coded in your mod? If so, then how would someone change the techid/requirements regarding other tech trees? I would think the last two would be much further out in the CTT and possibly the EngineeringTT. LifeSupport.cfg: @RDNode:HAS[#id[scienceTech]] { @description = ... [Scrubber efficiency: 80%] } @RDNode:HAS[#id[experimentalScience]] { @description = ... [Scrubber efficiency: 90%] } Since I use and rather like DMagic Orbit Science, I'd guess that a patch would be needed (if possible) to bring that stuff more in line with how you envision your mod to operate. I've seen where you changed the Goo mass in Kerbalism. Maybe some of the DMagic stuff might need some Kerbalism love? Oh, another suggestion for your GUI with the new food and oxygen readout. Is that truly 4 days food left or is it 4.2 or perhaps 4.9 days food? It ain't 3 and certainly not 5. How about a single digit decimal for better accuracy? HTH, EDIT: And no, I didn't type "liquid-poorly". Guess the word I used used was too naughty. Gaffaw!

Ooops, I thought you were asking ME about what version of KSP I used but it was someone else. Man I've got to learn to read better.

Version was in my post KSP [1.0.5_1028]

ShotgunNinja, So I finally got to digging around in the Community Tech tree and creating my own personal configs for parts from other mods I have. Even though your mod has very few parts, maybe someday you add something new to the mod or go parts crazy. So I did this just for fun and shoved said file into the patches dir: // ==================================================================== // KerbalismCTT.cfg // // Adjust parts to better match the CTT // ==================================================================== // Greenhouse // @PART[Greenhouse]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]:AFTER[Kerbalism] { @TechRequired = hydroponics } -- Now the bad news. A possible bug related to the probe parts with the telemetry experiment. On my end I can reproduce it continuously. It's simple. In the VAB plop down a probe command part. Hit launch, then a few seconds later revert to vehicle assembly. When I get back to the VAB all the top buttons, like load/save and exit are greyed out. Can't build or change parts either. According to the alt+F12 debug window, the only thing that seems to stand out is this single line: "no_signal_lock". Of course, clearing the input lock cache fixes everything and I'm good to go. Same thing for the SPH as well. I was able to reproduce this in a fresh copy of KSP [1.05_1028] with just Kerbalism as the only mod added. Bummer. Oh, and in all cases, this does not happen when one actually places an antenna on the probe part. I really should have caught this sooner, but I guess probes, a telemetry experiment, and antennaz just wasn't at the top of my list of things to do. Oh well... BTW - A suggestion for your GUI would be to add some kind of calculations that determine how many days of food or oxygen remain. Those percentage values kinda don't cut it. Sure, maybe I'm just used to playing with other life support mods, but I can see a situation or three where seeing at glance how much stuff is left in days would be helpful. Soon enough, I'll have Kerbal Construction Time as well as Kerbal Alarm Clock setup. Proper planning and timing become relevant. Just a thought. HTH,

ShotgunN, Is this the place you consider for development of the mod? If so, here is a list of mods that work and clearly don't overlap on what your mod does. Sure, you know this, but I thought I'd throw it out anyway. So far: 000_Toolbar AsteroidDay Chatterer CommunityResourcePack CommunityTechTree (Not totally sure here) DMagicUtilities (Contracts Window+) DPSoundFX DraggableMenu EVAEnhancements FuelTanksPlus InterstellarFuelSwitch KerbalEngineer Kerbalism KerbalJointReinforcement MechJeb2 MechJeb2 Embedded by Dennis6492 ModRocketSys Multiports PersistentRotation QuickScroll (Scrolls stuff in VAB with mouse) RCSBuildAid RcsSounds ScienceAlert Squad TriggerTech (Alternate resource panel) WheelSounds ModuleManager.ConfigCache ModuleManager.ConfigSHA ModuleManager.Physics ModuleManager.TechTree ModuleManager.2.6.20.dll toolbar-settings.dat Rather bleak list I know, but more is coming. Funny you mention connected living space. Never used it, and never thought I would, even though I might have a mod that actually uses/requires that. For pure testing, is this file the one you want? Connected_Living_Space-1.2.0.2.zip Not a problem to drop it into the game and see what happens. Wait, that's after I actually understand what that mod is actually supposed to do.

llanthas And why should you? It's KSP and not reality. Now say that 10 times in a row (Rhymes). SAS and tapping and watching certain gauges is the only way it works. I was just pointing out that newbies might want to figure this stuff out sooner than later.

Gravity turn! Many fake ghosts of Jeb and Valentia(sp) are telling me to say this.

So I was wondering, Could a mod be created that allows a product(s) chain and a simulated kerbin economy? I've seen and/or used and tested a few mods out there that seemingly do a part of what I asked. What I have in mind is that some basic resource, like ore, would need to be transferred or shipped to a processing plant that would then split that up into several other interim resources. These would then need to be shipped or transferred to another set of processing plants that would create a series of final products to be sold in the kerbin market place. Market place? Economy? Yes, a simple supply/demand model that could work on a daily/weekly scale. Note, I'm stopping here because the idea might be plain stupid or impossible. Yup!

ShotgunNinja, Hah, I thought I recognized that name regarding some of the discussions on backgroundprocessing.dll. Clearly, you must have gotten most of that straightened out. Careful, that shotgun has a kick, and your ideas do as well. I like them! All of them. Your mod proposes to do something that could change how life support and realism mods behave in the future. Seems you have a plan in place, and I'd say go for it dude! Which makes me wonder, are YOU supposed to support Other mods, or are Other mods supposed to support YOU? <- Dumb question I suppose [shrug] Currently, I have a directory set up for just kerbalism[1.05] and any and all mods I can "gradually" install. Unfortunately, testing everything fully does take time, but so far so good. Note, I've avoided any mods that pose a potential conflict. Will get to those soon enough. Anyway, keep it up! Ack!, just before posting this I noticed a NOTES section in the GUI. Nice touch!!! Best of Luck,