Vesparco

Hi there, I've ben politely introduced to this post from the community tech tree, as I was looking for something like this with "Stock-alike" scope. In these matter I would suggest the mods from Necrobones as I started using them recently and I must say the additional parts and the visual improvements are more than welcomed (specially for 2.5m). As I've seen you have already set more or less the tech tree by taking the one on ETT (which I like) but I must ask the difficult question that is how are you going to address balance between parts. I think that balance in a tiered tech system is extremely complex. To define the rules of balance you must set first the aims of the tiers. What do you achieve in each tier? you earn new parts that are better because they have better stats and/or because you can build things you previously can't? Keeping the discussion of the structural mass of a tank. If all the tanks in the tech tree have the same 1/10th of the tank volume, the progression of the tech tree then aims for a bigger solution or a cheaper one, as the ratio between tanks is the same (and hence is not better). If the tanks between tiers change between a 15% at the start and a 5% at the end then the discussion is different as then you are looking for efficiency ( may not be too relevant for a first stage but it will impact greatly on the last one, giving you a fairly boost on DV). I have some ideas that could help in this matter but before throwing a block of text I would rather hear yours

Totally true. I apologise as I read the OP but I still wasn't sure if some topics were or weren't part of the balance. Just one quick question as I checked the cfg file. The values of each tree node have to be static or can be defined as a variable? I was wondering if they could be configured to set their science cost on the number of items within the node and a given factor (just this question, I promise it won't start an interrogation). Interesting idea, although I should read the whole post to have an good overview. I would say the objective is not easy (specially since a balanced environment in a tech tiered system is complex at least). Thank you very much for the info ^^

Hi, I've been building for myself a new career play for KSP using most of your mods (and necrobones) to make as a "stock alike" career mode. I must say I like them and they are very nicely crafted. Thank you very much for such a marvelous work. In the matter of improving the tech tree I would like to give some feedback about it: - I feel the progression halts seriously on the 45 point mark. On this point the contract market gets blocked abruptly (giving only economic contracts) around kerbin and the steeped progression on the tech tree starts to hit. At this point unmanned vehicles are still quite unfeasible due to the lack of solar panels, space stations are not available and planes are at the bare minimum of their technology (making them a pain to use on contracts). The solution I usually rely is of a quick flyby to mun//minmus to push again the science gain. - The progession of the fuel tank sizes encourages (if not enforces) the early upgrade of the base installations and, ironically, it then starts dropping the part count as you progress on the tech tree. - The strategies of the administration building regarding science are useless (or at least more useless :P). - Airplane technologies are too expensive. That is wrong in vainilla KSP and here is only more accentuated. Pulling out the rapier engine, most of the tree is only usefull within kerbin. Upon these I would suggest several options: - bring down some essential parts of the tech tree (such as solar panels and plane related elements). - Rebalance the costs of the intermediate tech tree. - Add more progressions to the space center installations ( If this is somewhat this is possible and feasible). - Rework the science strategies into something useful. I leave the mods installed in case they are usefull with the feedback.

At first was quite confused up to reaching this comment XD. Totally understandable btw. About the topic of courage and stupidity affecting game, my only thoughts would be through "fear". May some actions require rather a bold kerbal to be performed (be it EVA in different places and the use of scientific and rocket parts enveloped in tags of "dangerous" and "experimental"). Such limits could be overcome by a brave man or rather a mindless one (or both). Despite, it is not appealing to have a kerbal reach Duna so he can be so scared he is unable to go out from the cockpit (specially if is a one-man cockpit).

Hello, After the contract approach I was thinking than one possible next step forward on the game would be to have specialized roles for the kerbals. My thoughts were inspired from theme hospital in the following form of three possible paths (that could range from several levels). Pilot: enhances the capability of the vessel to be piloted (could just enhance/penalize the torque capabilities of the cockpit for example). Engineer: Required to deploy specialized equipment and can improve the resource management of the craft through optimization, for example. Scientist: Capable of generating science better and the increase the possible transmited ammount. Also, could be compulsory for some special case science. These roles could be inherent to each kerbal or could be teached/trained. then of course could be also a "neutral" starting position, being this a way to expand also the interaction with the kerbalnauts. And of course, this is just an opinion and it is open to thoughts and suggestions

Nice mod indeed. One suggestion BTW would be to disable the rcs by default on the VTS MMU. I was trying to dock a station part and I realised that the vehicles was messing up my rcs node repartition (and also it would be a pitty to bring it up empty).

Sorry but while reading both comments I couldn't avoid to think about this video XD K3|Chris, your part are very well crafted indeed. I hope my laptop will be able to handle your nice addition and I hope to see future elements Btw, to the original B9 modder: Welcome back, it's nice to see you around and I hope everything was/is going fine. With that said, now I'll run to brace in my seat before the tsunami of people hits this post XD

Just to state two things: First, It's a very nice mod. I wanted something for more robotic exploration of the kerbal system and this is the one. Second, I would suggest to put it on the mod list at the stick on the forum as I almost go nuts through mod pages in order to find it to donwload.

I believe you speak from the chemical point of view (in which you are of course right), but still there are a lot of improvements to make: Injector geometries (Apollo program was base empirical design), thrust chamber designs (for higher temperatures), more powerfull turbopump systems,etc. This kind of improvements are far from being groundbreaking but can explain the little gap between ones and the others. Said this, I agree that needs a little balance in order to not ditch other lower performing elements.

I would say that this answer is rather impossible to answer due to the following facts: - They are overpowered in comparison to other engines yes, but the models are meant to reflect future NASA engine development, which of course should have higher performance than other real engines from the American and Russian space programs from the 60s (which are the ones that are reflecting current KSP stock and mod development). We are speaking of top tier technology and should behave as such (and that depends on which level of the tech tree you get them, which I don't know btw). - The real balancer should be money, which is not currently implemented in the game (yet). Is not relevant if an engine is slightly better or worse if you are able to assemble true behemoths to compensate it. Even docking parts in orbit can outcome this. Up to that, as previously said, there's no game yet. And even if it was, you would have another ton of balancing elements (a.k.a. mods) that would alter your perception of fairness (deadly re-entry, FAR, Life support,...). As a personal opinion, I don't see them bad. Mostly because they make me spend less time in the VAB and more time in the flight phase studying the insights of asteroid approach & capture (which is already difficult by definition. I even believe that the offset in the engines are meant to ease this difficulty).

I may congratulate the OP and the team developing the KSO. It seems a very neat mod with a lot of work behind. I would like to try it but currently my laptop is already screaming due to the ram of the mods (even with memory saving mod). I would leave it at pending, but not for too long . P.D: Has anyone made a video showing the functionalities of the mod (building/flying/landing)? It would be much appreciated.

Hi, First of all, I would like to thank the developers of this mod their dedication, I think is one of the bests (and maybe basic) mods of KSP. Secondly, I have been working in a very weird personal idea, which I call the "SETO" (Single Engine to Orbit) and in order to craft it, I need an inline fairing system. Is it possible to craft it without the nose cone or it would require a custom part?

I must say thanks and thanks. The first one for the response so I could stop spending time on the idea ( although may some time be suited for other projects). The second one goes to the SCANsat, I didn't check it yet ans seems a very nice plugin. K3|Chris: I was trying to finish the idea before checking if it worked properly but yep you're right, now I noticed.

I don't know if even post it here or the Kethane thread . The thing is I am trying to build an out-of-the box satellite for kethane with improved surface scanning (ir order to avoid hours of accelerated time to scan the whole orbital object) by using the KAS system to deploy the antennas as far as I can from each other to catch more hexagons of surface. The funny thing is that is sound as feasible as it is and the shape of my prototype at the moment is like this: (the multidirectional approach is to have always the same distance even with the satellite rotating while orbiting). The even funnier thing is that once is deployed into orbit, it becones an spinning octopus, with the extendable probes swinging. I must say is a completely "FLAIL". Any ideas to improve the design? I believe I need some kind of rigid winch but my knowledge of KAS doesn't go to far beyond. Is it possible or I should aim to another thing? I thinking of trying "spinning stabilization".

Just one idea on mod mechanics that may be interesting (and also great mods and textures BTW, I like both FLEXrack and 6S mods). How about (and to have a different/complimentary market to KAS) making the experiments of FLEXrack a low-yield, high-repeateable, expendable experiments?. For example, let's say each rack experiment gives you on basis (be it kerbin) 1 point of research and can be made up to 30 times with 3 constrains. 1.- Must be activated in EVA. 2.- Must be processed through the science station (then you go from 0 to 1 point). 3.- Must be then shipped back to Earth (unable to perform transmission). In this way you have a science "grinder" that demands a lot of logistics, base development and EVA interaction (specially when you go further to other planets), which could be quite entertaining . This could make KAS for building/mantenance and the Flexrack to hauling cargo elements of interest (like the life support mods for example). Also, we have to bear in mind that the money/prestige system is still to be developed so it could be that some of these aspects could fit in this mod to make sure it has its own niché in KSP