inigma

The CKAN team, and a number of us devs, mods, and coders are working on getting kerbalstuff back up. Join the dev discussion here: https://kiwiirc.com/client/irc.esper.net #ckan

What exact values does Custom Barn Kit actually change? The OP is not clear. Would be nice for reference.

@Probus I finally got some time to test this: Here are my final aviation recommendations for ETT: Recommendation Theory: Small rectangular and square wings and square/rectangular elevators should be available before larger rectangular and square wings. Also square and rectangular wings and elevators should come all before swept wings and swept/angled elevators from smallest to largest. Also small structural wing parts and hardpoints should available before larger structurals and more advanced hardpoints. Delta Deluxe Winglet to Stability Wing Connector Type D from Jet Aircraft to Aviation Structural Wing Type D from Hypersonic Flight to Aviation Elevon 1 from Jet Aircraft to Subsonic Flight Wing Connector Type A from High Altitude Flight to Subsonic Flight Wing Connector Type B from High Altitude Flight to Subsonic Flight Wing Connector Type C from Jet Aircraft to Subsonic Flight Elevon 2 from Hight Altitude Flight to Aerospace Tech Elevon 3 from Advanced Aerodynamics to Aerospace Tech Elevon 5 from Advanced Aerodynamics to Aerospace Tech Mk 1 Cockpit from Hypersonic Flight to Aerospace Tech Structural Wing Type A from Hypersonic Flight to Aerospace Tech Structural Wing Type B from Hypersonic Flight to Aerospace Tech Structural Wing Type C from Aviation to Aerospace Tech Small Delta Wing from Advanced Aerodynamics to Aerospace Tech Delta Wing from Hypersonic Flight to Jet Aircraft Wing Strake from Hypersonic Flight to Jet Aircraft Swept Wing Type A from Hypersonic Flight to Jet Aircraft Swept Wing Type B from Hypersonic Flight to Jet Aircraft Swept Wings from Hypersonic Flight to High Altitude Flight Let me know what you think of the above changes! I love the dev version. It's starting to feeling more balanced now, and these above changes would easily cement the deal if you like it.

Diversification project completed. I think I will require craft definitions to include the first waypoint for non-passenger contracts, and passengers for passenger contracts. This should be sufficient to capture the correct craft intended for use for a GAP contract.

GM, that's a most excellent idea! I will try that.

Congrats on the release! I will be testing this in my first ever career game soon.

Makes sense. hey @nightingale any possible progress on negative reward contracts? https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/issues/149

The issue is that I want to check for if the player launches a craft with intent to complete the contract, to fail the contract when that craft crashes. That means defining at launch, but not later, mainly because the player could technically crash before the definition and get away with such a crash. It's a catch 22 though. Your idea though is spot on, as I think I may need to do so anyways since conflicting crafts is a more annoying situation than not failing a contract on crash. I'll give it some more thought.

Hey @tg626, it looks like @Kreuzung gave you permission to release your version of EVA Parachutes as a separate mod going forward: So @tg626, how about releasing your modifications to this mod in a new updated thread?

All I want is to be able to make these within the first acquired tech levels: And then branch from there.

GAP Dev update: I have a three day weekend to do some work on GAP, assuming I don't get dragged into the fantasy world of developing a tech tree that is more to my playstyle... Up first: GAP decoupling/diversification project. I've done about 30% of the required work (not counting mapping it all out). Up second: fix bugs and investigate the reports you all have submitted Up third: I'm looking for ways to better define GAP contract crafts. A number of you here and in streams I've seen, contracts fail because GAP is quite liberal in its craft definitions. I want to set tighter definitions so that only specific craft can trigger later GAP contract parameters. I find that people often accept multiple contracts, much to the chagrin of the complexity of GAP parameters, which lead to cases where the wrong parameters trip when working a craft that is not intended for a GAP mission. @nightingale I really wish there was a way for the player at launch to designate a specific craft for a specific contract mission, before any other triggers begin tripping.

man I love this game.

rem0230 Curious George Members 1 1 post Posted 10 Nov 2015 · Report post Hi, i update for KSP 1.0.4... https://github.com/rem02/ksp-techtree-edit/releases You can create a techtree and save in stock format or yongeTech format. if i can, i update or fix bug (I don't speak english, sorry)

Yes. that's 0.3

The new version is 0.3 - I tried it. It saves it in YongTech format and stock, but stock is bugged. YongTech works fine... mostly, but it requires the player to download YongTech separately and makes the tech tree not compatible with MM patches.

@legoclone09 The problem seems to be with Tech Tree Editor at the moment. Even if I load it as a YongeTech tree, for some reason I'm running into bugs. I really hope we could get someone knowledgeable with this area of programming to create an in-game tech tree editor.

Alas, Tech Tree Editor 0.3 is not working - its unable to save part changes to tech tree nodes as stock format/compatible tech trees. Saves just fine using YongeTech format, but requiring users to install YongeTech just to use a tech tree is not really worthwhile - that and its incompatible with Module Manager, making its a bit unwieldy as a solution. I can use TTE to set up my nodes, that's for sure, but its so buggy right now that I can't just seem to make it work. My original OP suggestion is crying for something simpler and more reliable. Thoughts?

I've got distracted with making this part-centric tech tree (rather than technology-family-centric): https://bubbl.us/?h=934b/628e0d/37NjN5.wx1052&r=1070278725 but if you have the latest dev version of ETT that I can download, I will work on the aviation parts for ETT this weekend! I have lots of time this weekend! Ya I figured out the Tech Tree Editor can't save stock tree with parts. Nasty bug. Only good for node editing. We really need a good in-game tech tree editor with full GUI and drag and drop and snap and double click right in the R&D. I should also share a little trick that works with the 0.3 version of Tech Tree Editor: you can load up KSP with any active MM compatible tech tree, which then forces MM to write a new cache for the tree, and then rename the MM compiled ModuleManager.TechTree cache file to .cfg and it will load into TTE. I was able to load CTT into TTE, but I've not tested with your yet, but I figured it would be just as easy. TTE though just can't seem to save part edits as stock format, so for now its only good at Node placement.

Much to the detriment in sidelining GAP development, I'm in the process of preparing my own first ever career game! For fun I am designing a tech tree from scratch based on feedback from this thread, one that starts a player with basic parts for a car to check out KSC, and immediate nodes to crucial small metalworks, early (small) aircraft parts, sounding rockets (leading to solid and liquid rockets), science, and other basic starting nodes. This essentially makes the tech tree part-centric rather than technology centric. I would love your feedback: https://bubbl.us/?h=934b/628e0d/37NjN5.wx1052&r=1281092114

@Probus hey good buddy, have you figured out a way to convert a saved YongeTech tech tree to MM?

@rem0230 any chance you could add double clicking on a part to add or remove from a node? moving my mouse to the button in the GUI every time can be quite the exercise with large part lists.

Maybe offer different Sandbox modes?

ETT has a good start on this. But to get started properly, I do think a serious discussion on what most feel should be the starting vehicle available to a player needs to be hashed out. It sets up everything.

I should mention that I think the most logical starting vehicle is that of a simple car. Reasoning? You just arrived at KSC, it's old, used buildings, probably recently sold to you or made available to you for you use. Your first mission is to scout out your digs. This scouting (either by EVA or by car using a simple single science instrument) then has you acquire the knowledge you need to know what it is you can and can not build at the facilities available to you. You apply this knowledge to your next choices... which are tech unlocks. You may decide then to build your first glider, powered by nothing else by a simple sepratron booster rocket. And then this leading to the worlds first powered airplane. Or decide to build a model rocket program based on the Sepratron static booster, that increasingly turns into Sounding Rockets and later solid rockets to space. Or you may decide to go for building a better car, and gather more science or explore the larger areas around you and then use that knowledge to get a major boost ahead. Or you may decide to construct a boat and checking out additional science to be gleaned from the area in prepartion for a future space program and how it would affect the local environment. Or you may decide to go all out and start clobbering together a liquid rocket based on a theory and see if you can get it to launch upwards. Anyways, the starting car tech tree approach is my theory. What's your take on the stating situation? What do you think should be the best first vehicle to start your science grind? Inviting @Probus and @Yemo to the conversation. If you guys know of other Tech Tree modders, feel free to invite them too! I wanted to bring this up in the CCF thread (see link in my sig below) but figured a general discussion on this would generate more public feedback.

I'll add Other.