inigma

Perhaps one or two launches only.

Starting a new career game requires that you decide the best means to grind your first science. And grinding early science, I've concluded, can only be done via six different methods: EVA, probe, car, boat, plane, rocket When I say probe, I mean just a probe with a single science instrument. Nothing else. If you could choose (and you can via tech tree editing) which tech you'd like to start with to grind your first tech node, which would it be? (assume you could grind the first node within 1-3 launches, or rather 2-3 science experiments) Bare minimum tech for EVA Bare minimum tech for a probe (with only a science instrument and nothing else) Bare minimum tech for an unmanned car Bare minimum tech for a car Bare minimum tech for an unmanned boat Bare minimum tech for a boat Bare minimum tech for an unmanned plane Bare minimum tech for a plane Bare minimum tech for an unmanned rocket 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 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 and probably one I will use in my own game (I've never played career mode and hope to do so soon using my GAP contract pack (see link in sig)). What's your take on the stating situation? What do you think should be the best first vehicle to start your science grind?

I already know of this tool called Tech Tree Editor, but it doesn't seem to be actively developed, and is buggy: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/89213-win-ted-ksp-tech-tree-editor-v024-alpha-early-testing/ I think the modding community needs is an easier-to-use GUI based tech tree editor - perhaps even incorporated into the game itself - and outputs the result as a MM compatible editedtechtree.cfg. Desired Features: 1. Be able to open up the R&D Center and select a button to edit the tree. 2. Be able to drag and drop the current tree nodes to new locations 3. Be able to create new nodes, and edit and delete existing ones. 4. Be able to link and de-link nodes at will 5. Be able to drag and drop parts from one node to another 6. Be able to access a GUI list of unassigned parts and be able to drag and drop those unassigned parts into nodes. 7. Ability to save the tree as an Modular Manager syntax compatible export. Would anyone be up to the challenge. This would make modding tech trees so sanely easier. Thoughts? Possible? Anyone want to try?

I made a shuttle in stock. Its in my sig.

@Probus Awesome! Agreed on the rover wheels. I sent you a pm - wanted to know what you think about the LY-05 alternative instead. less rover wheely, and gets the job done to allow players to start building cars first (not rovers).

I never shared this here. I figure it applies! Wright Glider: Wright Flyer:

Thanks, but not my picture. I believe I ripped it from someone's hangar pic. I think RavenClaw or something...

updated op.

yes! That is why I initially requested @nightingale to work on the SpawnKerbal and SpawnCrew behaviors, so we could have some more awesome rescue contracts... in space...!

Wanted. Can someone make a mod that does this: a hangar that displays in the background a few select crafts a player has made or wants displayed.

I'm attempting to setup a playthrough of GAP myself and stream it to find out where the reward weakenesses are. Bear in mind that Island Tours contracts reward you in advance, not after. Please take a look at the balance sheet here and let me know your suggestions: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vmZkfWamAaeuTsKL1_yes4l-eoMTrmJZ9zvgp3NkjaM/ The decoupling project is taking a bit more work than I anticipated, but it is getting done. GAP is stable at the moment (yeah) without very many support issues raised yet, so that's good news. I am also watching a number of streamers and youtubers play through it to watch out for bugs/inconsistentcies. One thing I've noticed is that my craft definitions are too lose, causing contracts to fail when a player flies an unrelated mission. I will need to make stricter definitions to ensure I'm defining the correct craft. This is GAP wide. Right now I'm working hard to balance Engineering Tech Tree especially in regards to aviation parts and nodes. I want to see if I can help get ETT up to speed and see if I can avoid having to do the Join SSI contract, and all other GAP contracts with early tech, and have it all make sense, as I want to recommend ETT when players get GAP.

certain wing parts and other parts appear to interact explosively with the water. this is a KSP bug.

It works Great! awesome! now i can search for parts in the tech tree and find what to research.

you sir, are awesome!

I highly recommend keeping it simple and direct to what it does by using the name "simulator" or "simulation": KSC Simulator or Simulation Mode or KSC Aerospace Simulator or something akin to the real thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Environment_Simulation_Laboratory thanks for picking this mod up @linuxgurugamer !

There's a contract for Contract Configurator called Banking which loans you funds that you then have to payback with interest. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/102210-090-contract-pack-banking-v01-18-02-2015/

@Probus Ok, on to the Sounding Rockets side of the my balance pass. This is a doozy. I'll revisit aircraft parts in another post at another time. Essentially I've discovered the ETT starting techs are a bit illogical. You've got players unable to research airplanes without having to do a rocket mission - which invalidates ETT's stated mandate to allow a player to choose which path they can take. In short, ETT's mandate practically demands no other starting technologies except for that to make a basic science golf cart, manned or unmanned. I worked on modifying my own ETT and tested how it looks. So here are the changes I made, and here are my recommendations: These ideas are based on a theory that wheels and a basic chassis is already available to the player at the start - that the first means to gather science to a stock or modded player is by driving around. This is also the theory behind GAP and is consistent with the CCF framework. It only gives the starting player small and unreliable rover wheels at the start, a battery, and a cubic strut for building a small car chassis. RoveMax Model S2 from Field Science to Starting Technology roverWheel2 to start Small Battery Pack from Electrics to Starting Technology batteryPack to start Cubic Strut from Meta-Materials to Starting Technology strutCube to start Now with the starting technology for a basic car out of the way, construction materials should follow smallest to largest in progression: Octagonal Strut from Meta-Materials to General Construction strutOcto to generalConstruction Mini I Beam from Meta-Materials to General Construction structuralIBeam3 to generalConstruction I Beam from Meta-Materials to Advanced Metal Works structuralIBeam2 to advMetalworks Running around with a car to gather some science should really be the only starting option available to players unless players opt in to start their games with science points to spend. Starting with a car gives players a reliable non-rocket option to grinding the science to start planes, or rockets, as is your intent with ETT for players to choose either or. That said, for starters, I think the thermometer should come before a barometer: 2HOT Thermometer from Basic Science to Starting Technology sensorThermometer to start PresMat Barometer from Starting Technology to Basic Science sensorBarometer to basicScience and because of the ETT’s intent to provide a player the opportunity to choose aviation or rockets first, this is why I propose moving the Flea Solid Rocket Booster to Solid Rockets: RT-5 "Flea" Solid Fuel Booster from Starting Technology to Solid Rockets solidBooster_sm to solidRockets If a player wants to start flying solid rockets, they are welcome to science grind to it...through two nodes I propose before Solid Rockets which make for logical technical progression: Model Rockets (modelRockets) 1 science and then Sounding Rockets (soundingRockets) 5 science Model Rockets node should contain the stock sepratron since it’s the closest equivalent in the stock game to a solid fuel sounding rocket per se (and makes early gliders a possibility by giving players an early game boost - literally - which is way lighter than attaching the lead weight of a Flea), and USi’s Sounding Rocket’s most basic motor and parts: Sepratron I from Ullage Motors to Solid Motors sepMotor1 to soundingRockets USi Sounding Rockets SRM-S Sounding Rocket Motor from Starting Technology to Model Rockets SR_Rocket_35_01 to modelRockets USi Sounding Rockets Nosecone Parachute (0.35m) from Starting Technology to Model Rockets SR_Nosecone_35 to modelRockets USi Sounding Rockets Launch Stick from Starting Technology to Solid Motors SR_LaunchStick to modelRockets USi Sounding Rockets Payload Fairing (0.35m) from Starting Technology to Model Rockets SR_PayloadFairing_35 to modelRockets USi Sounding Rockets Payload Truss (0.35m) from Starting Technology to Model Rockets SR_PayloadTruss_35 USi Sounding Rockets Rocket fin (small) from Starting Technology to Model Rockets SR_Wing_03 USi Sounding Rockets Avionics Package from Starting Technology to Model Rockets SR_ProbeCore USi Sounding Rockets Materials Study Mini-Lab from Starting Technology to Model Rockets SR_Payload_01 Sounding Rockets node should contain: SR_Rocket_35_02 SR_Payload_02 SR_Payload_03 SR_Payload_04 SR_Wing_02 Also, Sounding Rockets tends to have its simple parts spreading to other nodes on ETT that just don’t make sense. I recommend putting all other Sounding Rocket parts not listed above in an Advanced Sounding Rockets node that branches off from the Sounding Rockets node above. Advanced Sounding Rockets (advSoundingRockets) 10 science Advanced Sounding Rockets nodes should contain: all other USi Sounding Rocket parts not listed above Furthermore you might want to move the radial parachute from Starting Technology to Survivability, as golf carts don’t need parachutes… yet. Finally I recommend changing the name Propulsion Systems to Liquid Rockets as it is more description of the intent of that tree. The science cost for Liquid Rockets should be equal to Aviation (since it’s the choice in ETT right?) so make it 15 from the current 1, and boost Basic Rocketry to 25 from the current 10. Edit: I should also mention that a basic fin does not seem to fit a car, unless one uses it for a hood covering, haha. But seriously, I was thinking about including it my aviation recommendations. I think aviation still needs a serious node redesign to include aerodynamics, flight control, engines, and other reorganiztion, but that's for later. Has anyone come up with a GUI based tree editor?

GAP is not recognizing your craft as valid to the contract, hence why this craft can't complete the next parameter. I see you have multiple other contracts active. GAP assumes that if you accept a contact, that you will immediately do it, hence it's its possible that GAP is looking for a previously launched craft as its defined expected "your craft must" - which to reset this function, simply recover any active vessels you may have launched after you accepted the contract, or perhaps less invasively, simply cancel the contract and start over. I will make sure future GAP versions will have the craft pass other conditions before defining the craft used to prevent multiple contract multiple craft conflicts. i wonder if ur running into the same as above... multiple contracts, multiple crafts active? maxAlt simply means the parameter wont pass if you are above the alt which in this case means just at the roof of the hangar.

fresh new install on a new computer. ckan is not showing the latest ETT. you might want to raise a support issue with the CKAN folks if you haven't already.

I'm doing a career playthrough with ETT and GAP. I will be posting a second set of aircraft, construction, and wheel part recommendations after testing some manual changes myself. The current order is certainly an improvement, but its only a start.

Getting rid of offworld, as it just dawned on me that it can be part of Core Milestones. Flying drones on Duna, Eve, and Laythe should be quite stock compatible. Updated mindmap: https://bubbl.us/?h=934b/621132/37nSzyGBXJDJo&r=960559528

Bailing out of airplanes does not require parachutes. But they sure do help. (you can quote me on that!)

Thanks for your feedback! I think you're right about skydiving contracts, except I am sure I could probably make them require EVA Parachutes which would exclude them on load. I just modified the sheet to move the Seaplane contract to Core, as I agree, it is a core-ish kind of contract. I also moved the tourist Sealplane Flight 38 contract to Charters and Airlines since it makes best sense there anyways. Thanks! Coast Guard will most likely stay as an optional Contract Pack, especially since it opens possibilities up to include boat or land vehicle missions, which really don't fit into GAP. The exploding vessel is somewhat intended... albeit it is a stock bug with wing parts coming into contact with water, and most of the crafts are meant to spawn 5m under water to allow time to catch the spawned kerbals on top. Some crafts just explode as you fly into render distance. Makes for great action, heart pumping cinematography. unfortunately I can't program in an explosion timer, so this is the next best thing. Nothing like fishing kerbals out of the water with boat debris all around. Offroad and Mining contracts will be entirely different packs, not related to GAP. BD Armory will probably also become its own pack if ever I decide to add non-air vehicle missions. For now I'll create it as a GAP add-on.

OK awesome! Got pics? Pics?

How can I get my mod to be tagged with the CKAN tag on KerbalStuff? It's listed on CKAN: https://kerbalstuff.com/mod/1385/Contract%20Pack:%20Giving%20Aircraft%20a%20Purpose%20%28GAP%29