Lord Aurelius

@ghpstage Yes, both mods are designed to start with probes. I've not played BTSM recently (it wasn't my cup of tea last time I tried it), but in SETI there's some tweaks to make probes much more viable, especially with reducing the weight. I've been helping out with SETI, the Stock Science Tweaks mod I have in my signature has been integrated and it adds a telemetry report to all probe cores (basically a lower science value crew report that's not biome dependent, it's mainly intended for the get science from somewhere contracts) and also adds a drill that probes can use to take surface samples.

I've already done a hybrid rocket motor mod (feel free to expand on it if you like the idea, link is in my signature). As far as other ideas, I guess it depends on what aspect of modding you want to focus on. If you just want to deal with configs, as others have said, take up an abandoned pre-1.0 part mod with an appropriate license that lets you update it, and then update and balance it for 1.0. For making parts, there's been some very good suggestions for new parts, one thing I can think of right now that I haven't seen done is some kind of electric racecar wheel that can be used to build high speed ground vehicles instead of being forced to use landing gear due to the low max speed of the existing powered wheels. For a plugin/partmod combo, maybe deployable wings/guide fins. I want to build a plane that fits in a cargo bay, but I haven't seen any mods that do good folding wings. I can hack something together with infernal robotics but then you get a bunch of extra wobble in flight.

While I do agree that the devs need to fix this in stock eventually, at the moment there are actually some mods that rebalance progression that might do kind of what you want already. SETI and BTSM. Both start out with small probe rockets, and both are still very much a WIP since it hasn't been that long since 1.0 came out and are in a major state of flux. At least both of these mods could give you some additional ideas.

true, I forgot this thread was about linux in a vm since the post I was responding to was asking about parallels on a mac.

While gaming in parallels on a mac using windows works reasonably well from what I've heard, I don't know how well the 3D acceleration for Linux works. Still, setting up a VM doesn't take all that long and I would be curious to hear how well Linux fares. If you have an extra copy of windows (or if not, windows 10 is still in beta and free at the moment) that might be another option if Linux gives you issues.

And it's updated (thankfully it more or less still worked, just had to change a few values to match the new parts). I think it's decently balanced for now, it will take a Mk1 pod almost into space if you launch straight up, so it would definitely take a probe suborbital and should have enough power to work as a lower stage for early rockets. Edit: Did a quick fix, the radial attachment parameters were off. Redownload it if you've already downloaded it.

Sounds like a great idea for a plugin.

I haven't touched it yet, I have some time this afternoon though so hopefully it will reasonably balanced in the near future.

One other thought on starting balance: Start with the RT-10 (and possibly reduce it's thrust a bit so it doesn't melt parachutes on the way up). Maybe rework the Flea into more of an upper stage vacuum SRB for the initial orbital contracts (i.e. lower thrust, much better vacuum ISP). Put the HRB and Flea where the RT-10 is now. That way you would have a larger booster at the start so you would be less likely to get stuck on the higher difficulties and would have an early smallish engine for getting into orbit.

It's hard to make any solid predictions, but I definitely see a lot of similarities. A large portion of the KSP community is made up of minecraft veterans (myself included) who quit minecraft once the modding community kind of fell apart and mod support dried up. Both KSP and Minecraft have also both been heavily boosted by mods (in both cases the stock game is a great sandbox for building random stuff, but the survival/career mode is lackluster at best IMHO). So yes, in a lot of ways KSP appears to be filling much the same role in the gaming world as Minecraft (except for multiplayer for now).

@Kuu Lightwing I thought about starting with the lab, but it's a science over time part and I wanted to make sure at least one regular experiment besides the crew/eva reports would be available. Although now that I think about it, that would be an interesting dynamic, having to get enough crew reports to fill up the lab to get science... @T-Bouw I thought about the funds issue as well, which is why I suggested that this might be more appropriate for science mode (or a career mode with the funds slider at 1000% like Renegrade suggested). And yes, the whole point of this kind of progression is to make you think completely outside the current progression box. Some good ideas here, keep it coming.

Not that I know of, but I would also appreciate such a mod if it exists, or request one if it doesn't.

@Reddeyfish This isn't strictly a reversed tech tree, the idea is more starting big and ending small, with parts set up so you at least have the basics at all times (for example, the start includes a 1.25m parachute since that's the biggest that's available, and also the materials science bay). An exception could be made for struts and fuel lines, those are support parts that are more essential on large rockets than small ones. Regular chutes are actually heavier than drogue chutes, so I it would make sense (both practically and going by largest part) to get them first.

@Aerindel, panzer1b While I agree that the stock tech tree has its issues (yay for tech tree mods), that's not really the purpose of this thread and I would really like to keep it from turning into yet another discussion of the stock tech tree. This is supposed to be a funny and not-entirely-serious discussion (although if someone actually makes a tree based on this concept things could get very serious very quickly...) on whether a tech tree starting with the biggest parts would be feasible in this game, what the progression would be like, and what kinds of Whackjobian monstrosities people would build for things like their first Mun lander since they don't have any small parts.

The other thing to remember is that the devs are basically on vacation this week, we probably won't hear much from them until at least after that.

Note: This is a somewhat silly thread. This is in no way a serious suggestion, although if someone made a tech tree based on this concept I would try it just for fun. I just had a random thought: what would the game be like if the tech tree were reversed, i.e. instead of starting with the Flea and the Mk1 pod, you started with the Mammoth and the Mk3 Cockpit? The progression would be from larger to smaller parts, so some parts would still be approximately where they are now (RTG, ion engines) but in general the progression would be essentially the opposite to what it is now. This obviously wouldn't be for a balanced playthrough (would probably need to be for a science game due to size/weight and funds), but it could make for some interesting design challenges when all you have to work with is oversized parts. A possible beginning to such a tree: Start: Mk3 Cockpit Mammoth Engine Large 3.75m Tank Mk3 to 3.75m adapter 3.75m decoupler 3.75m heatshield material science bay mk16-xl parachute And an example first craft: What are your thoughts and suggestions on how this progression could work?

@Yemo I haven't really tested my science tweaks in 1.0 yet, but the one time I loaded them up they appeared to work. The barometer tweaks are unecessary now since it looks like Squad made the vacuum experiments stock. I should have some time tomorrow to take a closer look. Also, would you be interested in supporting my stockalike hybrid boosters since PP still hasn't been updated (you could even bundle it in with SETI if you want)? The most recent version welds a 1.25 monoprop tank on an rt-10 and is retextured with a red stripe. It likely needs balancing for 1.0, but otherwise I think it still works.

Looks like I missed quite the discussion. But anyways, I support what Yemo is saying. The CTT is completely intact. Yemo didn't go in and edit their repositories. The SETI version is just another mod that happens to require the CTT as a dependency. Modders can still use the CTT as a base, and the SETI tree has the same node names so parts will find the appropriate nodes. This is exactly how modding the stock tech tree works, the only difference here is that now the CTT is the base. @Roverdude I'm not trying to get involved here, but I would like to ask that you take a step back and look at what you're saying. This is a mod, nothing more. If you don't like it how it is, as you've said yourself, don't use it (or alternatively, fork it or extend it into what you want). Attacking a mod because you don't like it is uncalled for at any time (nobody is required to use mods), and only serves to drive away those who have the most to offer this game. I know this is a stressful time for Squad and everyone else involved with the 1.0 release given the launch bugs and backlash in the forums, but we need to try to calm things down and have a reasonable discussion, not add fuel to the fire.

Hmm, this gives me an idea to make a command pod using a 2.5m service bay...

And that is exactly why so many of us love this game. I still remember when I played the 0.18 demo for the first time and got my rocket on an escape trajectory out of the solar system (which was just Kerbin and the Mun in the demo). I bought it on Steam very soon after that and have greatly enjoyed my purchase (Steam says 289 hours, no idea how many hours I've actually put into it, most of the time I launch it using a link directly to the exe). If you haven't already, take a look at the addon releases subforum, many of those mods open up entirely new options and make this feel like a completely different game. That's likely part of why I've been so disappointed by 1.0, I had an epic collection of mods that were rebalanced to work nicely together (the SETI link in my signature) and going back to stock (since 1.0 broke most of those mods and many still haven't been updated yet) feels like a big step backwards (despite all the improvements in 1.0). Almost all of the new features of 1.0 had been addressed by mods already so I'm not quite as impressed by the new feature set as someone who exclusively plays stock. Anyways, enough of my rambling. I hope Squad can glean some good ideas from all these threads once they get back from partying so they can further improve KSP in future updates.

Squad actually responded directly to speculation that lack of funds were behind the rush to 1.0, and they denied it, for whatever that's worth (I don't remember where I saw that, otherwise I would give a link). A more likely scenario in my mind is that they overcommitted themselves with various partnerships and merchandising deals (I got the impression that Maxmaps is a bit of a wheeler and dealer, in basically every devnote since 1.0 was announced he mentioned business deals) which resulted in the fixed deadline for 1.0. I've also heard rumors that Harvester was getting tired of this project (he's been working on it for over 4 years now) so it might be a combination of wanting to tie things off and various deals that resulted in the mad rush to 1.0. Still, I agree that Squad has been far too opaque on this whole process. Even the testers have said that they haven't been told what the reason for the rushed schedule was, only that there was one (and Squad hasn't even admitted that much).

Not quite Alternis Kerbol, but the same idea (and it works in 1.0 unlike the others at this point): New Horizons

@DeltaB Other than a few posts that have likely since been removed, I don't think anybody has really been blaming the QA/Experimental teams, I actually think they did a fantastic job given the circumstances. I think the point that that quote is trying to make is that Squad blew off community concerns that they were majorly rushing the release and not taking advantage of the early access community, and basically put almost godlike expectations on the testing teams. I don't think any testing team (not matter how experienced) could have lived up to those expectations given the circumstances. I see you're new to the forums (welcome!) and might not be aware of how this game has developed, but suffice to say compared to previous versions it still feels like it's in early access rather than the actual release Squad hyped it up to be, which is another major source of frustration. The game is still lacking polish in a lot of area and some of the systems (career mode) need some additional work IMHO. Still, despite everything, yes this game is awesome (that first Mun mission is always a major milestone).

@Silanda, Wooks Definitely this. While some posts (from both sides) have not been as civil as they should have been, that doesn't mean one can outright dismiss the arguments they present. Squad made some major mistakes with this release (and the events leading up to it). Much of the community is understandably upset, and with how passionate many of us are about this game there will inevitably be some posts with words that might have better been left unsaid (not to mention what I pointed out in my earlier post). While we need to keep things civil, there are some major issues here that still need to be resolved, and constructive criticism and honest discussion is a great step in that direction.

I think the mod you're looking for is Real Solar System. It makes it pretty easy to edit planet parameters using a cfg file.