ZodiusInfuser

I think you put the reply in the wrong thread . Ziw's message is from releases.

The previous version had empty nodes be invisible and relied on mod authors unhiding any relevant nodes that were needed to reach their parts. I was (and still am) in favour of this approach as it results in a clean tree, but the vocal majority wanted the entire tree to be visible instead. That's coming from the view of both a player and a modder.

There is no way to create sequences in-editor. This is due to many technical differences between in-editor and in-flight craft, and is something that may not ever be resolved.

This issue is the result of Active Texture Management. Check back a page or two for suggestions of how to overcome it. -------------------------------------------------- On the subject of this issue, I'm of the stance that this is a bug with ATM rather than the IR Rework. Unless someone can clearly identify this as being an issue I am able to fix, I'd kindly ask that from now on it be raised with the ATM team to resolve. Yes, I am aware that changing the textures to dds will overcome the issue, but that just manually does what ATM should be able to do automatically. Also, I do not have time at the moment to explore the process of changing texture formats so they will be remaining as tga for a while longer. Thanks

^ This

I realise CTT can't ensure that, but modders are generally intelligent people who care enough about their mods to spot such missing nodes and update their configs accordingly. If the concern is these trailing arrows, then Nertea could enforce a rule on modders that if their mod unlocks a node which can be reached by multiple paths it should unlock all the nodes on those paths completely even if they do not have anything to fill them. For example with Infernal Robotics, If I was to unlock Orbital Assembly from the actuator path for some really big parts in the future, I'd also need to unlock exotic alloys and nanolathing to complete the branches. This is something I'd be fine with (from a players point of view) if it meant the tech tree looked clean.

Then it's up to each mod maker to make sure that doesn't happen for their mod (as explained in the ForModders guide), or to CTT to ensure that prerequisites are ANY rather than ALL (except where its branching off stock nodes). I've already setup the configs for my mod to follow the former.

Eventually yes. I did make a start on a design, I put it on hold until I have time to focus on finalising its design and that of its variants. On an unrelated node, the next update will feature a few tweaks to the positions of parts in the tech tree and support for the Community Tech Tree, which now includes extra actuator nodes!

I continue to vote for #1. Only nodes with actual mod content in should be visible imo. For example, if I don't have a warp drive mod installed, why should I have any nodes present related to it? That just means I'll never be able to completely unlock the tree, or I waste lots of time collecting science to unnecessarily unlock them. I can live with a few dangling arrows. On an unrelated note, I missed the change in position of offworld manufacturing. The previous layout with Orbital Assembly made sense for my planned progression of Infernal Robotics with CTT, but the name and description of Offworld Manufacturing no longer matches that plan (which was essentially a place for heavy actuators). Is there the prospect of it being renamed and/or its description altered?

Why does this download replace the dummy textures that are in each parts folder? This neglects the whole reason texture sharing was implemented, to save memory.

Are you using Active Texture Management by any chance? That seems to be breaking the textures of a number of mods now.

Ok, I guess people can edit the tree to remove nodes they know are unnecessary for their install. Or perhaps some MM system where each mod says which parts of the tech tree should be enabled? I don't know if MM configs of MM configs is a thing though. Everything in the tree looks ok, but there's a few naming inconsistencies between it and the gliffy (which I assume are intentional, but thought I'd raise just in case): Advanced Nuclear Propulsion is labelled Improved Nuclear Propulsion. Not sure if intentional. Fusion Propulsion is labelled Fusion Rockets High Efficiency Nuclear Power is labelled High Energy Nuclear Power Mechatronics could probably be put back to Robotics to fit in better with its existing description

I was meaning more that I've added the tree now, and the entire propulsion section is visible even though I have nothing in those nodes, so both the in-between and end nodes are empty. Edit: For some reason Specialised Science Tech has no arrow going to it. Edit2: Nuclear Reactors is labeled as Nuclear Propulsion

Woot! Giving it a try now. I presume the stock tree modification is the reason that empty nodes are still visible? Also, Experimental Actuators should be changed to require all, rather than require any. Maybe Orbital Megastructures too?

Hi, I've noticed an issue with the recent addition of the braking force slider on stock wheels. Most of the parts have braking forces > 100, but all sliders only seem to go up to 30. This means that even if you just bring up the right-click menu on a wheel (without even touching the slider) you end up overriding its braking force, to the point where you can make it possible to drive a craft around unimpeded with brakes enabled. I originally spotted this on my custom wheel parts but have been able to reproduce in a stock install with the rover from the Rover + Skycrane craft. I'm running the Steam version of KSP 1.0 on Windows 7 64bit. Thanks, -Zodius

Am I right in thinking you tweakscaled the part, and how did you set that position? Was it via a preset you added before scaling the part down? If so I'll let the plugin guys know. -------------------------------------------------- You mean this? http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/48086-0-21-1-Docking-Strut-1-0-1-0?p=1881146&viewfull=1#post1881146 If so, then that's not Active Struts meaning my parts are not compatible. Don't worry though, Marce gave us permission to continue to use Active Struts for Infernal Robotics, and we're working on getting it compatible with 1.0. Once that happens a new Utility pack will be released.

Only for the Model Rework parts. Someone else will need to address the problem with the Legacy parts.

The latter. Active Struts was originally derived from Docking Struts. A 1.0 version of AS will be put out with the Model Rework fairly soon.

This is the wrong place to post this issue. Should be posted over in the Infernal Robotics release thread. Also this has been fixed with the latest 0.21.1 hotfix.

They are in the tech tree, around specialised construction. The next version of CTT will have new actuator nodes (at my request) so I'll be updating the Model Rework parts to use it. Whether the legacy parts get updated too is undecided.

Stock landing legs would need to have code from Infernal Robotics to allow for any attached parts to move as the leg compresses. I'd rather add the ability for four landing legs per foot than that approach. I have considered it, but I want to get reworked gantries out first as I'm not sure how necessary it will be once they're released. -------------------------------------------------- That's a very inventive rover you've got there. Great use for the rework actuators and structural parts too -------------------------------------------------- It works fine on my install, both in-editor and in-flight. Could you provide more details please?

A soft dependency on Experimental Actuators was what I was meaning. Couldn't think of the right wording to describe it. Generally these nodes are for things like... 5m structural parts. The name isn't great, so I'm open to suggestions.Since actuator parts are heavily intertwined with structural parts I think joining Exp Actuators with Orbital Assembly is fine. I imagine OA as a node for letting you build things like dry-docks, so having gantry parts in there could be suitable. As for the name the only thing that I'm not sure of is whether Orbital should be mentioned or not. I have a two comments on the other additions to the tree: Exotic Fuel Storage doesn't link to anything Artificial Intelligence coming off from Robotics seems weird to me, as robotics as a research field includes AI. Maybe the name Mechatronics would be more appropriate? It depends what peoples assumption of Robotics is, as most people do just think of the hardware side of it.

You're misinterpreting what I said. I said that experimental actuators should link up with Orbital Assembly, meaning that to unlock it either Experimental Actuators OR Meta-Materials is required, not both. I had already considered it being required but discounted it for the very reasons you listed.

I think this was always intended behaviour but it never worked right. For instance now you're able to attach the HubMAX via its side attachment node which you could never do before.

I see it now. Its nice that Actuators is no longer trapped in as it was before Would it be possible to have Experimental Actuators also require composites? For what I plan to put there it seems an advancement in materials needs to accompany it. Edit: Also could Experimental Actuators link up with Orbital Assembly? I have long term plans to do larger robotic parts, and it seems like linking to that existing path would be better than having my own of Heavy Actuators etc. Of course that depends on what the purpose or Orbital Assembly and Orbital Megastructures is, but I would think spinning habitats like in the IR release video would qualify.