Nertea

Yes, as long as CTT is not installed. I haven't figured out a good way around that yet.

This could probably get closed, as there's now a release.

Good progress on the IVA so far. Layout has gone well and I'm unwrapping bits as well as detailing. Going for a similar look to TB2's cockpit as well, so no complaining The lower area has a door leading to the airlock and theoretically through to the front hatch. Visibility is pretty nice and it fits the kerbals quite well with lots of room. It's a large cockpit. Large large.

KSP 1.12.x Community Tech Tree [3.4.5] Last Updated August 13, 2024 The Community Tech Tree is a mod designed to extend the stock technology tree to accommodate many community mods in an inclusive and extensible manner. This takes the form of expansions to the current tech tree. It provides new and extended branches for command pods, thermal management, ion engines, nuclear power and propulsion, and many more useful nodes. You'll need to install ModuleManager version 2.7.1 or higher, if you don't already have it, in order to extend the tree. The Community Tech Tree will not assign parts to mods itself, instead, it is up to mods to support it themselves. Any mod that does not support the CTT will still work just fine, it will just not take advantage of new tech nodes that are added. If a mod you like doesn't support the tree, let the author know, or produce your own patch to add support. The best way to to do this is via ModuleManager patches. See the guide for details If you are a modder, you can link to this little icon if your mod supports or bundles the CTT: Frequently Asked Questions Q: Why do I see so many empty nodes! A: Because of the current state of KSP tech tree modding. There are compromises to having empty nodes hidden (little lines leading to nowhere). Q: I hate the empty nodes, how do I get rid of them? A: I suggest you use @ev0's mod, Hide Empty Tech Tree Nodes. Q: How do I fill up the empty nodes? A: Find mods that support the tree. Q: I want to add a new node for my mod, can you add it? A: To avoid tree bloat (a problem in the past), I have a strict requirement that at minimum 2 mods must want a node before I will consider adding it. Take your node idea, talk to other relevant mod authors to see if they'd use it, then come to me with approvals from the stakeholders and we will work towards that. Q: Why isn't this realistic? There's still manned pods first! A: The goal of this project is not to redo the tech tree, it's to extend it Q: How do I add my mod to the CTT? A: Consult the ForModders.txt in the download for full instructions. Q: How do I get mods to fill up every node? A: Dig around/ I provide a framework and the information in the thread - there is no "complete list" or anything. Q: How much science does it take to unlock the tree? A: Lots! I don't have exact numbers for 2.0+. Q: I supported the CTT but I'm not on that list up there! A: PM me or post here, I'll make sure you're on the list. Unfortunately I don't have time to scrape lots of mods for their status. Supported Mods Near Future Technologies (all packs) [adds to ion propulsion, construction, structural, rocketry, command pods, solar, atmospheric and nuclear power branches] Stockalike Station Parts Expansion Redux [adds to construction and habitation branches] Cryogenic Engines [adds to Rocketry branch] Kerbal Atomics [adds to Nuclear Propulsion branch] Heat Control [adds to Heat management branch] KSP Interstellar Extended [adds to many branches and late game tech nodes] SpaceY Heavy Lifters [adds to Rocketry branch] Modular Rocket Systems [adds to Rocketry branch] USI Life Support [adds to Life Support branch] USI OKS/MKS [adds to construction, colonization, life support and much more] Alcubierre Warp Drive [adds to warp drive nodes] Infernal Robotics Next [adds to actuator nodes] Licensing This work is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 license. Download Mirrors Primary (SpaceDock) Secondary (CurseForge) Tertiary (GitHub) Issue Tracking and Source If you appreciate this project, please consider contributing to my caffeine addiction! I really appreciate it, and also helps justify this time sink to my wife , which results directly in more models.

Excellent, I hope to deploy a release soon.

My favorite tech tree tree I've ever used was the Blind Research option in Alpha Centauri. It's broadly similar to the categorical research suggestion here. There was a tech "tree" of stupid complexity (here), but you put your research points into one of four general areas - Build (expansion and base stuff), Conquer (guns and armour), Explore (mobility and ecology), Discover(pure science). You could focus on one, two, three or distribute points equally to all four. Technologies belonged to each of the groups and groups were scattered everywhere. When you got enough research points, you'd get a tech that would be roughly based on your available links in the tree and your selection of areas - full focus on Conquer would usually get a Conquer tech, or a prereq to a next Conquer tech. Techs were relatively fluid in terms of categorization, sometimes a Discover tech might give you a weapon, or be required for a military discovery later on. It was very flexible, there were never dead ends, and most full games I played didn't have exactly the same route. I would love to see something like this for KSP! It would combine a structured tree-based approach with flexible path, and add the "no career is quite the same" thing that I think is lacking right now.

That's just LH2 though. It's dead simple (ratio = 1.0). If you want to do LH2+LOX (which I suspect he does), I don't have a reference myself for it.

Bleh, I'll nuke the nodes with the FAR cfg next version then. You'll just have to load the bay without guidance.

Much better. I don't know if you saw my post in the CTT thread (should probably have made it here), but are you planning on implementing that HideIfPointless flag? If so, I would really endorse it.

Someone mentioned that opening and closing the bays should fix the drag.

I believe that I used a similar method with the costs, but instead got RL prices for LH2 and Kerosene, and did ratios that way. I seem to remember the result sucking and decreasing the price a wee bit. There are probably many liquid hydrogen rockets in packs associated with RealFuels or Realism Overhaul. Sorry, I don't have any offhand, all of mine are electric and the ratio establishment is different there.

You can't just take actual fuel densities and put them in KSP without normalizing all the volume units which are terribly inconsistent in stock. That's for RealFuels to do, not CRP. To derive a KSPish value for LH2, I assumed that LiquidFuel is Kerosene, and worked from there. LH2 density: 70 kg/m Kerosene density ~800 kg/m3 That's a ratio of 0.0875, stock LiquidFuel has a density of 0.005, so applying the ratio we get 0.0004375. Rounded to 0.0004 for nicer numbers. So it's correct in a relative sense only, you'll need RF to get properly scientific numbers.

Yes Anyways, it's late so there's probably a bug or two. But I'll release this anyways, I'll be too busy to work on it for a few days so might as well let you all play around with it: Prerelease 3 Can no longer attach parts to cargo bay doors Some minor tweaking of part masses Textured Mk4 blunt nose (now called the Mk4 "Iguana" Adapter) Remodeled and textured Mk4 Tail Cargo Bay New part: Mk4 "Armadillo" Adapter (sharp nose cone) New part: Mk4 Crew Cabin (note: hatches untested, EVA at own risk) New part: Mk4 Drone Core/Reaction Wheel That actually concludes my first planned list. Time to tackle the cockpit internals...

Isn't that what the service compartment is for? Stuff as many batteries as you like in? This will have some charge storage (~50) but I don't really intend to model batteries and put them in... unless there is an overwhelming outcry. Yeah, that's true, particularly as doubled cargo and fuel sections will probably add at least two (and possibly up to four) 2048x2048 textures. I will do it eventually, but not for first release.

I saw this last night in IMAX and quite enjoyed it. The Good: The entire first act (on Earth) was very solid. Beautiful space vistas and general effects work. Loved the bit when they were spinning around the wormhole, and approaching the black hole. The sound work. Very great, loved the rocket launch vs space contrast. Surprise Matt Daemon! Totally unexpected, and he carried out his role really quite well! The third act, with its slowly building dissonant organ music, had me on the edge of my seat The Bad: The pacing of the second act was all over the place, essentially from the entrance into the wormhole until Surprise Matt Daemon showed up. Some questionable dialogue in places that was cringe-worthy, particularly the two sections about love conquering all, which seemed quite forced from the actors involved. The Ugly: How motion sick it made my wife I think it falls short of Inception and Memento in terms of Nolan movies, but it was certainly very enjoyable, and probably the best thing I've seen this year (not saying much considering the quality of this year's films)...

Glad ya like. I've never seen half length suggested... it's actually easier to do than double-length (and I have enough space on the fuselage texture to do it without any increase in texture size), so maybe. But not until after double-length. That version of the tail bay would be tough to do, there's not enough clearance for 1.25m nodes on the sides, so it would have to be completely redone. Eh... I'm sure Porkjet will have something great. I feel saddened by this somewhat, because I suspect that the parts will be obsolete soon after I've released them, but hey, I had fun.

anonish, do you have plans to implement that hideIfPointless business anytime soon? If so, I'd like to wait for it, if not, well, this is almost ready for prime time.

Drone core/reaction wheel (shamelessly duplicated off of the Mk2 one), crew cabin. I think I finally have a tail cargo bay that I like too. Unwrapped the two last adapters, have to texture them, then I'll unwrap the tailbay and then new release!

Must have missed that, or I would have clamoured for it loudly. Yes please . I'd hope that I could place it such that people who install properly would just have an overwrite occurring. Incorrect placement of my mods generally breaks them due to texture sharing, resulting in at least one unnecessary support post/PM/email per week for me, so I already have no sympathy for people who don't follow install instructions.

I don't want you to bundle CTT with TM, just the other way around . That being said, it's your product, so if you're against that bundling then I'll do something else for sure.

I think my opinion is that we should bundle TechManager but not ModuleManager. I think my reasoning here is that yes, this is basically a single cfg, but to improve uptake, it would be nice if people looking through the forums get the whole package to run the tree with a single download. I don't mind updating the package when TechManager gets updated, or every KSP version (because I'll need to anyways, they seem to like to make one minor annoying tweak at least to the tree every version). New question: are nodes hide-when-empty, or are they always shown? Hidden is cleaner if less mods are installed, but runs the risk of creating unreachable nodes if a mod uses a non-accessible node. Always shown will have nodes always accessible, but it's not as clean looking. Hey, not bad ideas, but (re 1 and 2) adding too many dependencies could be bad. Let's examine the first one - that would mean that KSPI would need to populate all those nodes to get to warp drives. This may or may not happen, and probably wouldn't in the case of advanced aerospace composites. The last option is interesting, but I'm against adding quite single-purpose simple nodes like that. Might as well not even have those nodes if they only cost a tiny bit. Thanks for the input!

Huh, that is indeed a critical thing that I hadn't considered.

I guess what I want is for there to be a minimum of effort required by the end user and the modders who want to add support for their projects. It would be nice if the only extra thing I had to ship to support CTT was a single cfg file for each mod detailing the changes in the TechRequired field.

I do... but not one that I'm very happy with. If you look through the NFT parts they're quite varied; if you see one you like I'll see about providing the psd for it. I sadly am lacking in time these days. I have remodeled the aft cargo bay, remodeled the end caps for the fuel tanks (they sucked) and started on the few remaining basic parts. There's nothing worth showing quite yet though.

Yeah I've got no issues now. Re: distribution, I'm wondering what to bundle. Some people are very against bundling, but I'm not, so... haha. Opinions? The two requirements are going to be TechManager and MM, should we bundle one, both, or none? -edit: there's a repo now, feel free to peruse, comment and make ye olde pulle requestes.