MedievalNerd

Was managing MM version that hard for people? Why not simply have the .dll name include the version. IE: ModuleManagerV13.dll And if someone gets confused at that point well there is a bigger problem to begin with. I just find having all these multiple ModuleManager files everywhere will just lead to more problems. IE, people over look one of their MM files that wasn't updated or something. I just find that making a clear distinction of what version if being used can make it easy to the user to check. OK, the mod i'm downloading has 1.2 version, so i'll keep the .13 version I have. Cheers, EDIT: I see that my amazing suggestion was already cited. Oh well! Great minds think alike.

Finally got to play a little bit with the 'lite' version of this tech tree. And I'm not liking science balancing at all. The whole concept of loss of science per transmission just introduces a grind factor to the whole science collection concept. And it actually surprised me since they had stated they did not want to make science grindy. For those who don't know, science has 2 values which contribute do what makes science a grind. Each experiment has a base and a cap value. Cap value is how much science you can generate with that experiment in a given area. (with a multiplier based on location) Base value is how much of the total cap value you will be taking per experiment. So when you have an experiment that has a low amount of base, with a low transmission value. It does indeed make it a grind. Which encourages the whole transmission spam people are doing. And this is compounded when an experiment has a low % of transmission. So not only are you only getting a fraction of the total, but you can only transmit a fraction of it! Which is why you end up with quasi trivial amounts left over in some circumstances. Not only that, but it literally makes bringing back science purely optional thing. (No extra science, other than vehicle recovery) A few ideas to help these issues: #1 - Remote Tech 2 - Need viable sat network #2 - MCE - Science instruments could have a significant costs associated to them, to discourage spamming multiple experiment modules on the craft in a single mission. (Obviously this would be balanced in with my mission pack) #3 - Make experiments have matching base/cap values. So when you do your experiment you potentially have all the science that circumstance can generate. #4 - Make instrument single use per flight. So, you either keep the data and bring it back (getting 100%) or you transmit and only get a fraction. This still keeps s form of diminishing returns but at least it gives returning science more interesting. #5 - As I'm also working on the power balancing, transmitting data might shorten the lifespan of your mission depending on whether you are able to generate enough power to support transmissions energy cost. (Currently testing with 150watts per packet) As someone pointed out to me, Harvester mentioned that they wanted to make repeat experiences have 0% transmittable data within the same mission. So you'd have to bring back the rest or send another mission. Of Also, I can't wait for them to put biomes on the other bodies, since right now I'm pretty sure that Mun is houses more science points than any other body. Even though it has a multiplier of 4. (most other planets are 7+)

How heavy are those top stages? Those nuclear engines can't be light. I'm thinking you are a little ambitious with the weight you are placing on that rocket. If it's top heavy, and is that long, it exacerbates the wobbly issues for sure. I'm really curious though, how many tons? You would probably need clamps placed on those high stages as well. But since clamps are being a bit annoying in 0.22 not sure if it'll make things worse.

Actually there is 'no point' in bringing back science right now. I was under the impression that if you had 10 data units and could only transmit 70%, that 30% would be 'lost'. But it's not. You can just spam the antenna use and boom, it's done. I'm not 100% sure I understand the subtleties of this mod, but perhaps it addresses this in a way? To balance the whole stock data transmission they need to either have science instruments to be single-use.(Making the % of data loss relevant as you'd have to come back to get the % lost) Or, if you would permanently lose that data, THEN it would be a gamble. Do I go back and get 100% or sacrifice X% of my data. (This would deal with transmission spamming) It's nice to see more mods that want to deal with balance. Cheers,

I'm also very excited if that makes any sense. I can't wait to finish some tweaks here and there. And thank you! Running into some difficulties to keep science balanced and introduce some pre-orbital flights. For those who don't know, Kerbin gets it's potential science multiplied by 0.4 (0.3 on the launchpad) and Mun gets multiplied by 4. That's quite a big leap. After i'm done tweaking this, i'll be able to switch to focusing on mission creation and potentially re-tweak the tech tree for a mission controller extended. Once it's in an 'ok' state, IE, I can reach mun and not unlock he whole tree. Or perhaps the opposite I've been running in, not enough DV to get anywhere. (Using KIDS & FAR) Almost done with tweaking solar panels and the RTG. So I'll be able to put at least the static panel early on, without arbitrarily putting them further down the line since they basically give you infinite power. But doing that, beckons another tweak. Power required to transmit data. it's pretty high. 15kw per 1 data unit. I think the thermometer does 10 base data, if you do it on mun then it's 10 x 4, so 40 units of data x 15kw. Yeah, it's quite expensive power wise. I guess the devs 'balanced' it with the current power generation, rather than balance the panels themselves. So much tweaks, so scare. Unless you want to create a plugin, using something like module manager is extremely simple! Open any cfg file and you'll get an idea of the layout/how it works. Yes, KSP is a unrealistic. But we try to make it 'work'. For RTGs, one could modify his stock RTG and use the resource generation module from Kethane. Invent a resource, whatever they have in RTGs. (Not bothered to check right now , lol) And then put the consumption to something decent and boom. Like how the interstellar mod handles nuclear reactors. As for compatibility with Firespitter, might not work it's not on my list of mods. :/ One could tweak the power consumption rates to fix it. Or just remove the SP tweaks i'm doing. Although that would offset the balance of the tree a lot.

#4 - There is a flag in the science defs that allows you to not make an experiment reusable. You can tweak the % of data which is usable. No need to wait for 0.23, this can be tweaked right now. I wouldn't make all experiments have 0% transfer rate, just in case I was giving that impression. What I want is to make new experiments, which are the instrument needs to keep the data and "can't be transmitted'. Don't worry it'll get balanced in the end. It's going to take a while. Even if you would limit the use of all science instruments to a one shot per flight deal. Transmission would still have the benefit of not needing to send the vessel back. (With the use of a viable sat network (RT2)) #5 - Putting aside lifetime of RTGs, the power generated by both are way, way off. The RTG it seems to resemble the most is the SNAP-27 model. which generates 73 watts. Right now the stock RTG generates 750 watts. So it's too much by a factor of 10. There are some slight weight considerations, but in all it's clear that stock power generation is way off. Not only that, but power consumption is minimal in comparison to stock generation. As I explained in my previous post, the Solarpanel5 generates EC 0.75 / sec. That's enough to power 26 probes!! With the lowest tiered panel! In the end, this will be in a .cfg file that i'll share. So tweakable, removable at anyone's leisure. But it should be noted that balance will be taking into consideration the tweaked values. Experiences may vary if you play without. You'll see that Interstellar will be at the tip of the tree, and will have very high costs. And since this will be meant to play with Mission Controller Extended, then it'll be one thing to have the tech, but another to have the funds to use it. And in any case, you could play without it, it'll just mean that nodes which have exclusively Interstellar parts will be empty. I think that apart for a few in the electric/electronics tree line, the rest are all in propulsion at the very end.

So we can't really use DR with MCE then? Reverting your flights and all.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "scale it back later based on MC successful results?" This first version will not have any of those expensive nodes I was talking about. Here is the scenario of how/when I would use it. (Once I make a MCE specific version of the tree) I would add a tech node, before let's say manned tech line. (Capsules) Then I would put a science point cost of that node to 101,000 RP. Then, that would be tied into an MCE mission, that once completed yields 101,000 Research points. This would 'simulate' that a certain MCE mission needs to be completed before advancing to this newer section of the tech tree. (As finding 100k science points won't be possible). Right now there is no way to make an MCE mission as a requirement for a tech node. This is the best way I thought about how to do it. But before I deal with that, I want to balance the tech tree first. (in terms of which parts go where) Speaking of balance, it would be of tremendous help to know how much science is available on each planet. this would give a good indicator on how to gauge SP progression/tweaks. From what I heard/read about the stock tech tree is that it's extremely easy to fully unlock as you can make loads of science points. The stock tech tree is about 33,000 science points total to unlock. I'll definitely give that a nudge. Other tweaks: #1 - Use of Remote Tech 2. By using RT2 this will greatly limit the range of unmanned missions. (Not sure if science transmission is now dependent on a working sat relay) #2 - Whether or not FAR/KIDS/DR is used and at what setting. Sadly it appears that trying to make an 'overall' balanced tree for with or without kids is extremely difficult, see impossible. Since with the same rocket designed with FAR and KIDS set to real adjusted will yield ~1100m/s of DV, whearas the stock version will yield 3000+DV. The range in those value is so extreme that i'll have to pick for which of those combinations to balance the tree with. #3 - Including new experiments: Have Dust Experiment(Mod), and I've also added probe sensors to all probe control modules. Each probe head can do an experiment that is roughly worth 50% of a crew report. Will most likely add unmanned surface sample collection. (0% data transmit) #4 - Do we keep science experiments, repeatable or not? I'm specifically talking about how each science part can be repeatedly used until a region is drained of science. That really, really bothers me. Ideally I would like science instruments to have a number of charges (how many experiments it can carry out in 1 mission), but since that's not even close to implemented. I'd rather lean towards single experiments per module. Meaning after you've taken a sample or whatever, even if you delete/clear it you won't be able to take a new one with that specific module. You'll have to relaunch another ship and come back. #5 - Massive overhaul of solar panels. Gone are the day that the lamest solar panel could generate 45KW per min. Current blancing is it takes 4 cheap solar panels to cover the running cost of a stock probe. Stock probe average consumption is ~ 1.7 EC/minute. So why in tarnation would 1 single panel be enough to power the whole thing. Crazy. #6 - Probes overhaul. Making them different not only in shape but charge/consumption/torque. Potentially could put specific science experiments in higher end probes. (AIES) Some of these tweaks will require the .cfg file pack i'm making for this tree. (all with module manager) After literally 3 weeks of making excel sheets and tracking part id's and performance, I've just started to try and balance this whole thing. I have no doubt that depending on which mods people use it will definitely change the experience. As a few I've mentioned above. Obviously with MCE being used, and having to pay for parts you use. It'll curtail the profile of the user's space program, and rely on missions (which will be progressive) to get income. One thing is for sure, I won't be bothered to make things 'non-exploitable'. People who truly want this will be able to set themselves some house rules as to not mess with the intended progression. First focus for now is to see if I can manage to progress and unlock nodes in a timely fashion. It's a relief from spending my days looking at excel.

Using the Mission Controller Extended plugin, I'll introduce 'abnormally high costs' for certain start of nodes/key points, which will match the payout of specific missions I've started designing. Since I can't seem to make this more complex tech tree work without breaking the whole thing, I've completed a side project. Which I'm humbly calling Realistic Progression Lite. With heavy emphasis on the lite. It's definitely way more 'gamey' so to speak. I've finally put all the pieces where they belong for all the mods I'll be using. Sadly due to logistical limitations, i wasn't able to keep consistent 'flow' of the nodes, so if people try adding stuff it might pop in very bizarre places. Making progression seperate per category took literally forever. Now I can finally start play testing this beast. Using remote tech will hopefully help see how far people can go and how much science can be generated within that range. I wish someone would have been able to list how much science can be generated on kerbin, Mun, etc. that would really help figure out the pacing of science. In any case, here's the latest snapshot:

Yes, that one was put on my radar recently. And I do like how the probe parts look! There are some weird CoM on some pieces(IE on the point of origin rather than center of object), maybe they'll be fixed in a potential 0.22 update. As my update mentioned though, right now sort of at a stand-still until I can figure out, or if r4m0n wisdom can shed some light as to what's happening with bigger tech trees. Fingers crossed on all of this.

Strangely enough, even stock KSP does this as well (the weird re positioning), but not enough as to make you move. But I've been able to screw up my launch clamps by doing so.

It's an extreme version of the issue I was talking to you about. The slight 90' offset each time you switch from 'orbital' to 'polar' coordinates (With time accel). I'm saying it wrong, but you get it right? Maybe when you go to space center and go back to the vessel it's even worse than the time accel one.

Howdy everyone, Just updated the first post with some image updates on the progress of the tech tree. Although I've finally managed to figure out a specific layout that 'works', i'm running into some issues. Have a look and i'll keep you posted as the situation develops. Also included a third image with some pointers as to what is what. Since the diagram is from North to South, as opposed to in-game West to East. Cheers!

Howdy, So I've been messing around with the weird launch pad issue that makes the clamps either disconnect or the whole ship. And I realized that when the launch pad is first loaded, or when you turn off time compression, your ship will slightly move to the right. Using this "technique" I was able to literally slowly push my rocket off the launchpad. Now, I have no idea what's causing this obviously. But I was hoping that more information about the symptoms might help uncover what is causing this. Seems everytime the physics engine kicks in, it shoves things to the side. Trying to compare it to the stock way this happens, it appears that when the physics kick in, rather than applying a force that runs down the lenght of the rocket. (IE, when you appear most of the time you can see a slightly bouncing up/down going on. But with Real World, it seems to be applying it sideways. So each time you load physics the rocket gets a kick to the side. Which probably why the launch clamps hate this. I noticed that if I use a pair of launch clamps, left & right, the left one always seems to disconnect. Which seems to confirm this weird 'push to the right'. To be more precise a push towards the 90' heading. Still, using Nathan's tip of using a decoupler with struts as a "base", in combination with Ferams new plugin with stability joints, it seems launching rockets isn't impossible anymore. Hopefully this is somewhat helpful.

Holy mother of kerbals, must try now.

Yes, "part name" you want to change, not it's title. Glad you worked it out.

Oh! You actually made a module, I thought this was a new tech tree. Interesting. Must have took a while to get all the parts listed! Made a master list of those mods and a few more, and it literally took me 30 hours. This isn't compatible with TreeLoader though. (Just as an FYI for people using this)

I'm not sure I understand your request. Are you looking for a way to create vessels elsewhere than on the launch pad, but have it be incrementally generated on this new part? Perhaps not what you are exactly looking for but there is already a mod that allows to have offworld building sites, which uses resources that you mine, refine then manufacture into 'rocket parts' which can then be turned into a craft when you have enough fuel, parts and electrical charge. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/35217-0-22-Extraplanetary-Launchpads-v3-3-0-22-compatible Cheers,

Are you using TreeLoader? If you are, that could be a problem. And when referring to the name, I'm assuming you changed the Partname, not just the title correct? EDIT: Already confirmed stuff I suggested. The fact you seem to have 4 permutations of the item is pretty weird. Are you sure you didn't keep any extra version in the Game Data folder? IE, the zip file, and different folders? That would cause you to have dupe items, and maybe screw up how the game registers if the part is available. Cheers,

Try to make a probe with science instruments, battery and it's hard to get something lighter much lighter than 150kg. And stuff pre 1969 had some pretty lightweight probes. I guess it depends how far back you want to go. EDIT: True that using Stayputnik, you can get away with 90kg with 1 small battery, all science instruments and 2 RT antennas. (for symmetry sake )

I tend to prefer TAC since it can track remote consumption of life support. So when your kerbals are in a passive vessel, they don't suddenly have infinite LS. You should check out earth-sized kerbin too! Now with Mun & Minmus.

How many launches did it take to get that whole thing in orbit? It looks enormous! I'm working on resizing various probe parts ~0.5, so that we can launch probes with decent sized rockets. Probes tend to be quite heavy when you build them with 0.625m parts. (relatively speaking) Considering how light probes/satellites are, it just feels right.

Launching takes 10 minutes? Using the mod? That's a pretty long time for launching something.

Yes, from what I understand it does seem to be far related. Ferram posted yesterday that with the tweaks he's working on for RW Kerbin, almost removed the entire wobble. He had a rocket that looked like a Titan or something, and he said he only needed 2 connection struts... like wow. (Check in the previous posts, it's worth a look.) Also, check out the tip I edited in my last reply. Cheers,

I think your Kerbals are committing suicide because of the music... Try without launching clamps, apparently they are murder right now. I often get them offset and it really causes massive stress throughout the rocket. Actually Nathan suggested something to last night. Instead of launching clamps, take the largest decoupler you have, use it as a base. And attach to it radial girders that extend outwards. It'll acts a more "stable" base. Depending on how you build it, results may vary. (obviously) Cheers,