[v1.0.0] The Skyhawk Science System - a new BDB-focused tech tree

[Cubefish00]

I was working on creating my own tech tree, but yours ticks all the boxes I was looking for. Good job so far man, this looks like it is going to be awesome!

[CessnaSkyhawk]

Just want to give an update on how things are going - irl I've been in a pretty busy stretch, but I've still been making some progress with the science rebalance. It's going to take a bit longer than originally planned but I'm hoping to have a playable beta out sometime in the next few weeks.

[CessnaSkyhawk]

I have a question for people that will help me decide science balance. What are people's opinions on how many times an experiment needs to be run to provide full science value? In stock, a lot of the experiments require multiple runs (eg you have to visit a situation at least 2-3 times) to get the full science data, but in a lot of modded tech trees, they bring it down to getting all the science in one run. I'm just wondering what one people tend to prefer.  I'm thinking that making it require multiple visits to get the full science for some experiments, so that you are encouraged to send multiple interplanetary flybys or orbiters (like in real life where its not just a one and done visit).  Naturally, if this is the case the total science available would be increased to make up for the reduced gain for each visit. (eg the current science reward rn is 16, so I'd make the total available reward something like 24 or 32, but the max amount obtainable at once 16, so you have to send two cameras up to get the full result.) This is specifically used for the custom experiments I use to encourage launching things like Comsats or the Transit Sats, but I'm also wondering about how people think I should do it for normal ones,

Edited November 24, 2021 by CessnaSkyhawk

[610yesnolovely]

2 minutes ago, CessnaSkyhawk said:

I have a question for people that will help me decide science balance. What are people's opinions on how many times an experiment needs to be run to provide full science value? In stock, a lot of the experiments require multiple runs (eg you have to visit a situation at least 2-3 times) to get the full science data, but in a lot of modded tech trees, they bring it down to getting all the science in one run. I'm just wondering what one people tend to prefer.  I'm thinking that making it require multiple visits to get the full science for some experiments, so that you are encouraged to send multiple interplanetary flybys or orbiters (like in real life where its not just a one and done visit).  Naturally, if this is the case the total science available would be increased to make up for the reduced gain for each visit. (eg the current science reward rn is 16, so I'd make the total available reward something like 24 or 32, but the max amount obtainable at once 16, so you have to send two cameras up to get the full result.)

Looking forward to trying out this out.

I'd prefer the system where non-sample based experiments are always 100% on transmit/recovery, but sample based is only 100% on recovery, but much less (eg 50%) on transmit. Anything that requires a Kerbal to do (or reset), or is sample based should be more science points. That way if you send a probe you can do lots of biomes/situations with transmissions, but in total that'd only be about third of the total possible science somewhere (eg. Duna), so you have have a probe with return to get third more, and send a Kerbal to get the last third (roughly). That way the repetition is not tediously doing the same thing, but a different kind of mission/build.

[MoeKitsune]

14 hours ago, CessnaSkyhawk said:

I have a question for people that will help me decide science balance. What are people's opinions on how many times an experiment needs to be run to provide full science value? In stock, a lot of the experiments require multiple runs (eg you have to visit a situation at least 2-3 times) to get the full science data, but in a lot of modded tech trees, they bring it down to getting all the science in one run. I'm just wondering what one people tend to prefer.  I'm thinking that making it require multiple visits to get the full science for some experiments, so that you are encouraged to send multiple interplanetary flybys or orbiters (like in real life where its not just a one and done visit).  Naturally, if this is the case the total science available would be increased to make up for the reduced gain for each visit. (eg the current science reward rn is 16, so I'd make the total available reward something like 24 or 32, but the max amount obtainable at once 16, so you have to send two cameras up to get the full result.) This is specifically used for the custom experiments I use to encourage launching things like Comsats or the Transit Sats, but I'm also wondering about how people think I should do it for normal ones,

I, for one, would love to see this in KSP, but I think it should be optional. This probably isn't everyone's cup of tea, but having it available for those who like it would make career mode more interesting.

[Friznit]

5 hours ago, MoeKitsune said:

I, for one, would love to see this in KSP, but I think it should be optional. This probably isn't everyone's cup of tea, but having it available for those who like it would make career mode more interesting.

Seconding this.  It would work particularly well with a BDB-specific tree, as there are many duplicate experiments and it would encourage sending more advanced probes on follow up missions.  Early probes provide a partial and proportionally lower % of the science available for a given experiment (which is OK, as you don't need so much science in the early tree anyway) and you need to send a follow up with more advanced tech to capture the remaining science.  Finally a use for all those magnetometers!

[CessnaSkyhawk]

On 11/25/2021 at 1:11 AM, MoeKitsune said:

I, for one, would love to see this in KSP, but I think it should be optional. This probably isn't everyone's cup of tea, but having it available for those who like it would make career mode more interesting.

On 11/25/2021 at 6:42 AM, Friznit said:

Seconding this.  It would work particularly well with a BDB-specific tree, as there are many duplicate experiments and it would encourage sending more advanced probes on follow up missions.  Early probes provide a partial and proportionally lower % of the science available for a given experiment (which is OK, as you don't need so much science in the early tree anyway) and you need to send a follow up with more advanced tech to capture the remaining science.  Finally a use for all those magnetometers!

What I've ended up settling on is that for most experiments, I multiplied the total science available by 1.5. This means that one run of an experiment will give you 66% of the total science value. This is what the tree is balanced around, so theoretically, you can get by with just one run, and that last 33% is "bonus" science which you get as a reward for coming back later to finish it up. This gives people a reason to keep sending missions and using all the duplicate science parts, but at the same time doesn't force those people who hate repetition to have to do it to progress.  I could have a playable beta out this weekend, for people who want to test all this, but that'd mean that I wouldn't have a chance to do basic playthrough testing myself to make sure there's no major flaws I've skipped over. If people are fine with that, than I'll see what I can do to get it out, but if people would rather wait for me to do some private testing first, then it'll probably be another week.

In other news, I'm proud to say the the Skyhawk Science System was a honorable mention for this month's thread of the month competition! I'm really glad to hear that people like my work so much that they're nominating it for TOTM, and I hope that as we get closer to release, that I'll continue to keep meeting all your expectations! And to the person (or people) who nominated me, thank you so much for the honor! 

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by CessnaSkyhawk

[MoeKitsune]

On 12/1/2021 at 7:19 PM, CessnaSkyhawk said:

What I've ended up settling on is that for most experiments, I multiplied the total science available by 1.5. This means that one run of an experiment will give you 66% of the total science value. This is what the tree is balanced around, so theoretically, you can get by with just one run, and that last 33% is "bonus" science which you get as a reward for coming back later to finish it up. This gives people a reason to keep sending missions and using all the duplicate science parts, but at the same time doesn't force those people who hate repetition to have to do it to progress.  I could have a playable beta out this weekend, for people who want to test all this, but that'd mean that I wouldn't have a chance to do basic playthrough testing myself to make sure there's no major flaws I've skipped over. If people are fine with that, than I'll see what I can do to get it out, but if people would rather wait for me to do some private testing first, then it'll probably be another week.

In other news, I'm proud to say the the Skyhawk Science System was a honorable mention for this month's thread of the month competition! I'm really glad to hear that people like my work so much that they're nominating it for TOTM, and I hope that as we get closer to release, that I'll continue to keep meeting all your expectations! And to the person (or people) who nominated me, thank you so much for the honor! 

 

I think having a beta sooner would be the best, but then again, I'm impatient. It could help you find more bugs though.

[CessnaSkyhawk]

10 hours ago, MoeKitsune said:

I think having a beta sooner would be the best, but then again, I'm impatient. It could help you find more bugs though.

Alright - I think I might just bite the bullet and get it out ASAP. It's basically ready for beta-testing, and the only reason its not fully out is because I'm a perfectionist and can't decide on like two super minor things (the data size of the starter experiments and whether or not the starter rockets need to be nerfed somehow, although the later isn't really even something I control... )

[CessnaSkyhawk]

Skyhawk Science System v0.9.0 - BETA #1

https://github.com/CessnaSkyhawk/SkyhawkScienceSystem/releases

This release marks the first beta of the Skyhawk Science System. Now that science balance is partially complete, the tree is at the point where the main focus switches from functionality and mod support to worrying about balance of tech levels, science experiments, and the like. There are certainly still plenty of bees, and a lot of things remain unfinished (Localization and UI in particularly still require quite a bit of work, and will likely produce some harmless errors in the log), but at this point, theoretically, one should be able to actually use the tree in real saves. I've only corrected science modifiers for Kerbin, the Mun, and Minmus so far, as I'm planning to use the response from this first beta to get an idea how things should be set over all. Things are definitely not fully balanced yet, and there's already a few big changes I know I need to make, but I figure it's about time to see how the rest of the KSP community thinks of it so far.

As of this point, the tech tree requires the following mods as hard dependencies:

• B9PartSwitch
• Bluedog Design Bureau (and all of its dependencies)
• Community Resource Pack
• Module Manager
• Science Param Editor
• Stock KSP (kinda a given, but better safe than sorry )

I also highly recommend Rational Resources in order to get the full functionality of tank switching, ISRU, and some custom fuel cells. Aside from that, check out the Mod Support tab on the github Issues page to see the current list of mods supported - if it has a check, next to it, it should work. I wouldn't recommend going all in with every single one (trust me, I did, and while it works fine, it takes forever to load), but instead just to select a few. IMO some of the better options are all of Nertea's mods, Coatl Aerospace, AirplanePlus, Kerbal Planetary Base System, reDirect, and Tundra Exploration, but that's only a small selection of the available options.

If you are testing the beta, and notice some errors, please feel free to open an issue on this repository to let me know what you've found. For any balance issues or comments, I'll make one specific issue thread where we can discuss, or you are also welcome to just make a comment on the KSP forums as well - either way is fine by me! I'm a bit nervous finally releasing this beta, but I've got high hopes that it'll work out well!

[bigyihsuan]

OOO very nice, congrats on beta release!

Once finals are over I'll go and start a new save and check this out.

How's the compatibility for Procedural Parts/Fairings? With a 6.4x system (+ Real Fuels) I've found I've been relying on Procedural Tanks quite a bit to get the dV I need.

[CessnaSkyhawk]

11 hours ago, bigyihsuan said:

OOO very nice, congrats on beta release!

Once finals are over I'll go and start a new save and check this out.

How's the compatibility for Procedural Parts/Fairings? With a 6.4x system (+ Real Fuels) I've found I've been relying on Procedural Tanks quite a bit to get the dV I need.

Currently there isn't any support for either... I've got a feeling it likely won't work nicely with procedural parts & real fuels due to how the implementation of hypergolic engines work. I plan on posting a list of supported mods later today now that I'm getting the thread reorganized to handle beta stuff

Here's the list of the current mod support: https://github.com/CessnaSkyhawk/SkyhawkScienceSystem/wiki/Mod-Support

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by CessnaSkyhawk
Added List of Supported Mods

[MoeKitsune]

Found a small issue with BDB contracts. Since they require certain vanilla techs to be unlocked, they don't work with the tech tree. Already mentioned this in the BDB thread, but I thought I would also put it here.

[CessnaSkyhawk]

6 hours ago, MoeKitsune said:

Found a small issue with BDB contracts. Since they require certain vanilla techs to be unlocked, they don't work with the tech tree. Already mentioned this in the BDB thread, but I thought I would also put it here.

Alright I’ll make a note about that and see what I can do. 

[Kuiper_Belt]

I've played around with the beta in career and so far I've been loving it! The progression feels really nice and it really revitalized my love for science and career mode! Here is one of my early rockets right there.

If you are still taking requests for mods I would suggest integration for Modular Launch Pads and then the BDB Apollo Beta.

Overall I've been loving it and I cant wait to play more! Keep up the fantastic work!  

 

[CessnaSkyhawk]

19 hours ago, Kuiper_Belt said:

I've played around with the beta in career and so far I've been loving it! The progression feels really nice and it really revitalized my love for science and career mode! Here is one of my early rockets right there.

If you are still taking requests for mods I would suggest integration for Modular Launch Pads and then the BDB Apollo Beta.

Overall I've been loving it and I cant wait to play more! Keep up the fantastic work!  

 

I’m glad to hear your enjoying it! Based on the image I’m assuming you’re using KSRSS. I haven’t balanced science multipliers for that planet pack yet (technically I haven’t done it for any planet pack yet aside from stock kerbin mun and minmus) so I’m interested as to how the tech progression flows - is progression pretty reasonable for it even with their stock values? 

Modular Launch Pads support is planned, it shouldn’t be too hard to do as it’s mostly just repositioning all its parts into a specific launch-pads node, so I’ll see if I can add it in to the next beta update (ideally sometime tomorrow or Monday).  BDB Apollo support is already set up on GitHub, and it’ll be included in that same upcoming beta as well!

[Kuiper_Belt]

47 minutes ago, CessnaSkyhawk said:

I’m glad to hear your enjoying it! Based on the image I’m assuming you’re using KSRSS. I haven’t balanced science multipliers for that planet pack yet (technically I haven’t done it for any planet pack yet aside from stock kerbin mun and minmus) so I’m interested as to how the tech progression flows - is progression pretty reasonable for it even with their stock values? 

Modular Launch Pads support is planned, it shouldn’t be too hard to do as it’s mostly just repositioning all its parts into a specific launch-pads node, so I’ll see if I can add it in to the next beta update (ideally sometime tomorrow or Monday).  BDB Apollo support is already set up on GitHub, and it’ll be included in that same upcoming beta as well!

You're right on the money with KSRSS! The balancing has been perfectly fine for me as of now so a wait for custom science balancing  shouldn't be a concern. Can't wait to play with the next Beta! I can't overstate how much this mod has revitalized my love for career mod playthroughs!

[Kwebib]

This looks good. Always interested in seeing new tech trees. Have you considered incorporating upgrades like Kiwi Tech Tree did? I really enjoyed that feature, and KTT was probably my favorite tech tree.

Also, I'm curious, can you briefly talk about what you didn't like in KTT?

[MoeKitsune]

2 more things I found out that might need some tweaking: The communications satellite science experiment uses a lot of power to transmit, and for at least one BDB probe it can't fully transmit the data without extra batteries or maybe another antenna. Also there's like 20 instances of the Barquetta probe bus in the slot where it's researched, but that's more of a minor thing.

Also, will you add in support for the new BDB update in the next beta?

[bigyihsuan]

I did some research regarding what would be needed to rejigger Procedural Parts/Fairings for this tech tree.

I've found that the following parts need to be moved from these nodes:

Spoiler

// FAIRINGS //
RSBRibbedBase : aerodynamicSystems
RSBRibbedBase_Interstage : aerodynamicSystems
RSBTrussBase : aerodynamicSystems
RSBTrussBase_Interstage : aerodynamicSystems
SSTUBase : aerodynamicSystems
SSTUBase_Interstage : aerodynamicSystems
SSTUHollowRing : aerodynamicSystems
SSTUHollowRing_Interstage : aerodynamicSystems
KzInterstageAdapter2 : advConstruction
KzResizableFairingBaseRing : aerodynamicSystems
KzResizableFairingBase : aviation
KzProcFairingSide1 : aviation
KzThrustPlate : advConstruction

// PARTS //
proceduralBattery : basicScience
proceduralHeatshield : survivability
proceduralNoseCone : stability
proceduralStackDecoupler : engineering101
proceduralStructural : advConstruction
proceduralTankLiquid : basicRocketry
proceduralTankRCS : advFuelSystems
proceduralTankXenon : ionPropulsion
proceduralTankSRB : start
proceduralTankOre : advScienceTech

 

And these upgrades would need to have their tech changed to the "proper" nodes:

Spoiler

// FAIRINGS //
FairingBaseMin0_4m : miniaturization
FairingBaseMax2_75m : specializedConstruction
FairingBaseMax4m : advConstruction
FairingBaseMax12m : heavyAerodynamics
FairingBaseMaxUnlimited : experimentalAerodynamics
ThrustPlateMax12m : metaMaterials
ThrustPlateMaxUnlimited : aerospaceTech

// PARTS //
ProceduralPartsTank1500L : generalRocketry
ProceduralPartsTank2500L : advRocketry
ProceduralPartsTankAviation : aviation
ProceduralPartsTank20000L : fuelSystems
ProceduralPartsTank37000L : advFuelSystems
ProceduralPartsTank45000L : largeVolumeContainment
ProceduralPartsTank85000L : highPerformanceFuelSystems
ProceduralPartsTankMiniaturization : propulsionSystems
ProceduralPartsTankUnlimited : metaMaterials
ProceduralPartsTankOre1 : experimentalScience
ProceduralPartsNoseCone1.5M : aerodynamicSystems
ProceduralPartsNoseCone2.5M : advConstruction
ProceduralPartsNoseConeUnlimited : aerospaceTech
ProceduralPartsBattery300 : electrics
ProceduralPartsBattery600 : advElectrics
ProceduralPartsBattery2400 : largeElectrics
ProceduralPartsBattery4800 : specializedElectrics
ProceduralPartsBatteryUnlimited : experimentalElectrics
ProceduralPartsDecoupler3m : generalConstruction
ProceduralPartsDecoupler4.5m : specializedConstruction
ProceduralPartsDecoupler0.125m : precisionEngineering
ProceduralPartsDecouplerUnlimited : metaMaterials
ProceduralPartsHeatshield3m : landing
ProceduralPartsHeatshield5m : advLanding
ProceduralPartsHeatshield0.125m : precisionEngineering
ProceduralPartsHeatshieldUnlimited : metaMaterials
ProceduralPartsSRB3m : basicRocketry
ProceduralPartsSRB10kL : generalRocketry
ProceduralPartsSRBDiam3m : heavyRocketry
ProceduralPartsSRB40kL : heavierRocketry
ProceduralPartsSRB50kL : veryHeavyRocketry
ProceduralPartsSRBUnlimited : metaMaterials

 

These are the nodes on the vanilla tree that the parts and upgrades are assigned to. I'm not sure which nodes on your tree correspond to these vanilla nodes (I should go look into that), but I would recommend placing the parts where it's logical to unlock them, and the upgrades where the BDB/vanilla/etc parts are equivalent or superior to the Procedural Parts if the upgrade was in that node.

[RKunze]

I just started a new save to try out this tech tree, and spent an hour just exploring the tree in the R&D facility. I already love that tree. Great work so far!

I happen to have Modular Launchpads installed, and noticed that the "usual" nodes for Modular Launchpads (to the left of the starting node) already show up in the tree, but are still empty. I know that Modular Launchpad is only on your mod support roadmap for 1.0, but I very much like to play with proper launchpads from the get-go, and would be more than willing to submit a PR for Modular Launchpad support. If you do not have other plans, I'd put the "AM_MLP_MilkstoolLaunchstand1" into the starting node (to have something to launch that first sounding rocket from), and move the other parts into the appropriate Modular Launchpad nodes - is that OK with you?

I also play with Kerbalism, and would be more than happy to playtest the Kerbalism science support as it is implemented.

[CessnaSkyhawk]

9 hours ago, Kwebib said:

This looks good. Always interested in seeing new tech trees. Have you considered incorporating upgrades like Kiwi Tech Tree did? I really enjoyed that feature, and KTT was probably my favorite tech tree.

Also, I'm curious, can you briefly talk about what you didn't like in KTT?

I’m planning on incorporating one or two upgrade types from KTT, specifically the SAS one in particular, but definitely not to the same level as KTT. One of my big concerns about KTT was that at least for me, it seemed like there were too many moving parts because of all the upgrades and that led to a bunch of funky interactions and bugs that were hard to work around. Aside from that, I just felt like a decent portion of the upgrades really didn’t generate the interesting decisions that they seemed like they were suppose to, as the new ones were always typically better in nearly every way.  It also just got a little overwhelming at times IMO. That’s why with SSS I focus more on things like the hypergolic fuels instead. I feel like it’s more interesting to have to make a decision between fuel types, but at the same time I try to keep it very simple by only having one (technically two for cyro with H2 and CH4, but I digress) fuel type for each class, as it keeps things straightforward while still adding an interesting and realistic dynamic to your rocket designs. 

8 hours ago, MoeKitsune said:

2 more things I found out that might need some tweaking: The communications satellite science experiment uses a lot of power to transmit, and for at least one BDB probe it can't fully transmit the data without extra batteries or maybe another antenna. Also there's like 20 instances of the Barquetta probe bus in the slot where it's researched, but that's more of a minor thing.

Also, will you add in support for the new BDB update in the next beta?

Alright - I’ll investigate the COMSAT experiment issue, that should be a minor tweak. As for the Barquetta, I believe that’s a glitch due to the fact that Coatl is currently transitioning between models for that part, so there’s two different parts with the same exact name, which really confuses the tech tree UI. I’ll se if there’s anything I can do about it, but I’ve got a feeling it’s on Coatl Aerospace’s side. 

As for BDB, ideally the majority of the new parts should already be supported - I did an update with all the parts in the master branch about a week ago, so I assume most of the parts in the release are already placed - I'll check on it tho. BDB Apollo/Saturn parts will be supported in the next beta as well.

8 hours ago, bigyihsuan said:

I did some research regarding what would be needed to rejigger Procedural Parts/Fairings for this tech tree.

I've found that the following parts need to be moved from these nodes:

  Reveal hidden contents

// FAIRINGS //
RSBRibbedBase : aerodynamicSystems
RSBRibbedBase_Interstage : aerodynamicSystems
RSBTrussBase : aerodynamicSystems
RSBTrussBase_Interstage : aerodynamicSystems
SSTUBase : aerodynamicSystems
SSTUBase_Interstage : aerodynamicSystems
SSTUHollowRing : aerodynamicSystems
SSTUHollowRing_Interstage : aerodynamicSystems
KzInterstageAdapter2 : advConstruction
KzResizableFairingBaseRing : aerodynamicSystems
KzResizableFairingBase : aviation
KzProcFairingSide1 : aviation
KzThrustPlate : advConstruction

// PARTS //
proceduralBattery : basicScience
proceduralHeatshield : survivability
proceduralNoseCone : stability
proceduralStackDecoupler : engineering101
proceduralStructural : advConstruction
proceduralTankLiquid : basicRocketry
proceduralTankRCS : advFuelSystems
proceduralTankXenon : ionPropulsion
proceduralTankSRB : start
proceduralTankOre : advScienceTech

 

And these upgrades would need to have their tech changed to the "proper" nodes:

  Reveal hidden contents

// FAIRINGS //
FairingBaseMin0_4m : miniaturization
FairingBaseMax2_75m : specializedConstruction
FairingBaseMax4m : advConstruction
FairingBaseMax12m : heavyAerodynamics
FairingBaseMaxUnlimited : experimentalAerodynamics
ThrustPlateMax12m : metaMaterials
ThrustPlateMaxUnlimited : aerospaceTech

// PARTS //
ProceduralPartsTank1500L : generalRocketry
ProceduralPartsTank2500L : advRocketry
ProceduralPartsTankAviation : aviation
ProceduralPartsTank20000L : fuelSystems
ProceduralPartsTank37000L : advFuelSystems
ProceduralPartsTank45000L : largeVolumeContainment
ProceduralPartsTank85000L : highPerformanceFuelSystems
ProceduralPartsTankMiniaturization : propulsionSystems
ProceduralPartsTankUnlimited : metaMaterials
ProceduralPartsTankOre1 : experimentalScience
ProceduralPartsNoseCone1.5M : aerodynamicSystems
ProceduralPartsNoseCone2.5M : advConstruction
ProceduralPartsNoseConeUnlimited : aerospaceTech
ProceduralPartsBattery300 : electrics
ProceduralPartsBattery600 : advElectrics
ProceduralPartsBattery2400 : largeElectrics
ProceduralPartsBattery4800 : specializedElectrics
ProceduralPartsBatteryUnlimited : experimentalElectrics
ProceduralPartsDecoupler3m : generalConstruction
ProceduralPartsDecoupler4.5m : specializedConstruction
ProceduralPartsDecoupler0.125m : precisionEngineering
ProceduralPartsDecouplerUnlimited : metaMaterials
ProceduralPartsHeatshield3m : landing
ProceduralPartsHeatshield5m : advLanding
ProceduralPartsHeatshield0.125m : precisionEngineering
ProceduralPartsHeatshieldUnlimited : metaMaterials
ProceduralPartsSRB3m : basicRocketry
ProceduralPartsSRB10kL : generalRocketry
ProceduralPartsSRBDiam3m : heavyRocketry
ProceduralPartsSRB40kL : heavierRocketry
ProceduralPartsSRB50kL : veryHeavyRocketry
ProceduralPartsSRBUnlimited : metaMaterials

 

These are the nodes on the vanilla tree that the parts and upgrades are assigned to. I'm not sure which nodes on your tree correspond to these vanilla nodes (I should go look into that), but I would recommend placing the parts where it's logical to unlock them, and the upgrades where the BDB/vanilla/etc parts are equivalent or superior to the Procedural Parts if the upgrade was in that node.

Alright. I’ll see about maybe implementing this sometime in the next few weeks. I’d also be open to a pull request as well if you want to try your hand at writing the tech patch instead. 

7 hours ago, RKunze said:

I just started a new save to try out this tech tree, and spent an hour just exploring the tree in the R&D facility. I already love that tree. Great work so far!

I happen to have Modular Launchpads installed, and noticed that the "usual" nodes for Modular Launchpads (to the left of the starting node) already show up in the tree, but are still empty. I know that Modular Launchpad is only on your mod support roadmap for 1.0, but I very much like to play with proper launchpads from the get-go, and would be more than willing to submit a PR for Modular Launchpad support. If you do not have other plans, I'd put the "AM_MLP_MilkstoolLaunchstand1" into the starting node (to have something to launch that first sounding rocket from), and move the other parts into the appropriate Modular Launchpad nodes - is that OK with you?

I also play with Kerbalism, and would be more than happy to playtest the Kerbalism science support as it is implemented.

If you’re willing to make a PR I’d be more than happy to take it! However, I think the issue stems from the catch all patch I have in the Tree folder (debugPatch.ctf) the beta to relocate parts without proper SSS support  so that I know what still needs to be placed on the tree. If you delete that file the MLP nodes should ideally work fine. Either way, I’ll deifnetly remember to either throw in a quick MLP patch or just plan old remove the debug patch in the next beta release. 

As for Kerbalism, I’m glad to hear people are excited about it  I really am excited to have it implemented too, however, I’m thinking I might push it off till after the 1.0 release as it’s looking like it’ll probably be at least a good month of work on my part, and I don’t want to delay the nigh-complete main tree that long over it. I’ll try and make it quick though, cause I’m waiting on that to start my real playthrough as well and I don’t want to be putting that off too much longer 

I’m hoping to have another beta out soon. I’m having another very busy week, but I’m hoping things will lighten up soon.  I’d say there’s still a pretty good shot we hit v1.0 by the end of the year, but I’m not entirely sure. Honestly, it just depends on how solid the next one or two beta releases are, and how much free time I have. I’m trying my best tho - Ik you all are excited, so I don’t want to keep y’all waiting too long 

Edited December 14, 2021 by CessnaSkyhawk

[Kwebib]

Yeah, I never felt like the engine upgrades added much because I didn't use OhScrap. I did like most of the other upgrades.

What bugs did you notice with KTT?

[CessnaSkyhawk]

3 hours ago, Kwebib said:

Yeah, I never felt like the engine upgrades added much because I didn't use OhScrap. I did like most of the other upgrades.

What bugs did you notice with KTT?

One big one that I remember is that when Rational Resources (which KTT recommended) was installed alongside KTT, it would lead to strange interactions amongst all the NTRs, as KTT has a patch to make them run on both LF and LH2, while RR had its own patches that made them run on various other fuels. 

The other big problem I had with it that I forgot to mention, although to be fair this one is more general to most tech trees (including squads default one), is how fuel tanks were balanced. You'd start by getting all the engines for a given radial size, along with the smallest fuel tank for it first, and then get progressively larger tanks as you increased tech tiers. While it makes sense from some gameplay balance perspectives,  I feel that from a realism point of view it doesn't make much sense in encouraging realistic rocketry. In the real world, it seems like rocket diameters tended to grow first on larger lower stages, and then the upper stages would follow as the lower stages get more capable (eg Atlas went from Atlas-Agena to Atlas-Centaur). Plus, in most cases, as the mass and fuel ratios are constant, one large tank is the same as multiple small tanks, except that the one large tank is less resource intensive PC-wise than the many small ones.

[bigyihsuan]

I just spent like an hour writing Python code to parse and convert the tech tree nodes file into Mermaid code for some reason.

Here is the code: https://gist.github.com/bigyihsuan/03d2a2b6a930dbf91198f66fee96d836

All of this is  for trying to figure where these upgrades would go, but that would mean needing to spin up a new KSP install with nothing but this, its dependencies, and PF/PP + dependencies and examining the tree in-game and noting where these upgrades should go.

Fun. 

EDIT: I've made a pull request for Procedural Parts/Fairings support. I followed the Squad locations for parts.

Edited December 16, 2021 by bigyihsuan