About the Tech tree

[Deejay2000]

I will insert numbers into the quote so I break it down.

1) i'm not happy at all because i think the career mode as the last step before the game's release. 2) i still think the mining and gathering resources is the best way to give goals, fun, creativity and evolutions to the game. We really miss goals and objectives at all to think about a tech tree now. 3) i think KSP is becoming too much mod dependent and for the ones who do not want to download mods there are really poor options.

4) Squad, is sad to say but you are adding almost useless stuff without giving it depth and valor or in better words too much meat on the fire before something is already cook. 5) Let's look at the antennas.... they are there you can apply them but they are useless. the parts and what they do are the only way to give depth to the game because the real strength of KSP is the complete customization, not the overall look. 6) there are mods that can give us communication, examination, exploration but it's absurd that all this cannot be done in the main game, without mention the resource gathering. 7) If all those stuff were already implemented and only when all those stuff has been implemented you should add a real cool career, with a tech tree giving to kerbals roles and objectives. But for now the tech tree and the career mode is only a limitation for the game not a plus.

building cool stuff is the primary objective of this game, to make it more creative and cool we need parts and goals.

8) the most sad thing is that there are only 2 options to this comment: i'm right and KPS will taste like crude meat or i'm wrong and Squad have better options and priorities to give a greater taste to KPS's hamburger. this is not trolling are just my impressions.

1) http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/entry.php/303-A-rant-about-development-asymptotes

2)Resources will come eventually, but for now you'll just have to be creative and create your own little story.

3)After Squad starts implementing other big features (like resources) those mods will have no use and will probably stop being developed and used.

4, 5)The useless stuff, like antennas, are just the start of communication. Kind of like a building you have to start with the bottom (the antennas) and start building up, you can't simple build the entire building at once, or start in the middle.

6)Like said in 2, all of those things will be in the future game, and you can't hope for things immediately, especially when the game is in alpha and constantly in development.

7)No one knows much about career mode, but it will probably end up requiring those things.

8)Think about KSP like this a hamburger. Some people can eat just two buns and a burger, but others need ketchup, mustard, onions, etc. This is the same for KSP. KSP is just the buns and burger. So how do you get this burger to taste better while we wait for supplies to ship to this "restaraunt"? We install mods. That's just the way it is right now.

-Deejay

[Bean]

I got to page 8 and I just want to contribute, one area I think would be interesting is control systems.

So you start without Reaction Wheel, RCS, or SAS (ASAS), that way you have to learn to fly, then using mission data, (heading, control input, accelerometer data) you can research better control systems that can be built into parts, so a pod is just a pod, no torque or ASAS, until you've learnt how to fly a rocket/plane, so you need 30 minutes of atmo flight to figure out SAS style damping, manned orbit to figure out reaction wheels (Jeb likes to spin in his pod), that sort of thing, and that can extend beyond the current limitations, like "Heads up display" that lets you see your apogee/perigee without "Calling mission control (Map view)"

And you have to do one docking before you realize how much RCS is required for anything other than 2 orbiter craft docking.

Again you can extend so you can see the relative orientation of a target ship without switching or picking arbitrary alignments (5 dockings or something)

[FITorion]

I got to page 8 and I just want to contribute, one area I think would be interesting is control systems.

So you start without Reaction Wheel, RCS, or SAS (ASAS), that way you have to learn to fly, then using mission data, (heading, control input, accelerometer data) you can research better control systems that can be built into parts, so a pod is just a pod, no torque or ASAS, until you've learnt how to fly a rocket/plane, so you need 30 minutes of atmo flight to figure out SAS style damping, manned orbit to figure out reaction wheels (Jeb likes to spin in his pod), that sort of thing, and that can extend beyond the current limitations, like "Heads up display" that lets you see your apogee/perigee without "Calling mission control (Map view)"

And you have to do one docking before you realize how much RCS is required for anything other than 2 orbiter craft docking.

Again you can extend so you can see the relative orientation of a target ship without switching or picking arbitrary alignments (5 dockings or something)

umm... with out RCS or SAS you would only have those winglets to control your rocket... Those stop functioning fairly soon. Once you were above the levels of the atmosphere where those cease to function you would have no control at all of your craft. you'd tap the buttons and nothing would happen... Well you'd have some thrust vectoring with the gimbaling engines I guess... But you'd have almost no control... and to do that for half an hour? new players would get so increasingly frustrated and quit never to return and tell all their friends that the game sucks.

[Kerbart]

RE: realistic recovery savings.

I am not suggesting the entire mission return that much, just what you are actually able to return. Jettisoned stages are not considered recovered, just what you are actually "piloting". So if all you return is the capsule with parachutes on it, that is ALL you get refunded for. Especially since it is such a tiny part of the rocket, I think a 90% return is resonable incentive. I understand that realistically, if you could reuse it, even landing it in the water just off the shore is going to lead to costs way above 10% of the original manufacture and certification costs of the capsule.

The majority of what you're launching with gets jettisoned within the atmosphere. Then it's just a matter of adding parachutes to your boosters so they land in one piece. KSP can already detect if something survives impact or not. With some tweaks you could get launches true to the spaceshuttle or white knight model. And then, just as in reality, it might just be cheaper to write off your expendable rockets. The economy aspect of it would surely be interesting.

Missions with a fixed budget would make more sense. You can unlock the tech tree by completing missions (and unlocking more missions). A mission has to be finished within budget, recovered materials boosting your budget. So, if a budget for a certain mission is, say $5M, you spend $6M but recover $1.5M worth of equipment, you'd still be under budget. How much you end up under budget might even impact unlocking the tech tree (as more money can be set aside for research)

[lazarus1024]

The majority of what you're launching with gets jettisoned within the atmosphere. Then it's just a matter of adding parachutes to your boosters so they land in one piece. KSP can already detect if something survives impact or not. With some tweaks you could get launches true to the spaceshuttle or white knight model. And then, just as in reality, it might just be cheaper to write off your expendable rockets. The economy aspect of it would surely be interesting.

Missions with a fixed budget would make more sense. You can unlock the tech tree by completing missions (and unlocking more missions). A mission has to be finished within budget, recovered materials boosting your budget. So, if a budget for a certain mission is, say $5M, you spend $6M but recover $1.5M worth of equipment, you'd still be under budget. How much you end up under budget might even impact unlocking the tech tree (as more money can be set aside for research)

You make excellent points.

[rkman]

I'm wondering about MODS! How in the world would they fit in with the tech tree? Will mods be disabled in career mode? And if so, all mods? what do you guys have in mind?

I think it would depend on the mod, but a mod that is 'fit in' the tech tree, does modify the techtree.

So that would be KSP with a modified tech tree, not vanilla KSP.

It would not be a complete overhaul but wrt career mode it would be a different game than standard KSP.

I think mods might be more important to sandbox than to career mode.

[esinohio]

Not sure if this has been wildly speculated about but I was wondering how the tech tree might change/impact stats on the Kerbals? Will the tech tree be solely about part upgrades or do you think they will pepper it with some random upgrades to our Kerbals stats? Of course that is assuming they even use stats down the road or maybe pitch that stat system all together.

[HarvesteR]

Concerning mods and the tech tree, this is how it works:

All parts now have a "TechRequired" parameter in their cfg files, which is set to the ID of the technology node which unlocks it. IDs are unique, so there's no worry about branches or dependencies there. You just set, for instance, radial decouplers to the "generalConstruction" tech. Doesn't matter what other techs you need to get to general construction, the radial decoupler will be there when you get there.

This means mod parts will have to be updated to appear in the parts list on a Career mode game, which is actually a very good thing. This requires mods to be updated to fit into the R&D tree, which means they can be added to the techs that best suit each part.

Plugin-only mods should be unaffected. The R&D implementation just hides unresearched content, it doesn't keep it from loading.

There is another new parameter on the part cfgs to define a part's 'entry cost'. The entry cost is an amount required to have the part available in the parts list. This means when you research a tech, the parts it makes available aren't made automatically available to you. You'll also have to put down some cash (game cash of course) to have the part. Without a working budget implementation however, it might not be possible to finish up this entry cost mechanic for this update, but it's easily disableable (word?) in case we need to go without it for now.

That's about it for now.

Cheers

[lazarus1024]

Thanks for the update!

Also, if bleiber is a word, disabeable is DEFFINITELY a word (besides I use the later often enough).

[Kimberly]

You'll also have to put down some cash (game cash of course) to have the part.

It's somewhat worrying that has to be clarified nowadays! Anyway, thanks for the explanation, it sounds like a lovely system.

[Captain Sierra]

It's somewhat worrying that has to be clarified nowadays! Anyway, thanks for the explanation, it sounds like a lovely system.

So True.

Thx on the update HarvesteR. Good to hear about it and I'm looking forward to actually playing around in career mode now.

[Necandi Brasil]

I just love the contact the developers have with us...

Thank for the info Harv

[Frederf]

All parts now have a "TechRequired" parameter in their cfg files, which is set to the ID of the technology node which unlocks it.

Clever. I wonder how non-part-mods might be included in the requirement method.

[HarvesteR]

Clever. I wonder how non-part-mods might be included in the requirement method.

That is up to the mod itself to do. It is possible to 'ask' research and development if a tech is available through the ResearchAndDevelopment.GetTechnologyState(string techId) method though.

Cheers

[Asmayus]

You know, I've always thought that the various versions of kerbal space program were kind of like a tech tree of their own. We've gone from a single command pod, one type of SRB and 2 liquid engines to the multitude of parts we have now, step by step. Mightn't be a bad roadmap to follow

I'm looking forwards to this update a lot

[Whackjob]

That is up to the mod itself to do. It is possible to 'ask' research and development if a tech is available through the ResearchAndDevelopment.GetTechnologyState(string techId) method though.

Cheers

Sir? I beg you.

Pintles and Gudgeons.

[theflyingfish]

You'll also have to put down some cash (game cash of course) to have the part.

Don't scare me like that, Harv. For a second I thought KSP was going Free-to-Play.

Edited August 13, 2013 by theflyingfish
I just can't help it.

[alacrity]

I am a survivor of the EVE:Online tech/skill tree... I fear no tech tree anymore...

I always saw the career mode as a "eras" of space travel progression. maybe four chapters?

Chapter 1 (or chimps in space)

1940's though sputnik

Unmanned rockets, suborbital launches, occasionaly launching Kerbod's little furry creatures into orbit

Limited fuel/ weight issues with material sciences/ flight computers powered by potato chips

Chapter 2 (what does this button do?)

sputnik through apollo 13

First manned capsules, earlier asas, semi explosive landing gear

chapter 3 (well this is another fine mess we've gotten ourselves in)

apollo 14 through Mir

completeing of the Mun/Minus exploration era, and the beginnings of the space station/shuttle era, Material sciences making better parts.

Chapter 4 (It's full of stars)

ISS through about 2025 (By nasa time table)

Making full habitation space stations, self sustaining long term flight, and extra planetary exploration. Some experimental drives and physical sciences done on mars etc.

Chapter 5 (where no man has gone before)

2025 through then

For th truly wierd stuff (and interstellar ((HINT HINT)))

Inside each chapter would be seeded progression in small steps with goals and such.

But time will tell.

Alacrity

[HeadHunter67]

Why did you divide your tech tree between Apollo 13 and 14?

[Necandi Brasil]

I am a survivor of the EVE:Online tech/skill tree... I fear no tech tree anymore...

I still play EVE and DUST 514... love the complexity of the game...

[manskal]

I hope there are different variations to each part - a standard 2.25 ton fuel tank maybe starts out carrying only 1 ton of fuel, but as you progress, research is made available so you can increase capacity such as to 1.5 or 2 tons of fuel but still with a total mass of 2.25 tons per tank.

This will make it so that you don't have to design entirely new parts each tech level you progress - just have the same engine look and perform better. So you can have the Mainsail 1, Mainsail 2 etc.

Hope that makes sense.

[Tw1]

Plugin-only mods should be unaffected. The R&D implementation just hides unresearched content, it doesn't keep it from loading.

Cheers

Interesting. Does this mean a craft with not-yet unlocked parts would be loaded if copied into a career mode save?

What about if loaded in the editors?

[HarvesteR]

You know, I've always thought that the various versions of kerbal space program were kind of like a tech tree of their own. We've gone from a single command pod, one type of SRB and 2 liquid engines to the multitude of parts we have now, step by step. Mightn't be a bad roadmap to follow

I'm looking forwards to this update a lot

The development "progression" actually was an important inspiration for the design of the tech tree. It makes sense because the parts we added over the course of the project were the ones we felt were most necessary at each step along the way, so it stands to reason that as you progress in your own game, you'll feel the need for those parts in a roughly similar order. The early stages of the tech tree were designed with that in mind, of presenting core essentials first, letting you find the problems, then giving you the tools to solve those problems (roughly, there are other considerations too).

Interesting. Does this mean a craft with not-yet unlocked parts would be loaded if copied into a career mode save?

What about if loaded in the editors?

Theoretically, yes. There is no technical restriction that would prevent you from loading a ship that contains parts you don't already have researched, so craft file sharing and such should work. This sort of restriction shouldn't be a technical one in any case. It's a gameplay rule, so it should be (if at all) implemented at a higher level.

There is something interesting about loading a craft file which has parts you haven't researched though, it's something similar to reverse-engineering a construct you don't fully understand. You have the parts, but you don't really know what they are (no tooltips), and you can't really make more of them without the original to copy from. In the end, this might be a self-cancelling side effect. The practical limitations of loading above-your-tech vessels would probably outweigh the 'cheat factor'. If not, we can always write in a check to prevent it from happening, or as a half-way solution, just prevent alt+copying of parts you don't have.

Cheers

Edited August 13, 2013 by HarvesteR

[Seret]

So... How long will it take to research Struts?

I heard that struts will be the only part available at the start. Your first mission is to get into orbit in a vehicle made entirely of struts.

[Seret]

The practical limitations of loading above-your-tech vessels would probably outweigh the 'cheat factor'.

At the very least I'd suggest disabling any cash for recovering parts you can't build. Otherwise people could just copy in big expensive rockets and recover them. Easy and cheatastic!