About the Tech tree

[witeken]

Hello HarvesteR,

What will you do with plugins in career mode? Using MechJeb in career mode is definitely cheating. Maybe you can add 3 options when a player stars a career: 1) allow other parts 2) allow craft file sharing 3) allow plugins.

[HarvesteR]

MechJeb's parts will have to be added to a tech node before they can appear in a Career game, so until MJ (and other mods) are updated for Career-friendliness, they won't appear in the parts list.

That should give all mod-makers a chance to revise their cfg values for things that were of no consequence until now (costs mainly), and assign their parts to the tech node that fits them best.

Cheers

[Anton P. Nym]

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!

Except you'd have to buy the big expensive rocket to put it out on the pad in the first place, right? (I'm discounting the folks who'd hyper-edit them in, because they could simply hyper-edit the budget balance anyway and save some labour.) Should end up a wash at best, and probably a money-loser depending upon how recovery works.

-- Steve

[oggylt]

well it might sound wrong, but I would think that tech tree should start with big bulky engines and branch to clustering tech(getting smaller) or staying with big engines, Because small engines are advanced

[HarvesteR]

well it might sound wrong, but I would think that tech tree should start with big bulky engines and branch to clustering tech(getting smaller) or staying with big engines, Because small engines are advanced

It starts with mid-sized engines actually (LV-T series). Going larger or smaller are both advancements.

Cheers

[Seret]

Except you'd have to buy the big expensive rocket to put it out on the pad in the first place, right?

Depends on how they implement it I guess. Shouldn't be hard to prevent really.

[Ralathon]

well it might sound wrong, but I would think that tech tree should start with big bulky engines and branch to clustering tech(getting smaller) or staying with big engines, Because small engines are advanced

Small engines are hard because you have to dump the same functionality in a tighter space.

Large engines are hard because the cube square law tells you the forces involved become insane.

[ZingidyZongxxx]

Cheating will always be impossible to prevent. If you don't want to cheat, then don't. So what if people are cheating? Let them play however they want, and if you prefer to play stock with no cheats then that's fine too. It really doesn't matter.

[Necandi Brasil]

Can we expect more capsule types ? I would love a tier three (5-7 crew...) Assuming tier one (single manned or even 2 man crew), tier two (2-3 crew) and beyond

This higher crew count would help me building my 15 crew Dune mission ...

Edited August 13, 2013 by Necandi Brasil
add info :)

[Moon Goddess]

A larger crew capacity would require a larger diameter parts, something they need I wanna be able to build a stock Saturn 5 with proper ratios. But that's a totally different topic.

[lazarus1024]

Can we expect more capsule types ? I would love a tier three (5-7 crew...) Assuming tier one (single manned or even 2 man crew), tier two (2-3 crew) and beyond

This higher crew count would help me building my 15 crew Dune mission ...

It would be really nice/cool to have 2 person Capsules to play with (preferably 1.5m parts).

I'd also like to request eventually getting bigger capsules and parts, 3.5m would be cool. At the least, 2 kerbal capsule please!

Also...well...a non cylindrical landing can...I really want an actual LM type can.

[regex]

MechJeb's parts will have to be added to a tech node before they can appear in a Career game, so until MJ (and other mods) are updated for Career-friendliness, they won't appear in the parts list.

For MechJeb specifically, it would be pretty cool to have a bunch of different parts that had blacklisted features appearing at different points in the tech tree, thus allowing a natural progression of autopilots. Non-specifically, this actually opens up a lot of cool modding opportunities with custom cfg files and Module Manager.

I'm going to have to learn Module Manager now...

[HarvesteR]

For MechJeb specifically, it would be pretty cool to have a bunch of different parts that had blacklisted features appearing at different points in the tech tree, thus allowing a natural progression of autopilots. Non-specifically, this actually opens up a lot of cool modding opportunities with custom cfg files and Module Manager.

I'm going to have to learn Module Manager now...

This is something mods have to do, we can only provide the tools do it here.

Anyhow, it should be possible to add a few 'ifs' to a part module or any piece of game logic really, to check if a certain technology is available. That lets you (the mod-maker) restrict functionality until a certain tech is researched.

This is also safe to use in sandbox saves. In sandbox mode, the R&D module isn't spawned, so the code interface falls back to an 'everything is available' mode.

Cheers

[regex]

This is something mods have to do, we can only provide the tools do it here.

Of course. MechJeb already allows you to blacklist features per part; that was my point. Module Manager is a mod that allows the user/modder to make specific changes to pretty much any part so long as you know its unique name. You can specify changes to stock parts or even other modder's parts, allowing each user to customize their own experience. For instance, if I download a part pack and don't like their tech-tree integration or balancing alongside stock parts, I can use Module Manager to change all of that without manually editing config files.

My post was really just a revelation that your tech-tree is awesome and that already-existing mods can be balanced by the individual user if need be.

[HeadHunter67]

Your first mission is to get into orbit in a vehicle made entirely of struts.

So, in other words, no change from normal rocket construction?

[Necandi Brasil]

Also...well...a non cylindrical landing can...I really want an actual LM type can.

I agree with you on that one ...

[esinohio]

This tech tree is really starting to sound exciting. I'm guessing that doing the missions and being constrained to only using researched parts will make for some very interesting rethinks of several of my tried and true launchers.

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

Harv, if this seems sensible, can you release the code needed for the career mode part module type thing? If you do this, this would make the community happy, and the mod makers aswell.

[alacrity]

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

It is an obvious historical break point in the Nasa timeline. Modifications to the Apollo rocket happened, and tech from materials research was folded into the mix. Also public perception of the space race changed so goals were realigned.

I figured at would be a good time to solidify the "to the moon" tech parts, and start to look forward to the LKO habitation technologies.

I see the transitions thusly

Chap 1 - unmanned baby steps into space

Chap 2 - the first breath of manned space flight

Chap 3 - The second breath after a big scare

Chap 4 - the first colonizations

Chap 5 - owning the stars

I thought about it quite a bit and I really think Tech and the underlying thought process behind missions changed dramatically after Apollo 13 and in Nasa the rescue of 13 demonstrated the human (krbal) ability to have extended stays in space. (On purpose or by misfortune)

Alacrity

[JSD]

I wonder something for a while now. Will R&D going to be a "unlock" the part thing only?

Or does it (maybe not now, but at some point) support upgrades/downgrades of any kind?

Cause it feels just really silly to research a Skipper for instants, and later on the Mainsail. The mainsail is pretty much a upgraded Skipper, or a Skipper is a downgraded Mainsail. Depends on how you look at it. Same for fuel tanks. Right now we have different shapes, and sizes and everything, different tanks for different liquid. But with tweakables coming in the picture someday, you should "tweak" the fuel sort right? There for you only need a different set of tanks in different sizes and shapes. (Maybe not even sizes. You could tweak or upgrade/downgrade that..) I don't see the need/the point of researching ten or twenty fuel tanks and or engines, if you can take just one basic tank/engine and upgrade it to a better one with more power or fuel, or downgrade it with less power or fuel. But again, I wonder because we don't really know what tweakables will be. Maybe we can change all those things in there?

Edited August 14, 2013 by JSD

[sjwt]

Are we going to have event driven tech? One of my fav old time games had quite a few event driven techs.. You had to try something and fail at it before you realised you needed that tech, very Kerbal if you ask me..

Imagine only getting to research heatshield after 3 differnt failed missions.

Oh its cold, no food and hard to breath up their... life support anyone??

You mission failed due to too much drag? Time for Fairings.

[HeadHunter67]

Imagine only getting to research heatshield after 3 differnt failed missions.

Oh its cold, no food and hard to breath up their... life support anyone??

You mission failed due to too much drag? Time for Fairings.

Imagine if we had to lose astronauts before we thought of things like those. We probably would never have made it into space.

[Moon Goddess]

Are we going to have event driven tech? One of my fav old time games had quite a few event driven techs.. You had to try something and fail at it before you realised you needed that tech, very Kerbal if you ask me..

Imagine only getting to research heatshield after 3 differnt failed missions.

Oh its cold, no food and hard to breath up their... life support anyone??

You mission failed due to too much drag? Time for Fairings.

This would be horribly unrealistic and would ruin the game for me, I'm not kidding about that.

We knew about all of these things long long before we even started the space program

Climb a mountain? Fly a plane? You know the air gets thinner and colder as you go higher. It's obvious it'll get too thin to breathe.

Simply physics will tell you the friction of colliding with air at that speed will require a heat shield. Same with drag. No species that doesn't understand these thing will not be attempting a space program in the first place.

[Evrion]

Was also my intention, but was told that part failures will not be a "feature" of this game.

Therefore a new, much easyer idea to implement: What if SQUAD implements only the financial result of experience...?

Example: One can buy parts in numbers to reduce the price of a single piece AND one can buy a stack of parts to reduce the price of the whole stack. Therfore you can invent whole "stages" and as more they are used unchanged they cheaper they get....as a result of the experience on the assembly line.

Would work like this - if you take any parts out and put it together you pay 100% of its single peace price. As you can save the whole launcher you can save the stage or a probe, a lander, a satellite.... And for any stage-configuration that one uses again the price for the parts-set will drop.

Using a stage a second time will drop its price for 10%, a third time will drop by additional 5%, from 4-10th launch the drop each time is 2,5%, up to the 25th launch is 1,25% and there after ist 0,75% up to the 45th launch - then the price of the stage configuration has decreased allmost to 50% and will stay there.

Altering designs would also be possible this way.

Removing a part out of a stage will reduce the stage price only by 25% of the price of this part

Adding a part will increase the price of the stage by 10% + the parts price.

Example: After 10 launches one adds RCS thanks and thrusters to a stage - starting price was 10.000 at the first launch, by the 10th it was 7.161. Now the price increases again to 7.877 + the price of the RCS stuff.

This will result in a more real live behavior of the financial aspect of KSP

Yes!

I love the idea of adding things to the game that make for more ways we can optimize rocket design. For me the game is all about learning rocket design and learning how to fly rockets. Anything that adds more to this learning process is adding more game.

[Skyrunner27]

Are we going to have event driven tech? One of my fav old time games had quite a few event driven techs.. You had to try something and fail at it before you realised you needed that tech, very Kerbal if you ask me..

Imagine only getting to research heatshield after 3 differnt failed missions.

Oh its cold, no food and hard to breath up their... life support anyone??

You mission failed due to too much drag? Time for Fairings.

This would suck the fun from the game. Nobody like to be forced to anything that is one of the things about the game you are only limited by you design. The tech tree will allow you to go any where but it is hard at first.