About the Tech tree

[GavinZac]

Unlockable items, measurable progress events... so when are we getting Steam achievements?

Sorry!

[KevinTMC]

The main reasons we sent men to the Moon were:

a) Competition with the Soviet Union

The sheer wonder of exploration and human achievement

c) Because it was hard

In Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space, which I understand is one of Squad's inspirations for Career Mode, this was reflected in two ways. First, and most obviously, the whole point of the game--the one and only way to win it--was to land a man on the Moon before the opposition did. I wouldn't expect KSP to closely mirror this dynamic.

Secondarily, BARIS awarded prestige points for incremental advances along the path towards a lunar landing (and also for a few achievements on side paths, such as sending probes to other planets), this prestige bringing with it rewards such as increased budget and a higher job performance rating. I would expect KSP Career Mode to operate in a similar fashion: that is, the achievements and rewards will not be exclusively tuned towards what is immediately useful, scientifically or engineering-wise, but will also encourage and reward things that are just plain cool and that the Kerbals can take pride in for their own sake.

This tuning, if artfully done, will be able to encourage certain paths of development and exploration--some of which will involve kerballed missions, some of which won't--without restricting the player's range of choices as much as BARIS necessarily did (being as it was not only a historical simulation, but a historical simulation programmed in the early '90s, based on a board game).

[Eric S]

Wait, Wouldn't it make more sense for a medium sized LV-1 to be the first engine? Since it's called an LV-1, implying it's the first...of something.

Maybe the LV-1 was the first to start development, but finishes later due to technical limitations? The first thing to be designed doesn't always reach production first, look at 802.11a vs 802.11b.

[EleSigma]

Maybe the LV-1 was the first to start development, but finishes later due to technical limitations? The first thing to be designed doesn't always reach production first, look at 802.11a vs 802.11b.

Well considering that the LV-1 is the weakest rocket motor in the game, I doubt technical limitations would be a problem. Harv could have forgotten about it too when he made the post, since the LV-1 is a forgettable motor considering how little it's ever used by anyone.

If a medium sized LV-1 were the first motor though, I would imagine it would be an analog to the numerous post-war modified V2 motors. It could get a small rocket into a small sub-orbital trajectory that would let the play taste the edge of space.

[purpletarget]

Harv could have forgotten about it too when he made the post, since the LV-1 is a forgettable motor considering how little it's ever used by anyone.

I don't know what you're talking about. LV-1 is an excellent choice for small minimalist satellites that are about a ton or less. Just as well for larger stuff too, probably up to 5ish with the addition of the radial versions.

As for the naming, numbers and naming schemes don't always follow a set progression. The 1 could be the first in a series of Probe motors, or perhaps it's a reference to the design thrust rating. Engineers may build it, but marketers, VP's and committees tend to be put in charge of naming...so they don't aren't really similar to anything resembling logic.

[Eric S]

Well considering that the LV-1 is the weakest rocket motor in the game, I doubt technical limitations would be a problem.

Sometimes miniaturization counts as a technical limitation. If the midrange engines come first, then that's because that size is easiest to get right, which generally means that it will take less time to go from concept to finished product given the same technical starting point.

I don't know what you're talking about. LV-1 is an excellent choice for small minimalist satellites that are about a ton or less. Just as well for larger stuff too, probably up to 5ish with the addition of the radial versions.

Heck, the thing is still too powerful for doing orbital maintenance on light geosynchronous satellites, even at minimum thrust.

[Drunkrobot]

It would be nice to see a few aesthetic changes as your tech improves. Say you start off the game, and your tech would be equivalent to what humanity had in the 60s. The three-kerbal capsule IVA would look like this:

Everything looking "manual", and requiring the computational power of an abacus. Then, as you go through the tech tree (or focus on "electronics" or something.", the IVA evolves into the modern "glass cockpit", full of computer monitors and keyboards, rather than nobs and needles:

Of course, it would not be in 0.22, but as HarvesteR said, everything in the game has to go through several iterations between "addition to the game" to "final form".

[HeadHunter67]

KSP shows exactly what s gonna happen. I push prograde and I see what changes. They could make that Tech tree related.

And how do I know I travel 1645m/s in space? Low tech can't tell me that.

If you have the technology to launch into space, you're no longer "low-tech". All the dependent technology already existed before the Space Age began. Refinements have made it easier, have made different things possible... but we still made it to the Moon using 1960's technology. Keep in mind that's before the widespread advent of solid-state electronics that we now take for granted.

Yes, we can refine data as our tech increases, but spaceflight is nowhere for ambiguity. You're not going to launch a lunar mission if you have to guess on the burn angle and duration and your only feedback is looking out the window.

[Sax Man Aeronautics]

I think the Tech tree levels will be

****tier-than-Cavemen Rockets > Cavemen Rockets > Bottle Rockets > WWII Rockets > Muthar Russah Rockets > Murica Rockets > 1980's Rockets > Bush-Era Rockets > Today Rockets > Future Rockets > FTL Rockets > Proton Rockets > Anti-Matter Rockets > End-of-the-universe Rockets > Master of Rockets

[regex]

I think the Tech tree levels will be

****tier-than-Cavemen Rockets > Cavemen Rockets > Bottle Rockets > WWII Rockets > Muthar Russah Rockets > Murica Rockets > 1980's Rockets > Bush-Era Rockets > Today Rockets > Future Rockets > FTL Rockets > Proton Rockets > Anti-Matter Rockets > End-of-the-universe Rockets > Master of Rockets

> Masters of the Universe

[LameLefty]

KSP shows exactly what s gonna happen. I push prograde and I see what changes. They could make that Tech tree related.

And how do I know I travel 1645m/s in space? Low tech can't tell me that.

Inertial reference systems using spinning gyroscopes and analog circuitry to integrate the changes in velocity vector can figure that stuff pretty accurately. The U.S.S. Nautilus manuevered under the Arctic ice pack and surfaced at the North Pole using that kind of navigation in the 1950's, and did it very well. The first intercontinental ballistic missiles and early satellites did it just that way too.

[JiWint]

I think the Tech tree levels will be

****tier-than-Cavemen Rockets > Cavemen Rockets > Bottle Rockets > WWII Rockets > Muthar Russah Rockets > Murica Rockets > 1980's Rockets > Bush-Era Rockets > Today Rockets > Future Rockets > FTL Rockets > Proton Rockets > Anti-Matter Rockets > End-of-the-universe Rockets > Master of Rockets

> Fly dragons...yeah yeah...

[JiWint]

Oops,I double posted,how do I delete this comment?

Edited August 21, 2013 by JiWint
to delete?

[manskal]

It would be nice to see a few aesthetic changes as your tech improves. Say you start off the game, and your tech would be equivalent to what humanity had in the 60s. The three-kerbal capsule IVA would look like this:

Does that dash come in carbon fibre?

[LameLefty]

Does that dash come in carbon fibre?

Carbon fiber is flammable and would almost certainly off-gas toxic volatiles in the closed environment of a spacecraft.

(<-- Used to be a real-life spacecraft life support systems design engineer in a prior career).

[Drunkrobot]

Carbon fiber is flammable and would almost certainly off-gas toxic volatiles in the closed environment of a spacecraft.

I don't think he was considering putting it into a spacecraft. Maybe he wanted something like it in his car?

I wouldn't blame him in any case, but the glass cockpit would be more to my tastes.

[HeadHunter67]

I think, if your spacecraft is on fire, you have bigger worries than "toxic volatiles"... but that's just my own opinion.

[LameLefty]

I think, if your spacecraft is on fire, you have bigger worries than "toxic volatiles"... but that's just my own opinion.

That's the biggest risk with fire, actually. The flames and suffocation aren't what kill most people.

( <--- Again, this guy used to do this for a living).

[HeadHunter67]

Most people don't have spacesuits, either. I'm just saying that even if you happen to be suited up and not inhaling the toxic volatiles, you're still in a spacecraft that's on fire. I'd be more worried about loss of propulsion and the fact that I'm riding atop thousands of gallons of actual volatiles... know what I mean?

[LameLefty]

Most people don't have spacesuits, either. I'm just saying that even if you happen to be suited up and not inhaling the toxic volatiles, you're still in a spacecraft that's on fire. I'd be more worried about loss of propulsion and the fact that I'm riding atop thousands of gallons of actual volatiles... know what I mean?

Yeah, those are the obvious risks. But the realities are not always obvious, is my point. The Apollo 1 astronauts had suits but their suit ECLSS loop in the cabin was compromised; they lost consciousness from suffocation but died from carbon monoxide toxicity; their burns were serious but not fatal.

Anyway, this getting far afield. So far as we can tell, Kerbals don't even breathe. The suits appear to be for fashion.

[Seret]

Most people don't have spacesuits, either. I'm just saying that even if you happen to be suited up and not inhaling the toxic volatiles, you're still in a spacecraft that's on fire. I'd be more worried about loss of propulsion and the fact that I'm riding atop thousands of gallons of actual volatiles... know what I mean?

Sure, but the immediate risk that a fire poses is the fact that it's consuming all your oxygen, and replacing it with toxic gunk. This is actually the same in a any fire, but is much more acute in a closed system like a spacecraft or a submarine. Even in house fires, very few people die of burns. They die from inhaling the toxic combustion products.

Sobering thought for the day: if your house catches fire while you sleep, the fumes will knock you out before the smell of smoke wakes you. Fit smoke alarms, check them regularly.

[kknight13]

Have we heard any word on how the technologies would be unlocked?

[jeti140973]

So performing science experiments earns you "science points", which accumulate to gradually unlock more advanced parts and technology? Sounds great

I would propose that killing kerbals does the same in reverse - by deducting science points, and consequently (potentially) locking some parts again. This would serve two purposes. First, it would mimic real-life consequences where you have to rethink, relearn and reevaluate your designs, effectively setting you back a few years - a step back technologically. Second, it would serve as a way to adjust difficulty (or ambitions) for players that have (apparently) progressed too far too quickly without really understanding the necessary requirements or by taking too many risks. Killing crew is not a sign of a skillful player - and science level should be based on skill, not luck. So some consequences to failing missions and killing crew would be great.

UPDATE: btw, question: will we be able to "buy" one tech advancement over another, or will the progression be linear? I mean, will we be able to choose between an advancement in parachutes over engines, for example?

Edited August 22, 2013 by jeti140973

[lazarus1024]

Here is a thought, for manned missions, I propose that your Kerbals have an engineering or science rating that is factored in to how much research they can unlock for you.

So you have additional incentive to not kill your Kerbals. The more missions a Kerbal undergoes, the higher this Science rating gets.

So you might have a base 100 points for a mission in science, but your Kerbal has a science rating of 20 (out of 100), so he provides a 20% bonus. Do the mission, return and the Kerman gets a bonus of 5 to his science rating. Next mission he flies, it is now a 25% bonus. A few missions later Kerman dies in a tragic waste venting accident. Now you need to start over with Bob...but Bob only has a science rating of 18.

Just a thought on a way to both tune Research AND the Kerbals themselves and to make this more of a run on sentence AND give you incentive to not kill your Kerbals as they gain experience the more missions you send them on.

[Rascal Nag]

Harv, will science be separated into different branches? I mean, I highly doubt that getting samples from Duna would give you progress towards a new engine or capsule.

Edit: I know there is a tree, I just want to know if there's one "science" value that works with all unlocks or if there is a variety of types that only work with one part of the tree.