0.22 Technologies List

[Sandworm]

Money. Or aerodynamics. Or realistic engine restarts. Or life support. Or realistic fuels. The removal of any number of bug/features will kill the all-in-one approach to science.

[magnemoe]

Is that how you define "advanced player"? Ability to get to Mun and back? Because that makes just about everybody who's played for more than a few hours an advanced player. I think someone who can get to Gilly on T0 parts is more what they're talking here, and that's outside my league by far.

You say interplanetary on T0 isn't going to happen. If you can get to Mun you can get to another planet. It's not that much more to some places. That said, as I said I can't do it. I'm having trouble getting into orbit with T0 parts. Or more aptly, I'm having trouble getting off the launch pad with a T0 ship that has enough Delta-V to get into orbit.

Going to the Mun with tire 0 is for advanced players, going to Mun in sandbox is for low-medium players. However if you can do an Apollo style Mun mission you can pretty much do anything.

Yes accurate landing, Tylo landing require more skills. An Moho intercept takes more understanding of orbital mechanisms.

Just stack up 11 tanks, engine and pod and you can reach orbit. Surviving the landing is harder. However as shown you do not need to fly to get decoplers at tire 1.

Now the main issue as it look to me is the lack of power at lower level who will not let you beam back data so you would need some complex crafts with lots of pods to do science.

So it would make more sense to multiple smaller missions in the beginning.

[Francesco]

You can't make T0 interplanetary ships.

I beg to differ, good sir:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/52043-The-Tech-Level-1-Orbital-Challenge?p=687458#post687458

[katateochi]

Thanks for that compressive list SkyRender. It took some doing but I managed to make a stable orbit using just Tier1 parts - craft and a pic here

[Superfluous J]

Going to the Mun with tire 0 is for advanced players, going to Mun in sandbox is for low-medium players. However if you can do an Apollo style Mun mission you can pretty much do anything.

So what you're acutally worried about is that because someone who can get to Mun and back on Tier 0 parts could unlock the whole tech tree in one flight (which they can't) that the system is totally broken and too easy across the board for everybody?

Now the main issue as it look to me is the lack of power at lower level who will not let you beam back data so you would need some complex crafts with lots of pods to do science.

So it would make more sense to multiple smaller missions in the beginning.

...which I believe was the developers' intention. lots of smaller missions, learning about how to fly in space and getting the benefits of that learning via new parts. Or, if you are an expert at the game and can do amazing stuff with the super limited set of parts you have, go for it and unlock everything quickly. New players get a nice learning curve and experienced ones get the parts they want. Everybody's happy.

I think you're looking at this wrong. Like once you've unlocked everything in the tech tree the game is "done." This isn't GTA or Skyrim where once you're done with the main missions the game is boring. Once you've unlocked everything here, you get to USE it. And remember that the totally unimplemented money system will keep you from using a lot of the stuff you unlock, until you can pay for it.

[JebidiahsBigSister]

Thanks for that compressive list SkyRender. It took some doing but I managed to make a stable orbit using just Tier1 parts - craft and a pic here

I did the same thing with a slightly different craft here:

[magnemoe]

So what you're acutally worried about is that because someone who can get to Mun and back on Tier 0 parts could unlock the whole tech tree in one flight (which they can't) that the system is totally broken and too easy across the board for everybody?

/QUOTE]

No very few can get to the mun on tire 0 parts, its also pretty stupid as you get tire 1 by experimenting on the pad.

...which I believe was the developers' intention. lots of smaller missions, learning about how to fly in space and getting the benefits of that learning via new parts. Or, if you are an expert at the game and can do amazing stuff with the super limited set of parts you have, go for it and unlock everything quickly. New players get a nice learning curve and experienced ones get the parts they want. Everybody's happy.

I think you're looking at this wrong. Like once you've unlocked everything in the tech tree the game is "done." This isn't GTA or Skyrim where once you're done with the main missions the game is boring. Once you've unlocked everything here, you get to USE it. And remember that the totally unimplemented money system will keep you from using a lot of the stuff you unlock, until you can pay for it.

Yes, as I see it they want small missions, later on you will probably use the antenna to redo measurement for some extra points.

First orbit, then probably Mun flyby followed by Minmus landings and Mun landings.

At this point it should be time for to go interplanetary, you should also have gotten the basic parts.

[Sandworm]

The tree looks good enough in principal, but it's all about parts rather then technology. Many things should be in the tree that are not parts. EVA should be something one has to research before doing, rocket-powered EVA another. Maneuver nodes or SAS functionality could be locked out until "zero-g navigation" is researched. Taking some of these non-part capabilities away would make science much harder to acquire during the initial stages. Clustered engines would be high on my list. Balancing two rocket engines so that they both thrust evenly is no small achievement. Limiting that would certainly cut back on the all-in-one science launches.

And taking samples on Kerbin should not produce science. Leave that to the non-astro geologists. "I discovered grass... now give me a new rocket!"

Edited October 14, 2013 by Sandworm

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

I'm loving the tech tree, I just hope it doesn't take an hour to completely fill out

some say, I AM the mystery goo...

[adge]

I read the points about power-leveling through the tech tree with interest. While some of the points made are valid, and I too hope the tech tree isn't an afternoon's work, I'd also like to point out that one can set self imposed limits and attempt to play at a more realistic pace and setting, thus increasing the longevity of the tree.

Doubtless, there will always be some who power through quickly regardless. But my personal play style would be to play at a more pedestrian pace in a logical way. Heck, I even play sandbox in this way: haven't sent a probe to the Mun? Then I sure as hell won't send a live Kerbal!

[Torham234]

Great list SkyRender.

Also what is the Mystery Goo Container?

The name of that part instantly reminded me of the movie: "The Blob" from 1988. Now we finally know it was just a kerbal science pod that crashed on earth that night

[Gravaar]

My argument is not so much for probes I would be ok with there not being probes to begin with, but more for decoupler's to be placed in a logical location, a species that does not look to prevent unnecessary loss of life handicaps its self in terms of reproduction, and would be very unlikely to develop to the point where space exploration is viable.

You assume that their reproductive rate is comparable to ours?

What if they grow from pods on a tree. a thousand at a time every year by however many thousands of trees there are?

Individual lives matter to us because it has been (historically) hard for us to replace a lost person and all the time it took for them to grow

[i.be.Reese]

I think that discussions of changing the tech tree based on the logic of a realistic Kerbal universe are going in the wrong direction. The decision to start with or without probes should be made by the first commandment of game design: Games are for fun, anything detracting from fun detracts from the game. While breaking realism can steal from fun by taking people of the immersion, I don't think that's a problem here. This debate reminds of Scott Manely's interview in squadcast #1:

<Paraphrasing>

PD: What about KSP drew your attention? Why not something like Orbiter?

Scott: I actually looked orbiter but found it a little to messy and complicated for enjoying. I actually gravitated towards the little characters screaming in the bottom corner, honestly.

I think that quote by somebody who knows a hell of a lot more about the science of space travel than most of us really captures what makes KSP fun. KSP isn't a simulation. It's not a game that covers your desk in manuals and asks you to be perfect, its a game that covers your desk in doodles of rockets and asks you to be creative. What draws you to KSP? Are you here to learn about orbital mechanics and space history, or are you here because of the adrenalin and excitement of landing on the Mun in the demo? KSP is a game that is fun because it feels fun, it is that emotional connection that makes it great. I think that while serious long-time players might have a lot of fun starting with probes and simulating the space race, if we really want a new player to see what makes KSP great in their first hour of play they need to start with manned missions.

That said, I'm sure that if you disagree with me there will be a tutorial on how to re-order the tech tree within 12 hours of the .22 release.

[allmappedout]

The thing is though, the reason they sent probes up first wasn't because it was safer, but because it was easier. A probe can be lighter, and require less dV to get there than an entire pod complete with life support, etc etc, and you don't have to worry about getting said probe back safely without being branded a heartless murderer

Personally I think it'd be better to have probes come first, just because I think it makes both historical, gameplay and progression sense.

Importantly, you know that a probe is electronic, so a newbie is going to think that it will need a battery to function and won't be surprised when it stops moving it doesn't have it. On the other hand, when your reaction wheels die in your pod, you may not understand why you now can't control your ship.

And lastly, starting without kerbals means that you can't farm science quite as quickly since you can't collect samples from everywhere which appears to be one of the best ways to gain science. I want small gains in science early on. Rocketry was iterative and the initial stages of the tree shouldn't be so trivial to open (but on the other hand I still feel the parts need moving around a bit more, as I think we should be starting with SRBs before liquid rockets, but that's because I'm thinking that you start with a V-2 and end with a Saturn V).

[Jarnis]

The obvious solution is to have two modes.

Introductory/tutorial career mode that tosses realism out, starts with screaming Kerbals in a rocket and easy science.

"Hardcore" career mode with slow and methodical scientific progress that makes more sense (probes first), more tighter budget (whenever money is implemented)

Since odds of this happening for 0.22 are roughly zero, I fully expect someone to do the second version as a mod. I give it a week for it to appear...

[AmpsterMan]

I just thought of something. What if the second iteration of science would be to have a sort of museum building where we could walk around in first person and see all that we have discovered plus achievements (ie, first manned landing, Kerbals expired, etc)

[Moon Goddess]

The big important thing is that you can fly a manned mission with 3 parts (capsule, fuel, engine) and they work no matter what. If you run out of fuel, it's pretty obvious because the engine stops working. If you run out of power, you still have torque (presumably because the Kerbals are doing something mechanically inside the ship). If you're using a probe, you need those 3 parts PLUS a way to generate power and a way to store power. You have to pay WAY more attention to how much power you have and how much power your wheels take to make turns. It's a LOT harder. It's not hard for US. It's hard for people who have never played before.

The problem I have with this argument is the change in the very most recent version before this .21 to make SAS to drain power for the purpose of realism. It's not different I can simply only flight a manned mission a little longer without power generation. And at that point we're just talking about balance issues you could change the battery value in probes and get the same result.

It seems to me there are 2 sides in squad, and they are at odds.

[Sean Mirrsen]

The problem I have with this argument is the change in the very most recent version before this .21 to make SAS to drain power for the purpose of realism. It's not different I can simply only flight a manned mission a little longer without power generation. And at that point we're just talking about balance issues you could change the battery value in probes and get the same result.

It seems to me there are 2 sides in squad, and they are at odds.

The reaction wheels were the result of the ongoing change, removing "magic torque" and replacing it with a proper mechanic. Not for the purpose of realism alone, but to keep the game internally consistent in its approach to realism.

For non-probes, and non-interplanetary craft, the change barely matters. You can construct an orbiter using the most basic parts, and the last thing you'll run out of is power, because your LFE generates power, and nothing but the reaction wheels uses it.

You should also keep in mind that realism is not binary. It's not even a simple sliding scale, not with something as multifaceted as a space program. You can have realism in parts behavior and general physics, but there is nothing to dictate a given progression of technology as "more logical" and "making more sense", since we only have our progression of technology to compare it to. Kerbals are aliens, in more senses than one, or two. Much more than just the visual, that's for sure. They can have absolutely different values systems, and of course vastly different history of progress. Probes first or manned first, decouplers before boosters or the other way around, any way is equally logical, and it's only a matter of choice - in this case, the choice is made in regards to game progression.

[generalmiller]

All I want is a single probe core in the beginning and there is no good reason not to have one added.

The argument that they went for manned before unmanned and don't know how to make an unmanned rocket doesn't make sense as all the basics and technologies for an unmanned craft would have already been created for a manned one. Gyroscopes, small mechanical motors for said gyroscope, and radio are all the basics for an unmanned rocket and all three would already have been created anyway for the manned one. And if we go buy the kerbals supposed technological development cycle the tech tree already shows that they are going from smaller rockets to larger rockets. And if they are doing that they would have started off with unmanned simply because it would have meant a smaller starting rocket to test and learn from. Now understand I'm not saying they could not have a charge ahead to a manned flight mentality, it would make sense though given what little we do actually know of them. But baring a few instances like Wan Hu, which would have ended just as badly they would have to actually test and learn.

As for the lack of need for electrical power with a manned capsule. I admit that is true and it makes it easier for the newer player to build and go. Long term though tutorials will be a thing for new people to learn from and the current scenarios are essentially a simplistic version of that already. But the scenarios are still a ways away from being truly comprehensive or being able to impart many of the needed skills for this game. That's why I'm not saying the Capsule should be removed simply that a probe core added. The kerbals obviously believe they're far enough along to start a space program all I'm saying is that they could just as easily put a probe core on top instead of a capsule as they would already have the necessary know how and technology. Just as a new player or one that doesn't care about casualties could easily put a capsule on top and those that do care or just want to could put a probe on top.

The general idea from my point of view is give the player, new or old, a choice between the two at the start.

Edited October 14, 2013 by generalmiller

[magnemoe]

The thing is though, the reason they sent probes up first wasn't because it was safer, but because it was easier. A probe can be lighter, and require less dV to get there than an entire pod complete with life support, etc etc, and you don't have to worry about getting said probe back safely without being branded a heartless murderer

Personally I think it'd be better to have probes come first, just because I think it makes both historical, gameplay and progression sense.

Importantly, you know that a probe is electronic, so a newbie is going to think that it will need a battery to function and won't be surprised when it stops moving it doesn't have it. On the other hand, when your reaction wheels die in your pod, you may not understand why you now can't control your ship.

And lastly, starting without kerbals means that you can't farm science quite as quickly since you can't collect samples from everywhere which appears to be one of the best ways to gain science. I want small gains in science early on. Rocketry was iterative and the initial stages of the tree shouldn't be so trivial to open (but on the other hand I still feel the parts need moving around a bit more, as I think we should be starting with SRBs before liquid rockets, but that's because I'm thinking that you start with a V-2 and end with a Saturn V).

V-2 was liquid fueled, same with all the early ICBM, later all military rockets switched to solid as it stores for long time and is easy to handle.

And an difference might be that we started building long range rockets as weapons.

Yes probes still make more sense, however any respecting scientist would be an chicken and not an kerbal if he didn't went up himself.

Add that kerbal electronic is primitive, no autopilot except the sas who is unable to get an slightly unbalanced ship to fly straight.

No way to transfer the radar attitude measurement to an probe and so on. Guess they don't have transistors yet or at least not integrated circuits.

However the kerbal scientists understood that probes had an value as it was an cheap way to do science in hard to return places like Eve and Jool. (Jool is two levels of magnitude harder) so they develop them.

[Wait- Was That Important?]

On a different note, is anyone aware of how the parts are organized by tiers in the config files? Will that be easily accessible to players? I play with a very unique arrangements of mods and would hate to have to resort to stock parts. I hope that we're allowed to make our own progression trees and that it's not hardcoded in the way it is.

[KSK]

Interesting. Looks like most of my early career mode craft are going to be festooned with separatrons to deorbit all the spent stages. Either that or I get a bit smarter with mission planning!

[Eric S]

The problem I have with this argument is the change in the very most recent version before this .21 to make SAS to drain power for the purpose of realism. It's not different I can simply only flight a manned mission a little longer without power generation.

As someone who's built Tier 1 compliant craft to play with, and out of curiosity, did the same with probe pods, I can tell you you're drastically underestimating the difference. Capsules only draw power when you're using torque, and then only in proportion to the torque that is used, whereas a probe core is always drawing power. Heck, I've had times it had chewed up 5% of my power before I had even ignited the engines, just because I took 30 seconds to double check my staging.

Second, if a capsule runs out of power, you can start up a liquid engine (if you have one available) to get some electricity back. If a probe runs out of power, it is dead.

On a different note, is anyone aware of how the parts are organized by tiers in the config files? Will that be easily accessible to players? I play with a very unique arrangements of mods and would hate to have to resort to stock parts. I hope that we're allowed to make our own progression trees and that it's not hardcoded in the way it is.

The parts aren't organized by tier in their config files. There's a single line in the part.cfg file that specifies what node a part requires. If the line is missing, the part is not available to career mode. So yes, it will be trivial to make a mod using ModuleManager that changes what tech nodes each part requires.

Which is also a reason why I'm fine with the tech tree being capsules first. If anyone doesn't like the tree, they can change it, so yes, the tree should keep new users in mind, as they're less likely to know that that is even possible, let alone know how to do it.

EDIT: "The parts aren't organized by tier in their config files." Just to clarify, I mean the config files aren't organized by tier.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Eric S