Real-life based tech tree

[NathanKell]

So, I've seen a bunch of posts regarding how, for example, the MK1 pod is available before any kind of probe, and how rockets are available before planes. Now, a bunch of folks have responded "This the Kerbal Space Program, not the Human one, Jeb must be first" or words to that effect. Which is fine, but for those of us who want a closer-to-real-life progression of the tech tree...I made this thread.

Basically, unlike part mods which can be dropped in ad-hoc, it's very hard to coordinate one's mods with one's tech tree. I thus suggest that we hash out a community real-life-inspired tech tree, so that we can have a common basis, and so we don't, each of us, have to manually adjust everything.

I mean, we still have to adjust everything, but at least we can cooperate and not duplicate effort.

Further, this would give mod authors the chance to determine where they want their part on the tech tree, and give plugin authors a common set of nodes and their positions to query, if such authors are interested in supporting a more real-life-based tech tree.

So. Thoughts.

To start off, here's how I see things:

1. Separatrons, a heavy simple probe core, and the basic jet / cockpit / wings / jet fuel should be available at the start, along with size 0 LF parts (large solid rockets took much longer to develop than LF rockets; planes, however, beat even Goddard.) However, the 24-77 and 48-7S are too good for TL1; force people to use lots of LV-1s and 1Rs?

2. Some probes, science parts, a small SRB, and size 1 LF parts

3. Mk1 Pod, more science. Maybe size 2 LF parts

And so forth.

[dlrk]

Excellent idea! I'm not sure why, but with .22, Squad seems to be taking a very anti-realism stance.

[Gaius]

I'm not sure why, but with .22, Squad seems to be taking a very anti-realism stance.

The function of the tech tree is to introduce players to gameplay components a bit at a time, rather than overwhelming them. It's an excuse to spoon-feed players parts in small doses, not to simulate realistic technological advancement. It's not anti-realism, it's just that that's not the main concern...

[ZobrAA]

I agree, realistic tech tree must to be done!

Unfortunately my english skill does not allow me to freely discuss the details. -_-" But I'll try to make some sort of my own tech tree, once TechTree Editor is released.

[palker]

I agree the firs rocket i built in the career mode achieved orbit.

On the beginning of your space program you should have bunch of airplane parts, basic jet engine and basic scientific instruments like thermometer and pressure meter and a probe core with a weak rocket engine that can send it on ballistic trajectory.

Another thing i wish we could do is improving efficiency of the same part in the tech nodes. So you could unlock a heavy and inefficient battery/rocket/solar panel/ and then improve it in the next research nodes.

[Moon Goddess]

The function of the tech tree is to introduce players to gameplay components a bit at a time, rather than overwhelming them. It's an excuse to spoon-feed players parts in small doses, not to simulate realistic technological advancement. It's not anti-realism, it's just that that's not the main concern...

That's all well and good but that's hardly what was advertized. Many of us thought we were getting an R&D system as a part of game play much like Civilization or countless other games. These games to not use R&D to ease players into the game, the R&D is a long term part of gameplay.

I really could understand if this was how the game moved people into sandbox mode, but this should not be how it works in career.

[CAPFlyer]

Guys, this is the FIRST RELEASE of the Tech Tree on a BETA program. Stop getting your panties in a wad and instead of bashing Squad for it. Instead, try putting forth constructive suggestions on how you would arrange the tech tree. If you want to build a new tech tree, great! Here's the link to r4m0n's "TreeLoader" and where you can submit your suggestion - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/53192-0-22-TreeLoader-Custom-Career-Tech-tree-Loader-1-0

Don't say that Squad is "anti-realism" or make assumptions for them. From the interviews they made and by r4m0n's own admission in the above thread, this is the first iteration of the tree and the main push here was to get it in the game and working, not to have it be perfect from the get go. They will be not only allowing for modders to create custom trees, but they will be tweaking the default tree as users figure out better progressions.

Edited October 18, 2013 by CAPFlyer

[BostLabs]

Guys, this is the FIRST RELEASE of the Tech Tree on a BETA program. Stop getting your panties in a wad and instead of bashing Squad for it. Instead, try putting forth constructive suggestions on how you would arrange the tech tree. If you want to build a new tech tree, great! Here's the link to r4m0n's "TreeLoader" and where you can submit your suggestion - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/53192-0-22-TreeLoader-Custom-Career-Tech-tree-Loader-1-0

.

That is good information. But KSP is not in beta. The game is still in Alpha stage and under development. Beta is where the software has all of it's planned features working. KSP is no where near that yet.

[regex]

If you want to build a new tech tree, great!

That's what OP was trying to do, using community consensus. Then everybody came in and **** all over his thread with ITS JUST AN ALPHA and TECH TREE WASNT MEANT TO BE THIS WAY.

It would be really great if people could read a thread before commenting in it. It would also be great if people could keep their debates regarding whether the stock game as it stands is good enough out of a thread that is trying to alter stock gameplay.

[regex]

If you start in the early 20th century then LV-1s and the like are appropriate. Use the thermometer or pressure guage as a starting science tool. Flat octo probe, tiny strut, tiny round tank, LV-1, thermometer. The next node should open up a non-control winglet, a fuel tank, and maybe the LV-909, enough to build a V-2 equivalent. Or maybe just solid fuel boosters.

There's this:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_rocket_and_missile_technology

and this:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_aviation

That would give two trees. The first would be rocketry-centric, the second airplane-centric. The problem with an airplane-centric tree is that you have to start with many more parts and you don't have a logical progression of engines. Yargnit's tree is pretty good for a start, but it goes for manned flight first.

[thorfinn]

My suggestions:

1) I would keep the Mk1 Mercury not at first node, but near to the beginning: we can justify it with "spaceflight is easier on Kerbin", and I'd like to see it in the first position on the tree where it's very hard but not impossible to orbit it.

2) Tricouplers, adapters etc. should come early. They are quite low tech pieces of kit after all.

3) I don't think that LV-1Rs can be used for much as a first stage - I'd start with 24-77s available, then LV-909s and the 48-7S as the third level, if we keep to stock parts. For higher realism I think that mod parts like the ones OP uses are necessary.

[NathanKell]

regex, thanks. :]

So, before we actually get down to what-parts-where, let's first figure out generic progression. Because IMO stock KSP just doesn't have enough (differently-efficient!) parts to constitute what we need.

There are two things that would help us here that I plan to make.

One is a new module, built from RemoteTech, that is a "half-command" module. It will allow you to stage, and to right-click parts, but not to actually control the craft (thrust or rotate). This is to allow sounding rockets and uncontrollable satellites that can still return science.

Because it makes sense that controllable probe cores are hard to make. But probes themselves, easy.

Second is ModuleTechLevel, which can be applied to any part, and based on the system I wrote to calculate MissionController costs, allow the tweaking of any named and typed variable in the part itself or in any _other_ module that's derived from PartModule. This means that you could add ModuleTechLevel to a fuel tank, and have the fuel tank gradually decrease in dry mass the further along the tech tree you are. This would prevent having to manually create advanced and un-advanced copies of parts.

[NathanKell]

Update: testing the RemoteTech science module. If it works, then we can properly have uncontrollable probes early, and autonomous ones later.

[thorfinn]

Are you going to make reaction wheels (heavier) or RCS available together with these "uncontrollable" probes, though?

Otherwise I think it would be more pain for no compelling reason You know, maybe it's just me, but when you already know the game well having whole classes of mundane parts like RCS or ladders locked away because you are at a low level is just a bother and stifles your inventiveness instead of enhancing it. Even Juno I had an early RCS after all, to orient the upper stages package before firing it.

I'm all for gyro-less probe cores if that means you have to include an (early, heavy) gyro or an early, low-Isp RCS system (cold gas thrusters?) to fly them; dumb rockets, on the other hand, would grow old very quickly I believe

(And maybe you could find use for these cold gas thrusters in the following too, when you know you'll need just some brief maneuvering. What about gas bottles made from downscaled Stayputniks? Very light, but with an Isp of just 100?)

Edited October 19, 2013 by thorfinn

[NathanKell]

Nonono, I don't mean gyroless probes. I mean UNCONTROLLABLE probes. Like out-of-contact probes in RemoteTech except you can still stage and transmit science.

Nobody was able to change Sputnik's orbit once it decoupled from its booster...

So at the start you have to shoot off a few unguided sounding rockets to get science, or fly planes. Then you can research a rocket guidance unit--still far too heavy for probe cores, but allows for controllable boosters. And then you can make an R-7 (guidance in core stage, massive rocket) or Juno (small; guidance in booster; unguided [solid] upper stages)

Low-Isp cold gas RCS is a good idea. I should put that in. I've been using rescaled cylindrified-Stratus pods with 5 units of RCS for my probes, but a cold-gas version would be cool.

[SGT.Krieger]

Has someone any idea if there is a mod , which changes the current 0.22 into a more realistic/logical one ?`

If not , would it be possible to create a more realistic tech tree for the stock parts ?

EDIT : Sry for the double post , post was invisible , so i posted again

Edited October 19, 2013 by SGT.Krieger

[SGT.Krieger]

Are there any mods yet which replace the current Tree Tech with a more realstic/logical tree tech with all the stock Parts ? If not , would it be possible currently to create a stock parts realistic tree tech ?

[Spica]

There is treeloader, which enables you to load in new tech trees, but as of now, not change them.

Spica

[NathanKell]

Making such a tree is exactly what this thread is about.

[thorfinn]

OK, I understand your point. I'm still not that sure about dumb rockets, but trying a few combinations of the small SRBs you're adding could be fun for the frst few launches

Another thing: what about having thrust minimums on the (cfg)modded engines?

Limited restarts would be realistic but also a pain, having limits to throttling is realistic and also has a gameplay effect - you'd have to include RCS/verniers to get perfectly trimmed burns, or leave trimming to an upper stage with a more modulable engine. A basic Mun mission would not need RCS, though. (Lander engines would have deep throttle, of course )

There is a minimum thrust parameter already in the .cfgs, it's just that nobody uses it (except the jet engines I think.)

Edited October 20, 2013 by thorfinn

[MGyver]

I agree with NathanKell: tech should restrict operations to low-altitude operations for the first little while with some basic aero parts, atmospheric engines, basic probes, and ballistic rocketry. I'm not so certain that L0 on the tree should include airplane parts per se, but they should be within easy reach with a bit of research. I don't think that uncontrollable probes are necessary if instead you stick with uncontrollable engines as the simple tech. Here's what I would suggest:

L0 (default) - Wild Experimentation

Stayputnik

MiniBooster

Thermometer

AV-T1 Winglet

Communicatron

Modular Girder Segment

L1 - Low-Atmosphere & Science

[basic aircraft parts & manned flight capability]

[Mystery Goo, Comms DTS-1, & batteries]

[small-medium solid booster engines]

L2 - Achieving Low-Orbit

[small liquid engines & fuel tanks]

[aero control parts]

[sC-9001 Science Jr, solar, more batteries]

L3 - Low-Orbit Advancements

L4 - Mun Landing

L5 - Long-range Missions

L6, etc... more crazy Kerbalisms

[thorfinn]

I think the idea here is more about following historical progress better than just adding extra difficulty.

Airplanes are hard, if you manage to do something worthwhile with them at the start (without top of the line parts, also) then good for you Especially if you have FAR - which this tree should be used with if it's a direct spinoff of Nathan's "series".

Edited October 20, 2013 by thorfinn

[SGT.Krieger]

Absolutly should the tech tree follow the historical/technological progression of the human space travel and aviation !

[Bothersome]

Well, I have already started a mod for making a tech/research tree that fits in the wants of this thread. I came here looking for the "proper" way to install it. Right now I'm using JSGME to install my mod. But I've seen somewhere (I don't remember where) that Squad wanted us to use a different method. But changing the location of the parts on the tech tree involves changing the cfg file of every effected part. JSGME manages all that, but is there a more preferred way?

It would be nice to get a couple more people involved in this mod. You should also understand that the node layout is hard coded in the EXE. So I'm not going to be changing that. Just where the parts are located under the stock tech tree nodes.

This is my first time making a custom mod for KSP. I've modded several other games (the Silent Hunter Series, Railroad Tycoon 3, and a few others) in my past.

So far the mod is working out real nice. Especially at the start. It just takes a while having to mod, then play test, then mod some more, then play test some more, and so on.

Let me know if you're interested in play testing and giving feedback on what should be where and why. It would also be nice for you to have scype so we can communicate much quicker while making the mod and testing, and,,, I only speak English.

[Dilin]

Definitely in Support of this, this can be compatible with mods to as long as you keep all the nodes from stock and only rearrange them.