[WIP][TechTree @ 0.23.5] - [MS19e] - Realistic Progression LITE

[Guest]

This is actually a stock issue, that DRE brings to light. If your vessel explodes while experiencing re-entry effects (the flames) it causes the UI to become responsive if you return to the space center. There is a 'sort of' fix for this, if you revert to VAB, proceed to LP, and then you can go back to the Space Center and all will be well.

Very odd issue indeed.

EDIT:

Took my first weekend off working on the plugin/tech tree. Back online as of this morning. Just to give an idea of what is going on right now, I'm going over the stock detection of situations (FlyingHigh/low,etc.) vs the method I've borrowed from Ethernet. Either we need to get the RSS CelestialParams tweaked, or I have to make some updates to the method. Either way I'll get to the bottom of this.

Once this is fully resolved, I'll get back to making probes, and reviewing their tech tree line. Thinking of going by project name, IE:

Project Bumper

Sputnik (1,2,3)

Project Explorer

Project Pioneer (0,1,2,3,4)

Luna (1,2,3)

This should all be doable with Tier 1 Tech (1955+). Where possible and if it doesn't become more of a hassle, I'll itemize their scientific accomplishments separately as their own experiments.

For Manned experiments, I'll do Project Mercury & Gemini first. As some of these move to more complex "conditions" might be worth starting to implement a few MCE missions to complement the experience. Although that's a bit of pandora's box, as before using MCE I want to do a cost overhaul/review and that will be, soo damn long. lol, so I think I'll do my best to make it 'work' without it for now.

Thanks again for all those participating in this super buggy alpha, suggestions and issues reported are being noted and hopefully addressed in Milestone 19.

Cheers,

best alpha i've ever tried, very well done so far!!

[sirklick]

Anyone found an effective fuel mixture for landers that isnt "cryogenic" (doesnt evaporate)? I am having a small issue with finding the right mixtures for each of my stages, i got the idea of liquid fuel/liquid oxygen or LH2/liquid oxygen make for good early stages to orbit, what do i want to for a long duration stage?? very upsetting to reach my destination only to find a good chunk of my landing delta-v has evaporated dooming me to impact

Some engines (AIES engines are the first you have access to I believe have Aerozine and/or MMH fuel options. These are used mostly for stages that require fuels be stored and reignited. Though hard with this mod at first, because the early engines dont support h2/o2, it is often best to have a fairly long burning first stage of LF/O2 followed by stages of H2/O2. H2/O2 for 2nd stage+ gives high performance for its mass and thus improves the dV of the rocket overall. Only issues with H2/O2 are its size (high volume requirement), the generally lower TWR (less an issue with a large LF first stage), and boil off. Final stage and lander options are generally best cases for MMH, Aerozine, and sometimes Monoprop. These give nice long burns for relatively small volumes and don't boil off. ModFuels supports RLA Stock alike engines with burn monoprop, which sometimes make it attractive. Even without, small probes, service modules, and small non-atmospheric landers that require RCS anyway can often do with RCS modules only (no engines!). The often cited braeunig contains fuel specifics.

[MedievalNerd]

Why thank you Aazard!

Just a small update/insight into the tests i've been carrying out. It seems that the stock situation detection has a flaw of some sorts. If you are able to reach orbit velocity above a certain altitude (which is below the actual threshold of InSpaceLow) the goo experiment is able to report InSpaceLow condition. The way the custom experiment checks the situation is solely based on the threshold, so seems that the method Ethernet did is actually more accurate in that specific scenario. Kudos to Ethernet!

So without touching the values of Kerbin, it's got a 18,000 meter cutoff for Flying Low, then Flying high is up until 103,500 meters. Space Low is between 103,501 and 249,999 meters. Space High is 250,000 and above. I think it'd be nice to have Space High start above 300km instead, to represent LEO a little better. Totally doable too!

I had an idea but I'm not sure we could implement it. But for bodies that don't have atmospheres, excluding landing condition, you are left with only High/Low space. With some trickery, I'm wondering whether I could manage to get High/Low above surface working. This would be great for the early impact probes, and have more precise conditions as to where to take the video/photos data.

Now to go do the rest of the bodies. lol

Cheers,

[sirklick]

This is a good reason to build "fat/wide" 1st stages with tank adapters/interstate fairings upto a skinnier last stage with a payload procedural fairing, atleast your rocket will be more manageable in the VAB and less "tippy" on the launch pad.

This is indeed a solution. My comment was to help a new-comer get over the initial size difference hump. Transitioning from stock to mostly full sized rockets can be hard for some.

Scouring for science at the beginning to help alleviate tall skiny high part rockets is indeed important. Efficient use of the science gathered from the first few science missions also helps a lot. Gaining early access to T2 structural/decouplers as well as larger fairings (at least to the somewhat complicated to use inter-stage adapter) is very important for easing the transition from KO to Mun science missions.

[TheJoseph98]

Hello, I installed this(ese) mod(s) but I have a couple of issues:

1) When I started a new career save, I selected "use stock" from TreeLoader and then I went to Research building and on the top I selected the RPL_18 or something but when I click on something to research it a window pops up saying how to edit the tech tree I don't want ot edit it I just want to use it.

2) For some reason when I make a rocket and when I launch it the throttle stays at 100% for like a second and then it drops to 0% and what's more weird I can't set it back to 100% it's stuck at 0% throttle, the only way to launch stuff is by using solid boosters

EDIT: I double checked that all mods are installed correctly, I know the number 1 is caused by me using TreeEdit instead of TreeLoader (the short tutorial on the first page says I should use TreeEdit and not Loader), for number 2 though I still don't know what's causing it

Edited December 2, 2013 by TheJoseph98

[sirklick]

1) When I started a new career save, I selected "use stock" from TreeLoader and then I went to Research building and on the top I selected the RPL_18 or something but when I click on something to research it a window pops up saying how to edit the tech tree I don't want ot edit it I just want to use it.

To my knowledge there is no way to get rid of the edit window. RPL_18 has not been added to TreeLoader as an option yet, so this is the only way to use the Alpha. Annoying, but I believe unavoidable at the moment.

2) For some reason when I make a rocket and when I launch it the throttle stays at 100% for like a second and then it drops to 0% and what's more weird I can't set it back to 100% it's stuck at 0% throttle, the only way to launch stuff is by using solid boosters

I can't say for sure, but this sounds like your rocket may not have a power antennae for remote tech. RT2 will often not engage its control restrictions until just after launch, causing this type of behavior. If not this...

[TheJoseph98]

I can't say for sure, but this sounds like your rocket may not have a power antennae for remote tech. RT2 will often not engage its control restrictions until just after launch, causing this type of behavior. If not this...

What antenna? Does it have a name so I can place one onto my rocket. I know one antenna is the one you start with the stock career mode the communitron 16 or something and there is another one I actually haven't tried placing that on the rocket, also do they have to be extended?

[sirklick]

What antenna? Does it have a name so I can place one onto my rocket. I know one antenna is the one you start with the stock career mode the communitron 16 or something and there is another one I actually haven't tried placing that on the rocket, also do they have to be extended?

I believe a good one to use at first is the DP-10. Decent enough range for ascent and running a couple of experiments and low/no power usage AND it starts deployed.

[andqui]

What antenna? Does it have a name so I can place one onto my rocket. I know one antenna is the one you start with the stock career mode the communitron 16 or something and there is another one I actually haven't tried placing that on the rocket, also do they have to be extended?

"Reflectron DP-10" for early flights, low power cost but short range, needs no activation

"Communotron 16" for your first primitive comunication satellites at 15-25k km orbits, needs to be turned on but is omnidirectional

"Comms DTS-M1" for geosynchronous/lunar communication, needs to be turned on and pointed at another dish (which should also be pointing back)

Edited December 2, 2013 by andqui

[BlackGlass Sand]

This is actually a stock issue, that DRE brings to light. If your vessel explodes while experiencing re-entry effects (the flames) it causes the UI to become responsive if you return to the space center. There is a 'sort of' fix for this, if you revert to VAB, proceed to LP, and then you can go back to the Space Center and all will be well.

Very odd issue indeed.

Thank-you kindly for the responses, gentlemen; I knew someone would know about this. Guess I'll just have to do my re-entries better. lol.

[Guest]

I believe a good one to use at first is the DP-10. Decent enough range for ascent and running a couple of experiments and low/no power usage AND it starts deployed.

I agree the DP-10 is best for launch/ascent control on ALL unmanned rockets when placed on a stage that falls away after you reach 50+km (so you can deploy longer range antenna without it breaking to take over). After this is the communitron 88-88 deployable dish, the always deployed dish's are an option too but due to mass "always on" dishes are normally better used for comms relays sats (making the communitron 88-88 attractive for early missions due to its weight to range ratio as long as probe dosnt exceed 400GM range, lets you carry the least weight in comms equip).

But you'll need a comms network ASAP to run more effective missions. I tend to deploy a 3 sat 50MM omni antenna/600gm dish (dish pointed to "active vessle", omni in range of other 2 geosynced sats)) com sat relay for earliest missions (like orbital stuff/mun/duna/eve fly bys/landings) and, after unlocking the best dish's/tracking solar panels, dock to them, refuel them and send them to the mun as the munar comms relay and replace the kerbin geosynchronous network with the final "system wide" dishes and 50MM antenna's. RT2 can be punishing and solar orbit/impact causing when 1st using it lol

Edit: although the "Comms DTS-M1" is effective for a com relay, its slightly high weight to range ratio plus limited range (making it less effective for future missions like eve/duna flyby's), i find a single 600GM dish/50MM omni antenna combo gets you the "most mileage" for your 1st comms network, and they're unlocked with the duna/eve probes. The weight of them is not "too hard" to launch geo-synced at tier 1 rockets and they can be easily powered by the 1st battery/solar panel you get (like 48solar panels & 8 batteries... but they are light). But every one has their preferred setup, i suggest testing your comm sat's recharge rate & power on the launch pad before launching it, to make sure it can continuously power itsef

EDIT: Anyone else have rovers sliding like they are on ice on the mun? Also with random flipping like they hit a ridge and doing an endless "brake dance spin"?? Its very hard to drive my rover the distances required in RSS like this...

Edited December 3, 2013 by Guest

[MedievalNerd]

EDIT: Anyone else have rovers sliding like they are on ice on the mun? Also with random flipping like they hit a ridge and doing an endless "brake dance spin"?? Its very hard to drive my rover the distances required in RSS like this...

Please post this on the RSS thread! Sounds like something not super fun! NathanKell will have a look.

Best,

@ALL

So, spent the day checking out the celestial parameters for each body, and see how that all makes sense in relation to RSS, and yeah, we'll need to tweak some values. In some cases we end up with a Atmospheric threshold, that overlaps the lowspace zone, so you jump from FlyingHigh to SpaceHigh. At least now I have all the values mapped out and I'll see what needs to be changed so that it fits all nicely. Then finally back to my ramshackle probes.

For those who like numbers:

téléchargement de photos

Edited December 3, 2013 by MedievalNerd

[Guest]

Please post this on the RSS thread! Sounds like something not super fun! NathanKell will have a look.

Best,

@ALL

So, spent the day checking out the celestial parameters for each body, and see how that all makes sense in relation to RSS, and yeah, we'll need to tweak some values. In some cases we end up with a Atmospheric threshold, that overlaps the lowspace zone, so you jump from FlyingHigh to SpaceHigh. At least now I have all the values mapped out and I'll see what needs to be changed so that it fits all nicely. Then finally back to my ramshackle probes.

For those who like numbers:

téléchargement de photos

Mun looks odd, low space is 69km and high space is 60km??

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

I'm game to assist in the progression of the aircraft nodes if you're still looking:

It's going to require B9, Firespitter, and TT Aerospace and Pizzaria, plus a modification for the RAMJET engine from TT for SCRAMJETs, and rather than two or three nodes, you'll have a split tree there with five nodes each for engines and 'wings'. It should be noted that TT Pizzaria tweaks the aircraft engines to make them behave more realistically for their power curves between speed and altitude.

Coming off the start node you have, you can immediately split into two sections.

Aircraft Engines, and Aerodyanmics.

Aircraft Engines:

Node One (Prop Engines) contains firespitter's prop engine components and the tanks/basic inlets that would otherwise needed to make them run. This node represents early aircraft engines and handles the Lancaster engines parts. There would be no jet engines here.

Node Two (The Jet Age) would contain the stock basic jet engine (technically a turbojet. See Note *1) and/or basic turbojets.

Node Three (Turbofans) would contain more advanced engines that take turbojets and combine them with the advantages of prop engines. Also, firespitter needs to develop Turboprops. (*2) Node three would also contain helicopter engines. (Turboshaft)

Node Four (Ramjets/J-57s) This node represents the tier of engines the SR-71 blackbird uses. A Turbo-ramjet hybrid engine. (*1) Turbo-ramjet and ramjet components as well as supersonic inlets would be here.

Node Five (SCRAMJETS/SABREs) This final node of engines would contain SCRAMJET engines custom added (*3). Scramjets would require a merging branch node from both hypersonic flight (see next node group) and somewhere in the mid to late-stage liquid rocket engines group. SABRE engines from B9 Aerospace would also go here.

Aerodynamics:

Node 1 (Basic flight) This node contains basic straight edge wings such as firespitter's... firespitter wings.

Node 2 (Aerodynamics) This node covers wing design ranges from late prop aircraft to early jets. Where math started getting applied to aircraft design, but before man achieved supersonic flight. Wing sweeping is introduced here, but not the delta or other deep sweep wings of the next node.

Node 3 (Trans-sonic) Learning to break the sound barrier came with painful lessons about what air does above mach .9. This node would contain wings that reflect these lessons. Deeper Swept wings and Delta's show up here.

Node 4 (Or node 3 revised) (Supersonic) The distinction between this one and above is likely not going to be in the parts available so much as lessons learned. Lessons learned flying above mach 1 and into mach 2 and 3 resulted in advancements to supersonic design overall, as well as improvements in flight at higher altitudes. Perhaps merging stock High Altitude Flight into this section will mark the distinction.

Node 5 (Hypersonic Flight) At mach 5, air behaves more like a plasma fluid than... well, air. This node would contain the parts distinct to discovering that. Since a lot of how hypersonic designs will behave is modeled by computer, this node would require a merging point with mid-tier electronics. If you integrate Procedural wings, they belong here.

Side Node (Figure out where to place): Composite wings. Light modern aircraft and drones use composite materials in their wings to make them lighter and more flexible while still being strong. TT Pizzaria adds a variety of light wings ideal for drone aircraft that appear to be of this design.

Side Node 2: Rotor Craft. A possibility instead of lumping helicopter parts in with turbofans. They are a bit of their own side-branch in development requiring their own concepts and approach to flying.

*1: Turbojet: Basic jet turbine engine. All power and thrust is developed in the turbomachinery. Poor performance and inefficient and low speed. Good power and speed at high subsonic through to mach 1.2 or so without afterburner, up to ~mach 2 with afterburner.

Turbofan: Turbojet engine with a large fan on the front that pushes air through a ducted bypass around the outside of the core. Moves a lot of air at a lower speed producing a LOT of power. Very efficient engine at subsonic, quickly loses power after hitting mach 1. High and low bypass (size of ducting) variants determine actual characteristics. Examples: High Bypass, 747's engines. Low Bypass, Modern combat aircraft engines like the F-22's F-119 afterburning turbofans.

Ramjet: Jet engine that does not contain the internal turbomachinery and is considered not to have moving parts. Uses ramming effect of the aircraft plowing through the air as the intake that forces air into the engine, thus the name. Does not work at a stop or low speeds. Minimum mach 2.5 operational capability, upper limit around mach 5 - 7. Tweak for balance.

TURBO-RAMJET: Hybrid engine. Operates as a turbojet until around mach 2.5 and then bypass doors in the engine open up forcing the air to move around the engine. SR-71 Blackbird's J-57 engines are a working example. Engine regime is more or less from full stop up to mach 3.5. Based on anecdotal evidence, may be able to push mach 4 before the leading compressor fan in the turbomachinery runs the risk of softening and flying apart. (Overheat above M3.5) In game, the stock turbojets operate in roughly this regime, but that needs to be fixed.)

*2: Turboprops are propeller aircraft who's propellers aren't driven by piston engines. They are in the same vein as a turbofan engine in that their core component is the turbine. However, Turboprops completely forego the jet-thrust configuration and power propellers. They are more efficient than a turbojet, but cheaper than a full turbofan.

*3: TT Aerospace and Pizzaria has RAMJET engines that cover mid to high-velocity supersonic flight up to mach 5-6. However, RAMJETs are not the end of the line in air breathing engines. RAMJETs lose their power around mach 5-7 due to the fact that deflagration (regular burning) just doesn't burn the fuel fast enough before the flame itself is pushed out of the exhaust nozzle of the engine. And using shock cone inlets and other methods to slow the air down at this point start to produce too much drag for too little gain. (In short the engine literally blows itself out like a candle.) The SC in SCRAMJET stands for Supersonic Combustion [Ramjet]. Effectively, fuel is 'detonated' rather than 'burned' so that the heated exhaust gas expands fast enough to be effective in the engine. The configuration of the engine is otherwise just like a ramjet, though the mathematics of the geometry are refined for higher velocities. The SCRAMJET is proven up to speed of mach 9-10, though theories suggest that with the right fuels and materials, velocities up to mach 22 are possible. The limitation of the SCRAMJET at top speed is how much heat burning the fuel can add to the air. At a SCRAMJET's theoretical limit, the air is just as hot at the diffuser (just after intake) due to compression as it is when the fuel is burned into it. No heat added means no further expansion of the air, means no additional thrust. The engine maxes at full speed by its net thrust running to zero. (It reaches top speed and just stays there until fuel is run out.) The TESTED and verified top speed of a scramjet would make escaping stock-sized kerbin into medium orbit easy once you get to the mach 3.5 power development threshold. The theoretical limit would be good for real solar system configuration.

And that's my suggestion for the aircraft tree. Now a couple of comments about other things.

I think the cost values for different sections still need tweaking. Your custom instrumentation gives very large injections of science when you complete each one, but the leaps going up the tree are extremely steep in price for stock experimentation. I suggest tweaking and integration with Kerbal Dust Experiment and L-Tech Science parts mods in mind. I also suggest reviewing how much science can be earned per 'range sphere' around kerbin based on these to work out about what 'tiers' take you what distances.

Second, I think a tier for wheels, perhaps integrating modular multiwheels and other wheel mods into the mix would also be good for the tree. Give the player the chance to run around on the ground a little early on and for lack of a better term 'drive' some of their experiments out to places. There are a lot of biomes on kerbin. And they can ALL be reached by land if you're patient enough. (Thanks to Kerbin's continents having a double land bridge.) At the very least, give them the chance to explore the local biomes and let the local biomes at least play a useful part in the early game. From what I learned playing Nazari's (OR however that name's spelled), Traditional Tech Tree, getting around kerbin early on can be a pretty decent goal. (Before you go to space, explore your own world dangit!)

As it stands, with your science tiers jumping in value rapidly, the meager science of the kerbin surface biomes pretty much makes them useless very quickly. Perhaps integrating the flight tree with some experiments, making them integral to helping advance the flight tech branches would be a way to go there.

Edited December 3, 2013 by AdmiralTigerclaw

[Autochton]

[...]TT Aerospace and Pizzaria[...]

I assume you mean Taverio's Aerospace & Pizza Delivery (aka. TV PP)? Since TT usually is TouhouTorpedo, not Taverius.

I'd argue that the prop aircraft parts might be aptly placed at the starting node, along with basic flight. A candidate part for either transonic or supersonic aerodynamics would be any sort of stabilator-type control surface (Stock AV-R8 and canards, TVPP rescales, B9 stabilators, etc.), as these were developed specifically to allow supersonic control authority, IIRC.

[Tyrador]

MediavlNerd, are you planning to add to this tree NearFuture mod? It's much more realistic than Interstellar and is better looking.

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

I assume you mean Taverio's Aerospace & Pizza Delivery (aka. TV PP)? Since TT usually is TouhouTorpedo, not Taverius.

I'd argue that the prop aircraft parts might be aptly placed at the starting node, along with basic flight. A candidate part for either transonic or supersonic aerodynamics would be any sort of stabilator-type control surface (Stock AV-R8 and canards, TVPP rescales, B9 stabilators, etc.), as these were developed specifically to allow supersonic control authority, IIRC.

And that's what I get for not actually stopping to check. Would you believe I started by calling it TV Aerospace etc and then thought 'that don't sound right' and "revised" it to TT?

As for moving the props and basic flight, the wonders of node editing. You could merge them into a single node there, and move it off start with a low price (five, ten science?) At the very least, letting the player know at a glance "Here Be Dragons" in relation to aerospace without confusing them with wings at the very start.

If I were doing this tree, I'd actually force the player to go through a starting 'ground' tier and some basic flight tiers before giving them their first rocket. I liked the traditional tech tree in that you have to work your way from the ground up, but it had a bit of a steep curve early game that died very quickly. The Traditional tech tree made you squeeze just about every bit of science out of flying around kerbin you could find before you could make it to general rocketry. Once you hit orbit though, cake. Four Mun landings and a Minmus landing later I was almost completely done with that tree. A solar probe and an Eve probe finished things off. I was sending probes to jool just to test the vista engine configurations I was coming up with.

Edited December 3, 2013 by AdmiralTigerclaw

[MedievalNerd]

Mun looks odd, low space is 69km and high space is 60km??

Hehe, where the values are grey they don't count. The problem areas have their characters in red. The red fields means that they aren't being detected. (IE, no atmosphere)

For planets without atmosphere it's only space high/low. So anything below the spacehigh treshold is space low. (except for landing)

But that 'might change', and I'll try to switch flyinghigh/low to near/far approach for planets without atmosphere. That way you'll still have 2 extra 'layers' even when there isn't atmosphere. Those 2 'new' situations could be great for impact probes, and ladee probes, etc.

I'm fixing all those values with Nathan this week most likely.

[MedievalNerd]

I'm game to assist in the progression of the aircraft nodes if you're still looking:

It's going to require B9, Firespitter, and TT Aerospace and Pizzaria, plus a modification for the RAMJET engine from TT for SCRAMJETs, and rather than two or three nodes, you'll have a split tree there with five nodes each for engines and 'wings'. It should be noted that TT Pizzaria tweaks the aircraft engines to make them behave more realistically for their power curves between speed and altitude.

Should have specified, or you might not have noticed in to the comments. I'm not implementing B9 or Firespitter, or TT Aerospace. One needs to realize how long it takes to move all those pieces into relevant areas. B9 alone is 100+ parts. Also the tree already has a quite impressively high amount of mods, and even using the texture compressor i'm trailing 2.9GB. B9 alone might tip it over, very large pack indeed.

I do want to revisit the Space Shuttle angle, right now there is nothing but the MK3 cockpit in that node. Would like to get at eleast one 'real' shuttle there. I think Bobcat has both Buran and US Shuttle?

At this stage, I'd be more interested on how the parts of the included mods would go in the "aircraft" section.

And that's my suggestion for the aircraft tree. Now a couple of comments about other things.

I think the cost values for different sections still need tweaking. Your custom instrumentation gives very large injections of science when you complete each one, but the leaps going up the tree are extremely steep in price for stock experimentation. I suggest tweaking and integration with Kerbal Dust Experiment and L-Tech Science parts mods in mind. I also suggest reviewing how much science can be earned per 'range sphere' around kerbin based on these to work out about what 'tiers' take you what distances.

Oh do the values ever need tweaking still! I cannot disagree there! The issue stems from the lack of custom experiment implementation. Once I got the situation detection sorted for all bodies, I'm going back to sort out the probes. We'll have Project Bumper, Explorer, Sputnik (1,2,3), Pioneer (0-4), Luna (1,2), etc. Technically, the way I originally calculated with the currently implemented custom experiments, you can unlock the first 2 tiers only. Then good luck with the stock science. (It's alpha! Wee! )

Also, I'm also going to try and implement project mercury & Gemini. (So that manned programs can start jumping into the custom experiment circle)

Ultimately, he goal is to move away from stock experiments and replace them with historical ones. With specific requirements, it creates basically a mission profile which I personally find very appealing. And yes, tiers are loosely based on what tech would be needed to reach the area and when was the historical mission launched/carried out. But still needs tweaking, with the massive infusion of probes for MS19, that'll be a much more granular experience, with more options.

There are a lot of biomes on kerbin. And they can ALL be reached by land if you're patient enough. (Thanks to Kerbin's continents having a double land bridge.) At the very least, give them the chance to explore the local biomes and let the local biomes at least play a useful part in the early game. From what I learned playing Nazari's (OR however that name's spelled), Traditional Tech Tree, getting around kerbin early on can be a pretty decent goal. (Before you go to space, explore your own world dangit!)

Second, I think a tier for wheels, perhaps integrating modular multiwheels and other wheel mods into the mix would also be good for the tree. Give the player the chance to run around on the ground a little early on and for lack of a better term 'drive' some of their experiments out to places.

As it stands, with your science tiers jumping in value rapidly, the meager science of the kerbin surface biomes pretty much makes them useless very quickly. Perhaps integrating the flight tree with some experiments, making them integral to helping advance the flight tech branches would be a way to go there.

Now this is something I see a lot discussed, about having a 'plane phase' prior to the rocket phase. Now, this all depends on 'how far back' do you really want to go? I'm aiming for the age of rocketry so to speak. (1950's and up). Mining Kerbin biomes surface/flying low for science I find is a bit gamey, and doesn't really fit well with the historical progression of the space program I'm trying to do. Things like getting science from the LP, runway or around Mission Control are comical, but nonsensical when you think about it. I don't want science, especially on kerbin to become a scavenger hunt. I like distinct mission profiles and objectives of the space nature.

I do like modular multiwheels, has it been updated yet?

As for cost scaling vs available experiments, as I mentioned earlier, it's all going to be fixed once I add more experiments. My experiments will be scaled to the tree, and other tweaks applied as we move forward.

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

Should have specified, or you might not have noticed in to the comments. I'm not implementing B9 or Firespitter, or TT Aerospace. One needs to realize how long it takes to move all those pieces into relevant areas. B9 alone is 100+ parts. Also the tree already has a quite impressively high amount of mods, and even using the texture compressor i'm trailing 2.9GB. B9 alone might tip it over, very large pack indeed.

It's worth the effort. And I'm running everything you are and a bag of chips except for not having Real Sol. (I like the scaled down timeframe of stock Kerbin.) I have to sacrifice graphics quality for gameplay, but having the parts is well worth it. The argument runs headlong into expanding on aircraft gameplay though. So to say quite simply, if you like aircraft, you get those mods. If you don't like aircraft, you tend not to care too much.

I do want to revisit the Space Shuttle angle, right now there is nothing but the MK3 cockpit in that node. Would like to get at eleast one 'real' shuttle there. I think Bobcat has both Buran and US Shuttle?

There's the Space Shuttle engines and tanks mod...

At this stage, I'd be more interested on how the parts of the included mods would go in the "aircraft" section.

I gave you the main catagories of aircraft progression. They require you to give them some TLC or anything you really do will just be a joke... Or rather, aircraft will look exactly as you're treating them, like an afterthought. Tweaking what I provided simply involves taking everything and lumping them into the correct catagories for engines and structure/wings.

Oh do the values ever need tweaking still! I cannot disagree there! The issue stems from the lack of custom experiment implementation. Once I got the situation detection sorted for all bodies, I'm going back to sort out the probes. We'll have Project Bumper, Explorer, Sputnik (1,2,3), Pioneer (0-4), Luna (1,2), etc. Technically, the way I originally calculated with the currently implemented custom experiments, you can unlock the first 2 tiers only. Then good luck with the stock science. (It's alpha! Wee! )

Also, I'm also going to try and implement project mercury & Gemini. (So that manned programs can start jumping into the custom experiment circle)

Ultimately, he goal is to move away from stock experiments and replace them with historical ones. With specific requirements, it creates basically a mission profile which I personally find very appealing. And yes, tiers are loosely based on what tech would be needed to reach the area and when was the historical mission launched/carried out. But still needs tweaking, with the massive infusion of probes for MS19, that'll be a much more granular experience, with more options.

A mistake I see here, is that you are providing this tech tree for others but operating on what you want. I'm not going to go about this and say you're wrong, but I am going to stress a warning about following the 'I want' bug. Remember, KSP is all about what the player who's actually playing wants to do. You chase these historical missions too far down the rabbit hole and you're going to run into the problem of locking others into what YOU want. Part of the way the stock experiments work is that you don't get locked into 'one probe does this, another does that'... You take a probe core you need and you stick the experiments on it to fit what you plan to do with it for that mission. However, I do like the Data Recorder setup you've done. Experiments aren't simply fired off in an instant, but require some operating time to execute. If this function could be broken down into individual stock and add-on experiments, you'd actually bring a whole new aspect to gameplay. For example, if KDEX (Kerbal Dust Experiment) got recoded to use your system, it could take several minutes to an hour to 'collect dust samples' from space (Assuming a fix for timewarp can make that hour go by quickly), and then, AFTER this run time, you can 'analyze collected samples' for science points. This alters the entire gameplay mechanic for science and makes the player actually have to take time-on-target into consideration when working a mission, rather than just 'passing by'. A gravity experiment for another example, would require a decent amount of ToT. In fact, many of the stock experiments would result in more immersive gameplay because they actually do require some significant ToT.

Even without the tech tree, you have modding GOLD right there.

Now this is something I see a lot discussed, about having a 'plane phase' prior to the rocket phase. Now, this all depends on 'how far back' do you really want to go? I'm aiming for the age of rocketry so to speak. (1950's and up). Mining Kerbin biomes surface/flying low for science I find is a bit gamey, and doesn't really fit well with the historical progression of the space program I'm trying to do. Things like getting science from the LP, runway or around Mission Control are comical, but nonsensical when you think about it. I don't want science, especially on kerbin to become a scavenger hunt. I like distinct mission profiles and objectives of the space nature.

I don't like turning Kerbin into a scavenger hunt either... After a certain point, flying to the biomes and trying to land gets tedious. However, I'm also loath to play the game, and have this big 1200 km diameter sphere you start on turn into nothing more than a glorified landing zone. Kerbin has such a nice diverse environment, and lots of interesting terrain to explore. Even at a 1/10 scale to real life, the place is HUGE. (You don't appreciate how huge until you've had a sub-sonic aircraft do a half-globe flight to deliver a command truck.) It's likely the minecrafter in me talking, but when I look around KSC, I see the landscape in the distance and want to check it out. But I digress... Core point is, so much work went into Kerbin alone that just launching into space and forgetting about it aside from being a huge landing pad just seems wasteful. There's got to be some things to do utilizing the local biomes that's fun and refreshing to gameplay. Make Kerbin USEFUL to the player, and FUN to explore. I'm not asking for the tech tree to come up with a solution to that. But I think that at least giving the player a runaround planet-side should factor in to game play. A little goal oriented jaunt that makes the planet and its biomes useful. A little 'from the ground up' experience. And with the way the research system works. If you don't force it early, you can literally IGNORE it entirely because it's just 'throw science points at it'. Even Kethane and Extraplanetary Launchpads can ignore because really... All that stuff you can get from Mun and Minmus, and you don't have to launch it out of the gravity well.

I do like modular multiwheels, has it been updated yet?

Sadly no... But I know that it only really needs someone to patiently step through the parts list and add the 'TechRequired' field to each cfg. Maybe add the PART { } bracket to the beginning/end of the cfg files. I forget which mods I had to do that for personally.

As for cost scaling vs available experiments, as I mentioned earlier, it's all going to be fixed once I add more experiments. My experiments will be scaled to the tree, and other tweaks applied as we move forward.

[Guest]

i dont really think we need more parts from firespitters (think of how long a flight to the badlands or poles would take!) or B9 (we have enough aero parts to make fine jets now). Although i would like to hear more about the stopping the need to scourer kerben for pitifully amounts of science points, prehaps removing all flying over/surface science from kerbin would be a good idea, keeping high atmosphere , near space and high space. players could start 40 points of science to spend right away but not have enough to go for one of the 50pt nodes of SRB's/rockets? any other ideas?

BUT why add more slow planes and plane parts, its a rocket game in the age of rocketry after all!

[funfight22]

I think you should make all the stock stuff doable maybe twice, three times like your custom experiments but more then once. I find it unrealistic that for a species going to space for the first time gets 10 science from each experiment, and 1 or 0 for each subsequent time. I think like 40 for each stock experiment, obviously a tweakable number, three times undiminished for at least kerbin space, and other planets, get rid of all stock kerbin experiments like temp, barometer and surface samples, crew reports and evas. If possible these experiments should be done by 3 different ships, to show checking of the results and not just using the same equipment and doing the same thing with potentially faulty instruments. This will help boost the available science at first, with about what, like 360 science from all the first stock things done three times, barely over your custom experiments done once, that is at least 3 launches still keeping the challenge. This way getting to the mun, would be even more attractive, with 400 to 500 more science on top of your custom experiments, only enough to get one node.

Any thoughts?

EDIT: Forgot to mention, after the third time or whatever, it would, like your current custom experiments give no science.

Edited December 4, 2013 by funfight22

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

(think of how long a flight to the badlands or poles would take!)

1 hour, 30 minutes.

That is the time it takes to fly a near antipodal route in a transport aircraft cruising at 10 km at mach .92.* You will not fly a single strictly aircraft flight longer than this on kerbin unless you're doing it on purpose. And any flights you fly with slower aircraft won't be far anyway before you've picked up enough Sciiiience [/Dexter's Lab] to unlock faster aircraft components. And no science run will ever require an antipodal flight because the badlands are west of the antipidal point of KSC. (The Antipodal Point is in the ocean just west of crater gulf.)

* The route was done using a 4-engine MkIV heavy fuselage-based aircraft carrying an 11 ton comm truck to station on the far side of kerbin as a backup control link center for remote tech II. At takeoff, the engines had 2 hours of fuel and at wheel stop at the destination, there was ~25 minutes of fuel remaining. The flight was performed entirely in real time, and Lazor System handled a great-circle autopilot course and altitude hold. Throttle was locked at max.

In short, I don't have to imagine a badlands flight in a slow aircraft... I've gone farther. And it's still shorter than a one-stage blackbird run in FSX.

And the reason some of us want planes in a rocket game, is because we want planes and rockets in the same game, not rockets in one game and planes in another.

[MedievalNerd]

1 hour, 30 minutes.

That is the time it takes to fly a near antipodal route in a transport aircraft cruising at 10 km at mach .92.* You will not fly a single strictly aircraft flight longer than this on kerbin unless you're doing it on purpose. And any flights you fly with slower aircraft won't be far anyway before you've picked up enough Sciiiience [/Dexter's Lab] to unlock faster aircraft components. And no science run will ever require an antipodal flight because the badlands are west of the antipidal point of KSC. (The Antipodal Point is in the ocean just west of crater gulf.)

* The route was done using a 4-engine MkIV heavy fuselage-based aircraft carrying an 11 ton comm truck to station on the far side of kerbin as a backup control link center for remote tech II. At takeoff, the engines had 2 hours of fuel and at wheel stop at the destination, there was ~25 minutes of fuel remaining. The flight was performed entirely in real time, and Lazor System handled a great-circle autopilot course and altitude hold. Throttle was locked at max.

Are you playing with RSS?

Pretty sweet contraption you got there btw.

Also, very interesting ideas you have for space planes/planes. But right now I'd rather focus on rocketry, probes and the capsule projects. Once that's well in place I'd be willing to entertain having a deeper aviation side of things, or at least expand on it a little.

Edited December 4, 2013 by MedievalNerd

[MedievalNerd]

I think you should make all the stock stuff doable maybe twice, three times like your custom experiments but more then once. I find it unrealistic that for a species going to space for the first time gets 10 science from each experiment, and 1 or 0 for each subsequent time. I think like 40 for each stock experiment, obviously a tweakable number, three times undiminished for at least kerbin space, and other planets, get rid of all stock kerbin experiments like temp, barometer and surface samples, crew reports and evas. If possible these experiments should be done by 3 different ships, to show checking of the results and not just using the same equipment and doing the same thing with potentially faulty instruments. This will help boost the available science at first, with about what, like 360 science from all the first stock things done three times, barely over your custom experiments done once, that is at least 3 launches still keeping the challenge. This way getting to the mun, would be even more attractive, with 400 to 500 more science on top of your custom experiments, only enough to get one node.

Any thoughts?

EDIT: Forgot to mention, after the third time or whatever, it would, like your current custom experiments give no science.

I'm a bit confused. I set the base/cap science to the same value. So you should be getting 100% of the possible science from the experiment. Are you saying you are able to do the custom experiments more than once?

Not sure if you saw my recent post, but probes are getting a massive overhaul with the addition of several historical probes with "simulated" models. I use the terms simulated lightly. With the addition of project bumper, explorer and sputnik 1,2,3 it'll already be a huge relief for early tech levels. The experiments include in MS18 are pretty much more proof's of concepts than final model.

As for the number times you can perform an experiment it's based on the base/cap science values. IE, 5 base 10 cap, you can do the experiment twice. I'm still swimming in the deep, but once I come up for air I can explain how the custom experiment plugin works and you could design your own experiments and we could share them to have some sort of crowd sourcing things going on. with experiment packs? Just a thought.

As for limiting them being done by the same ship, you could set the experiment to non repeatable, meaning that once the instrument has been used to make an experiment it's 'used' and cannot be done again during that flight. But then someone could slap more than one unit of that experiment, so still not possible to fully limit it technically. Maybe make a plugin for that? IE, have a current/previous vesselId variable and if they match then the experiment can't be triggered? No idea how someone would go about getting that done though.

Cheers,

Edited December 4, 2013 by MedievalNerd