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

[ArthurCVI]

But it doesn't work for me

[mossman]

Who is responsible for this?

[NathanKell]

Him or me. Nostra culpa.

[MedievalNerd]

Who is responsible for this?

LOL, ok, I just understood the problem here. Oups. It's ALL me.

Edited November 16, 2013 by MedievalNerd

[lmw5201]

MN proves (Sphere2, Cube2) does not have RT2 config!

So i made simple config for MN proves.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/q66kyxxqkn1cm2p/RemoteTech_MN_Probes.cfg

and I have a question : is there any consistent data-to-science converter?

Edited November 17, 2013 by lmw5201

[BLUAV8R]

I love the amount of detail and order you have put into this will probably end up using sometime in the near future

[MedievalNerd]

MN proves (Sphere2, Cube2) does not have RT2 config!

So i made simple config for MN proves.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/q66kyxxqkn1cm2p/RemoteTech_MN_Probes.cfg

and I have a question : is there any consistent data-to-science converter?

Howdy,

Yup, I noticed that myself when I 'finally' got to do some light play testing last night.

For the Data Recorder, it's tiny bit complex in a way. You will notice that probesphere1 & 2, both have 2 experiments and 1 data recorder module. The reason you'll have 1 data recorder module per group of experiment, is because you have to set the conditions to match that of the experiment.

Here is the example with the first probe sphere:

MODULE

{

name = CustomExperiment // This is the name of my module that I made in my plugin

experimentID = KerFlyingHigh // This is the custom experiment I created set to FlyingHigh only.

TargetBody = Kerbin // new value I created so that you can set celestial bodies

ExperimentResource = Data // Optionally you could create your own resource, but by default I make 'Data' the required resource to perform experiments.

ExperimentCost = 25 // How much 'Data' you need for the experiment.

}

MODULE

{

name = DataGeneratorModule

TargetBody = Kerbin /// You need to match this value to that of the experiment in order for it to make sense.

TargetSituation = FlyingHigh // This has to match the situation mask of the experiment.

}

}

Hope this helps a bit.

I love the amount of detail and order you have put into this will probably end up using sometime in the near future

Thank you for the compliment, I've spent so much time working on this and the plugin that at times it almost feels like I'm wasting my time in a way. But thanks to nice chaps like you, the labor of love continues.

Cheers!

Edited November 17, 2013 by MedievalNerd

[Ceb]

I second creating a mod pack, (to the point that I created an account just to post it)

I am fine with a big download, better to have one big download than have a ton of small downloads (in my opinion).

Maybe not the whole pack, but at least the essentials to use the tree. I was trying to go through the checklist but its getting to the point that I'm ready to just give up. Being on a mac might also be making it harder.

[Guest]

HI, Great techtree and starter missions!!

I was wondering if you could post a link to tweaks or give me instructions how to fix (mostly the battery capacity, solar charge rates and ***MOST OF ALL LISTED COMMUNICATION RANGES***) for this mod set that uses all suggested mods BUT "real solar system" for people wishing to use this in the stock scale kerbol system. I also found that the Sphere2 & Cube2 have no RT2 config file, good job to the poster that found and fixed this.

I love this idea but i really think you should have a separate tweak file for people wishing to use all listed mods but "real solar system". Once again please let me know how to correct the listed ranges of comms equip and solar recharge rates back to a "realistic" setting for the stock scale/size kerbol system, that way players can use your tree with either real earth scale or stock game scale, as i feel your tree is perhaps the BEST ONE YET!. Thanks again, very impressed with your work!

Edited November 18, 2013 by Guest

[MedievalNerd]

I second creating a mod pack, (to the point that I created an account just to post it)

I am fine with a big download, better to have one big download than have a ton of small downloads (in my opinion).

Maybe not the whole pack, but at least the essentials to use the tree. I was trying to go through the checklist but its getting to the point that I'm ready to just give up. Being on a mac might also be making it harder.

Howdy Ceb,

I totally understand the sentiment of wanting a one-in-all download. A few things to consider, is whether or not each mod author would be in agreement to this, and also since they can/would update at uneven pace it would make keeping the pack up to date a bit of a hassle. There is someone actually working on a modpack installer, and he's talked to me about it. So perhaps something is already in the works! I highly suggest downloading the excel sheet I provide on the main post, and checking them off as you download/install them. I'll make sure it's order by essentials/utilities/optionals etcs.

I'm also going to be releasing a series of videos about the tech tree, plugin and the mods being used. Hopefully that'll also be of some help.

I'll do my best to make it as painless as possible!

Cheers,

[Guest]

EDIT 1

will fix & repost

Edit 2

ok testing to be sure link will include the missing remotetech2 for the 2 probes, use stock remotetech2 ranges (but power use of the tweak cfg) and has battery capacity divided by 4 as suggested, solar panels and everything else is as you had it

Waiting until i find another error i have most likely made before i repost dropbox link....

Edited November 20, 2013 by Guest
testing indeepth to avoid more edits

[NathanKell]

Aazard: Divide battery capacity by 4. Leave solar panels as they are (since current draw doesn't change). At all costs don't set solar panels back to their stock values, since they're ridiculously OP in stock. For RT2, divide ranges of antennae and dishes by 10, but leave electric charge use as it is.

[Senshi]

While it indeed is a bit of a hassle to set everything up (the first post is kind of scary for newcomers...), I absolutely adore the concept you envision. While I do want to keep stock solar system scale and planet sizes, it still works fine. I merely needed to apply Nathan's suggestions in the post above mine and everything works just fine.

Playtested a bit, and aside the already mentioned things I immediately noticed the realism/balance changes make my space program much more tricky . The solar panels that now can barely keep my orbiting probes alive (regen the same as they lose during the night), and actually require me to think about smart ways to generate enough energy to transmit experiments back home from space. Some minor part balance issues remain, but they are not drastic(e.g. AIES battery pack gives 1600 charge, whereas the same-size, same-mass kw rocketry one gives 150),but they really are not crucial.

The custom experiment system that requires you to gather data for prolonged periods of time complements this perfectly. Especially for atmospheric flights it's not always easy to actually stay in the "calibrated range" of the sensors, making for a nice additional challenge.

First couple hundreds of science points are spent, and I very much like the tech tree progression as well so far. While I do run a couple of extra mods that don't show up properly (yet), like RealChutes, it's easy enough to patch them in, considering TreeEdit is running anyway .

Thanks for tackling this project! Will keep following this!

[Kinger]

Finally registered an account here specifically so I could reply to this thread.

I have to say, I'm really enjoying the added challenge that this version of the tech tree grants! It slows down progression considerably, which is a really good thing. With the stock tree I managed to earn nearly 8000 science in a single unmanned flight that took me around Jool and its moons - no landings, no crew reports, no EVA reports, and I was able to unlock half the tech tree at once. But from what I've seen so far, you can't do that here! You really have to plan out your flights in advance. I've spent a lot of time putting communication relays into orbit and making sure they're geosynchronous so I'll always have contact with Mission Control. I was super excited when finally managed to land an unmanned probe on the Mun without losing remote connection halfway through the descent.

Obviously this is a WIP so even though there's still things I'm confused about or that aren't clear (for example, how come the LV-909 unlocks later than the Poodle? Shouldn't the smaller engine unlock first?), I'm sure those will get sorted out in time.

Thanks for all your hard work, MedievalNerd! I'm excited about this project and am really looking forward to seeing where it goes in the future!

[BrickedKeyboard]

I'll do my best to make it as painless as possible!

Cheers,

This was how it worked in the Minecraft days. No one wants to watch some video and follow a spreadsheet. At most, they want to click one link. Look, you can just go to the forum threads for the various mods and check. Are they using a CC license? Then pack it in your pack.

The mods you absolutely cannot pack for any reason, you will I guess have to give a direct link to where to download it at, but you need to include all files that are used to modify the mod.

In the Minecraft days, modded gameplay did not become popular or common until they developed the Tekkit and Feed The Beast launchers, which are programs that are 1 click.

[RaccoonTOF]

Just out of curiosity, how do you go about setting up your communication network for RT2 with the tweaks done to energy generation? Do you focus on heading straight to more efficient panels before heading outside Kerbin orbit? Or do you have to use "disposable" comm sats for a while? (Disposable in that they only last as long as however much battery power you can put on them...). I've been struggling with designing a continuous (able to generate as much power as it uses, with enough surplus to recharge what is lost on the night side) geosynch comsat with only the first two fixed panels available - in order to power 4 antennas (one directed at mission control, one at each of the next and previous sats in the network, and one at the "active vessel") requires me to put up nearly 15 tons worth of panels, batteries, and the structural elements necessary to support them all without interference...am I doing something horribly wrong in my design, or is that just the way it is until I get the much later panels unlocked?

[MedievalNerd]

@Senshi, Well thank you! Yes, real chutes will definitely get thrown in there. Espacially since they said they'll be doing 0.625m parachutes, which are really needed to do probe recoveries. Spent the whole day yesterday testing out new engines resizes Nathan's been working on, it'll be quite a surprise!

@Kinger, Yes, Remote Tech totally changes the way you plan early unmanned missions. Building your first geosynch network is quite exciting indeed!

If you are using V18 it's based on a yet unreleased resize config file that will replace NathanKell's KATO engines. I think he intended to release it last night, so should be released shortly. Right now the engines unlock based on their minimum tech level in MFT. I wanted to have 2 versions of Realistic Progression Lite (RPL), one live and on development, but so many people made trees that the selection to make a new tree is off my screen now. So, yeah. :/

I've been struggling with designing a continuous (able to generate as much power as it uses, with enough surplus to recharge what is lost on the night side) geosynch comsat with only the first two fixed panels available - in order to power 4 antennas (one directed at mission control, one at each of the next and previous sats in the network, and one at the "active vessel") requires me to put up nearly 15 tons worth of panels, batteries, and the structural elements necessary to support them all without interference...am I doing something horribly wrong in my design, or is that just the way it is until I get the much later panels unlocked?

By antenna I'm assuming you mean dish? If not, you don't need 1 antenna per 'target', antennas are omnidirectional. It might need some tweaking, I've been busy with other tweaks that I've only started a game and check out the balance. Unless you are using ECLSS the power consumption is calculated for passive vessels, but I understand the desire to know that it's balanced and works. I'll do some testing myself.

Edited November 19, 2013 by MedievalNerd

[Kinger]

If you are using V18 it's based on a yet unreleased resize config file that will replace NathanKell's KATO engines. I think he intended to release it last night, so should be released shortly. Right now the engines unlock based on their minimum tech level in MFT.

I'm actually not using MFT at all. I read through the linked thread but I couldn't figure out what the point was (okay, you can make tanks hold different kinds of fuels, but StretchyTanks already allows this, so....), and since I'm not using the Real Solar System mod anyway, I didn't want to risk overcomplicating things any further.

Plus, I have no idea what the heck a KATO engine is. Kerbal Assisted Take Off?

[MedievalNerd]

I'm actually not using MFT at all. I read through the linked thread but I couldn't figure out what the point was (okay, you can make tanks hold different kinds of fuels, but StretchyTanks already allows this, so....), and since I'm not using the Real Solar System mod anyway, I didn't want to risk overcomplicating things any further.

Plus, I have no idea what the heck a KATO engine is. Kerbal Assisted Take Off?

KATO is the name of the space program of NathanKell in his AARP. Hence "KATO engines". It's all explained on the MFT thread. MFT does much more than allow to customize contents of fuel tanks! It add different fuel types, and Tech levels! When you look at an engine in the Action Groups menu, you get a new menu where you can set it's tech level and which fuel configuration it's using.

[Senshi]

It indeed is very difficult to continuously power higher range antennas. To the last post I only used the small dipoles, but when trying to set up a Kerbin SOI network you obviously need the bigger babies. Those are nigh impossible to power at the beginning, as long as you only have access to the basic slap-on solar panels. And if you make some not-so-smart tech choices in the beginning, you can get stuck with just those (such as me...). To power the biggest antenna, you'd need large structural elements just to be able to fit the solar panels on, basically "static extended panels". Using a regular tiny 0.5m probe consisting of a probe core and a small fuel tank with maybe a battery ring no longer works, as it will never provide enough energy, even if you cover every last square meter with solar panels. But you rarely get that far, because such a bulky design without access to fairings is also fairly impossible to get into space safely when using FAR. It's just ridiculously unstable without slapping a huge amount of rockets beneath it. More importantly, it certainly isn't realistic . Just to feed the probe's constant drain requires two/three panels facing the sun to charge enough to last the night.

I personally decided to reduce the energy drain of the RT2 stuff for now to 10% by altering the RT settings.cfg, but I'll probably increase it again once I get to the next energy level. I'm kind of stuck in my science grind right now, as without a sat network I can't get to new places to do science at, and without science I can't unlock the necessary stuff to establish a comm network...To be honest, I don't think the simple act of establishing a comm link should be as draining as it is right now. Over 98% of the time the antenna are idle anyway, and no electricity-intensive task like transmitting or receiving/processing have to be done. RT2 instead imposes a flat continuous energy drain. Dishes might be a bit more intense as they have to rotate/track their target to keep the link, but not antenna...also, control commands (which are what is transmitted via RT) are super tiny data bursts that at best should require a small drain while the user gives control input commands (=sending them up from base). Transmitting bulk data (=science) is a whole different affair, but that is simulated in the regular science parts anyway and quickly drains thousands of Watts to send a couple of Mb...but I do not know the exact power requirements for data transfer to/from space. On the same note, I don't really see why probe cores require such tremendous constant power supply as well. Shouldn't the same count for them: If nothing is going on, power drain is absolutely marginal (sleep mode). Only when something active happens, the drain should rise. I'd like to see continuous drains minimized in favor of increasing electricity demands for all the time-limited active controls (rotation wheels, throttling, pushing buttons of parts in the right-click menu etc.).

Additional "that's great" note: I love the idea of using Tech levels to increase efficiency of propulsion and electronics and probes! This is what I had expected the original R&D would do, along with the time-needed-to-conduct-experiments method.

It's just so satisfying to be allowed to up your rocket tech, granting you another couple of hundred of deltaV on an existing design.

[MedievalNerd]

It indeed is very difficult to continuously power higher range antennas. To the last post I only used the small dipoles, but when trying to set up a Kerbin SOI network you obviously need the bigger babies. Those are nigh impossible to power at the beginning, as long as you only have access to the basic slap-on solar panels. And if you make some not-so-smart tech choices in the beginning, you can get stuck with just those (such as me...). To power the biggest antenna, you'd need large structural elements just to be able to fit the solar panels on, basically "static extended panels". Using a regular tiny 0.5m probe consisting of a probe core and a small fuel tank with maybe a battery ring no longer works, as it will never provide enough energy, even if you cover every last square meter with solar panels. But you rarely get that far, because such a bulky design without access to fairings is also fairly impossible to get into space safely when using FAR. It's just ridiculously unstable without slapping a huge amount of rockets beneath it. More importantly, it certainly isn't realistic . Just to feed the probe's constant drain requires two/three panels facing the sun to charge enough to last the night.

I personally decided to reduce the energy drain of the RT2 stuff for now to 10% by altering the RT settings.cfg, but I'll probably increase it again once I get to the next energy level. I'm kind of stuck in my science grind right now, as without a sat network I can't get to new places to do science at, and without science I can't unlock the necessary stuff to establish a comm network...To be honest, I don't think the simple act of establishing a comm link should be as draining as it is right now. Over 98% of the time the antenna are idle anyway, and no electricity-intensive task like transmitting or receiving/processing have to be done. RT2 instead imposes a flat continuous energy drain. Dishes might be a bit more intense as they have to rotate/track their target to keep the link, but not antenna...also, control commands (which are what is transmitted via RT) are super tiny data bursts that at best should require a small drain while the user gives control input commands (=sending them up from base). Transmitting bulk data (=science) is a whole different affair, but that is simulated in the regular science parts anyway and quickly drains thousands of Watts to send a couple of Mb...but I do not know the exact power requirements for data transfer to/from space. On the same note, I don't really see why probe cores require such tremendous constant power supply as well. Shouldn't the same count for them: If nothing is going on, power drain is absolutely marginal (sleep mode). Only when something active happens, the drain should rise. I'd like to see continuous drains minimized in favor of increasing electricity demands for all the time-limited active controls (rotation wheels, throttling, pushing buttons of parts in the right-click menu etc.).

Additional "that's great" note: I love the idea of using Tech levels to increase efficiency of propulsion and electronics and probes! This is what I had expected the original R&D would do, along with the time-needed-to-conduct-experiments method.

It's just so satisfying to be allowed to up your rocket tech, granting you another couple of hundred of deltaV on an existing design.

Thanks for all the feedback.

There are a few holes in my tweak files, which i'll be patching soon. I want to dig deeper into the tree and make more fixes to make it more relevant. Some antennas are still using 5KW packets which is not helping with power consumption and probe data generation consumption rate is too high for a few probes. (takes too much EC)

If you don't have AIES installed you'll also be missing on some extra solar panels tiers.

It's true that with a tree like this, you could technically research yourself into a jam. I did put Mars range dish at Tech level 2 for probes, so should really help. Although there is a limit to how much I can prevent science bottlenecks depending on how deep someone decides to go in a particular direction while neglecting some 'essentials'. Maybe that's why stock tech tree is so condensed and interconnected as to avoid this issue altogether.

I'll also add real parachutes to the mix. I have to say though, the fuel tanks are a bit of a mess since I use stretchies, and basically made sure that as soon as an engine size is available, the matching stretchie is too. I run so many mods that I only keep some more stylistic tanks and the rest to into oblivion. We've got so many texture options with stretchies now that you can do some pretty nice looking designs with them alone.

Plus I see this paint mod, which is apparently stretchie compatible, so infinite possibilities are there for flair.

Keep the feedback coming, I know there is still loads of balancing and stuff to do.

Many thanks,

[NathanKell]

Senshi, yeah, the power consumption / range balance for antennae needs tweaking. Working on it.

[andqui]

What is supposed to be present in the start node? In my start engines category I have: H2, A9, FOWDS SRB, RT-5 SRB, LR29, LR37, Decurion, LR11R, LR12R, Sepratron I, B7. Then I have all three types of stretch tanks from the beginning, the oscar B fuel tank, and a Lithium tank.

I just went through the excel sheet and installed the mods I didn't have, so I don't know what comes from where exactly. Its also my first time using treeEdit rather than TreeLoader and I wanted to make sure things were working correctly. Some of the engines above seem rather large for the start node.

thanks, and great tree

[NathanKell]

That sounds about right.

[Senshi]

I accept that science bottlenecks are possible. Might happen in real life just as well . A way to prevent a bit of this might be to add direction hints to the first tech nodes of a branch. E.g. Something like "This is the first step in the colonization of space." to the first probe tech node. That would indicate to the player that manned space flight is down this path without being too precise.

Fyi: I do use all the recommended mods (had most of them installed beforehand anyway...yeah, I'm a mod hoarder :/ ), so AIES is on board. I simply made the wrong choice by going for Tier 1 rocket propulsion too soon without need. I was misled by the first probes delivering masses of science due to the custom experiments before finding out there's only a handful of those to do, while underestimating the power of the just now installed RT 2 (was used to RT1 ranges) . I'll stick with this savegame, though. I'm ~150 science short of the next upgrade, and I should be able to grind those with some more Kerbin SOI experiments. Who dared claim rocket science is easy again?