[TechTree] [0.23.5] Ackander's Vertical Tech Tree - Release v1.16 - May 13, 2014

[Ackander]

A new project..... May I ask what tho is?

I do not want to get any one's hopes up.. so not yet? Sorry. Still on the drawing board also. I can say I do not think what I am doing has been done yet, per se. I want to see how it progresses before I start talking about it, which might take several weeks at the current rate.

[likke_A_boss]

I do not want to get any one's hopes up.. so not yet? Sorry. Still on the drawing board also. I can say I do not think what I am doing has been done yet, per se. I want to see how it progresses before I start talking about it, which might take several weeks at the current rate.

Ohh, I'm excited now. But, well, I'm content with playing with your tree for another few months, so no rush.

[RadGH]

I'm loving this tech tree, but I can't find the procedural fairings in it. I unlocked the fairing base, but not the fairings themselves (which doesn't make any sense, you should unlock both together).

There's quite a few aerodynamic looking sections that I can't seem to unlock. It looks like they require another section that is actually unlocked, but the connector is still white:

Notice a couple of these are disabled? http://radleygh.com/images/KSP_2014-032-03-28-52-5.png

Here's my full tech tree. I feel like there are some more branches to the right, but I don't know what creates them: http://radleygh.com/images/KSP_2014-032-03-30-52-22.png

EDIT: I found the issue, there was a section that actually appeared later in the tech tree that was required. The lines that connected to the sections I previously talked about didn't make any sense, and in fact weren't even entirely connected!

Here is the part I was missing, with some red lines indicating what they are required for.

http://radleygh.com/images/SnippingTool_2014-032-19-20-34-49.png

Edited February 2, 2014 by RadGH

[Ackander]

I'm loving this tech tree, but I can't find the procedural fairings in it. I unlocked the fairing base, but not the fairings themselves (which doesn't make any sense, you should unlock both together).

There's quite a few aerodynamic looking sections that I can't seem to unlock. It looks like they require another section that is actually unlocked, but the connector is still white:

Notice a couple of these are disabled? http://radleygh.com/images/KSP_2014-032-03-28-52-5.png

Here's my full tech tree. I feel like there are some more branches to the right, but I don't know what creates them: http://radleygh.com/images/KSP_2014-032-03-30-52-22.png

EDIT: I found the issue, there was a section that actually appeared later in the tech tree that was required. The lines that connected to the sections I previously talked about didn't make any sense, and in fact weren't even entirely connected!

Here is the part I was missing, with some red lines indicating what they are required for.

http://radleygh.com/images/SnippingTool_2014-032-19-20-34-49.png

At the time it made sense to me.. Using the materials lab to investigate the behavior of various materials seemed like an appropriate precursor to developing composite materials, another precursor to most aerodynamic faired shapes. It might make more sense to have simple nose cones not require composites, but space and the amount of nodes were issues I had to work around, so I decided all fairings and nose cones require composites.

With a tech tree this complex, I do not think it would be very easy to properly or simply for that matter give a kind of road map to parts. All I can suggest is to unlock the tree with a dummy save to see where parts are at and what is required to get to them. Sorry for the confusion.

[Jivaii]

Will KSPI v 0.10 work with VTT?

[likke_A_boss]

While we are looking at mods, theres anther good one out: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/60750-WIP-Cacteye-Telescope-v0-1-%282-1-14%29-Modular-EVA-serviceable-orbital-telescope?p=944785#post944785

[RadGH]

I do not think it would be very easy to properly or simply for that matter give a kind of road map to parts. All I can suggest is to unlock the tree with a dummy save to see where parts are at and what is required to get to them. Sorry for the confusion.

I didn't think of this. It was pretty easy to do. And man, the techtree is very complicated! I think it is absolutely fantastic though.

I really love unlocking just the few parts that I need for very cheap, compared to the stock tree where you need a single part but have to buy an entire package for a lot of science. And unlocking stock rover wheels, ugh, it was such a pain when I wasn't very good at doing science.

And can I say (I suspect most people just overlook) that this is a fantastic feature. It's so good, you can *optionally* unlock some specialized equipment from the tier. But you don't have to! And there are so many paths that I can pretty much go for the exact build of rocket that I want! Usually tech trees in games don't have that, everything typically has a prerequisite and is also required for something, until you get to the end of the tree.

Every time I get to one of those nodes with all the branches I get excited! I don't know what it is, but I love them.

The only issue I have with the tech tree is that some areas require an unlock from a completely different area. The arrows don't show up until you unlock it, so you don't know what the requirement is. It's just difficult to figure out, I suppose. I don't think there is anything you can do about that without taking away from the tech tree (less requirements = more linear = less fun).

Ah well, great mod though!

[Streetwind]

Hey Ackander, you seem to me a fairly skilled and knowledgeable individual when it comes to custom tech trees, so would you mind if I asked you some questions to help me get my feet wet in the topic?

I'd like to know if there is a way to:

- Center the research window onto where my starter node is. Coincidence has it that my starter node would be just barely outside the normal view when you open the research window...

- Have the player start with something designated "newnode_" already unlocked. I notice only the stock "start" node unlocks itself by default; is that a feature I can assign to other nodes?

- Avoid this ugly junk from happening with the auto-drawn connectors? It's ruining all my planned symmetry!

[Ackander]

Hey Ackander, you seem to me a fairly skilled and knowledgeable individual when it comes to custom tech trees, so would you mind if I asked you some questions to help me get my feet wet in the topic?

I'd like to know if there is a way to:

- Center the research window onto where my starter node is. Coincidence has it that my starter node would be just barely outside the normal view when you open the research window...

- Have the player start with something designated "newnode_" already unlocked. I notice only the stock "start" node unlocks itself by default; is that a feature I can assign to other nodes?

- Avoid this ugly junk from happening with the auto-drawn connectors? It's ruining all my planned symmetry!

As best as I can tell, all of these issues seem to be either hard coded or design features. The default view is something that got in the way of my plans too, not to mention the small size of the available working area. The start node seems to be the only pre-unlocked node there is. Your best bet is to have other starting nodes not have parents, so they can be unlocked right away. I am not sure if it is TreeEdit or KSP that is in charge of drawing the links between nodes.. Either way, I must agree that the lack of control over them has been constantly frustrating for me. Your only hope for now is to learn their behaviors and try your best to work around it. Good luck on your tech tree, by the way.

[Streetwind]

Thanks for the answers! Disappointing, but okay, I can work with that. I'm just slightly confused that the arrows are drawn differently from the way they are drawn on the stock tree. There, the arrows aim for the middle of a node icon, whereas here, they seem to aim (rather sloppily) for the upper left corner. In your tree, it does sometimes one thing, sometimes the other, almost randomly. How did you build your tree? Completely with TreeEdit, or did you also edit some nodes in by hand?

Maybe I'll switch to a vertical layout as well, to see if that helps things... I haven't seen a top down one done yet

EDIT: I just looked at one of the trees builtin via TreeLoader. And dang, just look how smooth this one is. All the arrows are proper and correct. I'm starting to wonder if the issues are connected to using a tree.cfg file, or if TreeEdit lets you do something extra that the file doesn't let you do...

Edited February 8, 2014 by Streetwind

[Jivaii]

Thanks for the answers! Disappointing, but okay, I can work with that. I'm just slightly confused that the arrows are drawn differently from the way they are drawn on the stock tree. There, the arrows aim for the middle of a node icon, whereas here, they seem to aim (rather sloppily) for the upper left corner. In your tree, it does sometimes one thing, sometimes the other, almost randomly. How did you build your tree? Completely with TreeEdit, or did you also edit some nodes in by hand?

Maybe I'll switch to a vertical layout as well, to see if that helps things... I haven't seen a top down one done yet

EDIT: I just looked at one of the trees builtin via TreeLoader. And dang, just look how smooth this one is. All the arrows are proper and correct. I'm starting to wonder if the issues are connected to using a tree.cfg file, or if TreeEdit lets you do something extra that the file doesn't let you do...

Whose tree is that?!

[Ackander]

Thanks for the answers! Disappointing, but okay, I can work with that. I'm just slightly confused that the arrows are drawn differently from the way they are drawn on the stock tree. There, the arrows aim for the middle of a node icon, whereas here, they seem to aim (rather sloppily) for the upper left corner. In your tree, it does sometimes one thing, sometimes the other, almost randomly. How did you build your tree? Completely with TreeEdit, or did you also edit some nodes in by hand?

Maybe I'll switch to a vertical layout as well, to see if that helps things... I haven't seen a top down one done yet

EDIT: I just looked at one of the trees builtin via TreeLoader. And dang, just look how smooth this one is. All the arrows are proper and correct. I'm starting to wonder if the issues are connected to using a tree.cfg file, or if TreeEdit lets you do something extra that the file doesn't let you do...

Placing nodes I completely used TreeEdit. Assigning costs I used excel to change the tree.cfg. When doing it in TreeEdit, you can see right away how the arrows are pointing and can move the nodes around to see what looks the best for you. That is not any garantee, however, as I see that TreeLoader does not render the arrows the same way as I made them to look.. another frustration.

[Streetwind]

Whose tree is that?!

I think it was the first one in the dropdown menu that TreeLoader gives you. I just grabbed one without really looking.

Placing nodes I completely used TreeEdit. Assigning costs I used excel to change the tree.cfg. When doing it in TreeEdit, you can see right away how the arrows are pointing and can move the nodes around to see what looks the best for you. That is not any garantee, however, as I see that TreeLoader does not render the arrows the same way as I made them to look.. another frustration.

Yeah, I grabbed TreeEdit and noticed the differences and observed how the nodes behave. The question I now have is - how did you export what you built in TreeEdit into the tree.cfg textfile?

[Ackander]

Yeah, I grabbed TreeEdit and noticed the differences and observed how the nodes behave. The question I now have is - how did you export what you built in TreeEdit into the tree.cfg textfile?

Tree.cfg is written too every time you press F5 while using TreeEdit. But be careful, if you are playing KSP and quicksave with F5, you turn your tree.cfg file into a blank, not a big deal if you are playing and have a backup to reinstall, but if you are making a new tree, you will loose un-backed up work. I used a dedicated directory of KSP just for building and updating my TechTree.

Let me know if you have any more questions.

[Guest]

[Deleted by user]

Edited November 25, 2019 by Guest

[Ackander]

Not sure if my current project is good or not. Having a time with it right now, and I am not sure if I will be able to complete it or not. We shall see.. back to work.

[kiko1004]

Hello Ackanders, I am using your tree and it is a really good one, Well done !! I still think that nodes are too much cheap ! We can earn really more science with the mods like aies and Fasa and you tree cost only a small part of the entire amount of science that we can earn.

What is your new project, are you making a new tech tree ?

Cheers !

[Ackander]

Hello Ackanders, I am using your tree and it is a really good one, Well done !! I still think that nodes are too much cheap ! We can earn really more science with the mods like aies and Fasa and you tree cost only a small part of the entire amount of science that we can earn.

Thank you! Your kind words mean a lot to me. I think making the nodes as cheap as they are was the best way to make the most people happy.

What is your new project, are you making a new tech tree ?

Cheers !

No. :sealed:

[Ratzap]

Thank you! Your kind words mean a lot to me. I think making the nodes as cheap as they are was the best way to make the most people happy.

I just started playing this tree while waiting on the next KSP version. It's come on a long way since I tried it last year, good work there. I'm glad you don't want to make it too grindy though, there are enough masochistic super grindy trees already. Nice quick little bites of tech all over is fun to play.

[i8jello]

I think you should make it cost more science, because of the new science parts.

Edited March 24, 2014 by i8jello
found what I was looking for

[Ackander]

I think you should make it cost more science, because of the new science parts.

To which new science parts do you refer?

Also, if anyone has the part names for the new NASA parts, I can get them added asap. I assume they are 3m parts, if they are I am greatfull they are getting added to the stock parts..

[Streetwind]

Apparently this thread lists all currently known new parts for .23.5. The claw and the LES are 1.25m, the new SRB is 1.25m as well but very tall. The new tanks and new liquid engines are 3.75m.

Hope this helps!

[Pondafarr]

Some of the new parts show properly, but I can't find the Claw in the tree. Any way to quickfix that myself?

[Strangelove444]

Looking forward to this mod getting updated for the new parts! This tech-tree is great!

[sidfu]

ready for this to be updated also interstellar got updated