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

[ravelston]

Great tree. I've made some mods to this for myself to suit how I want to play a little better (basically not keen on mega-grind as I don't have the time, so I've halved the science values for each node, and moved engineer/mechjeb much earlier in the tree to better see vitals about the rockets/planes i'm building).

I've been messing with getting some planes to fly around Kerbin to gather science, but tonight I decided to get something into orbit. All I've researched so far gives me basic SRBs, the LV-909, and FL-100 tanks. The result is the Kerbitarius 4 (being the fourth attempt in the series to reach a stable orbit):

This baby will just barely reach 80km if I fire everything prograde all the way there, periapsis tops out at 140km. Re-entry is a bit hairy as the mk25 chutes burn up at 40km, and the main chute isn't enough to slow her down, there's some remaining dV that I used from ~400m to land safely.

This tree is hard. I love it.

[Ackander]

I've just achieved my first orbit with this tech tree installed. I'm going to go for the Mun next, my launcher design is fairly powerful so some strap on boosters or an extra stage should be enough for a mun mission.

Great tree. I've made some mods to this for myself to suit how I want to play a little better (basically not keen on mega-grind as I don't have the time, so I've halved the science values for each node, and moved engineer/mechjeb much earlier in the tree to better see vitals about the rockets/planes i'm building).

I've been messing with getting some planes to fly around Kerbin to gather science, but tonight I decided to get something into orbit. All I've researched so far gives me basic SRBs, the LV-909, and FL-100 tanks. The result is the Kerbitarius 4 (being the fourth attempt in the series to reach a stable orbit):

This baby will just barely reach 80km if I fire everything prograde all the way there, periapsis tops out at 140km. Re-entry is a bit hairy as the mk25 chutes burn up at 40km, and the main chute isn't enough to slow her down, there's some remaining dV that I used from ~400m to land safely.

This tree is hard. I love it.

I just wanted to get on and say thanks for your encouragement and updates. Sounds and looks great, guys.

And I'm nearing completion of this funner depletion, but wanted a moment take, submit and your judgement rake, a nodal description poem, from the late Virgil Kerman tw'ah forum:

The shear size of these mammoth members,

'ose innerds contain a great power do slumbers,

pushes high, into the sky, with solid fuel afire

with nary a bye, or grumbly sigh, 'til flame expire

doth rattle and shake a good Kerbal's pod's chambers.

-Virgil Kerman

Sorry if this was weird. For some reason I needed to share this. Don't ask..

[Kunzite]

Is it possible to add support for PWB Fuel Balancer?

If not, is there a way I could add a part manually to this tree?

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/pwb-fuel-balancer-for-rcs/

Not a major loss if it is too much of an inconvenience.

As a aside note: Amazing tech tree! Thank you so much for taking the time to make such an in depth tree.

[Ackander]

Is it possible to add support for PWB Fuel Balancer?

If not, is there a way I could add a part manually to this tree?

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/pwb-fuel-balancer-for-rcs/

Not a major loss if it is too much of an inconvenience.

As a aside note: Amazing tech tree! Thank you so much for taking the time to make such an in depth tree.

Thanks. Making this tree has brought be together with many great mods that I might have missed otherwise. Adding PWB Fuel Balancer will be no problem for me. It will be in the tech tree's next release version.

Update:

All I have left to do now is put the nodes back in place

and revise science costs. I think I'm going to aim for a total tech tree science value of 16,000, and maybe a challenge version, for the challenge I put up today.

Remember, any requests will more than likely be included in next release. If I have to, I'll start deleting texture files to make room in RAM for all the mods. Currently floating at 2.8 GB before I start doing stuff to the tech tree.

[fronbow]

If I have to, I'll start deleting texture files to make room in RAM for all the mods. Currently floating at 2.8 GB before I start doing stuff to the tech tree.

It might be worth looking at reducing the texture memory footprints rather than deleting them....or if you have some spare hdd space you could duplicate the game just so you can manage this awesome tech tree?!

Is that 2.8Gb drive space or game memory usage? (just curious!!)

My GameData directory is at 2.37Gb at the moment!

PS: Have you seen this mod? http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/59005-0-22-Release-1-1-Active-Memory-Reduction-Mod - it helps with textures

As a result of this thread, I'm now "teaching" myself C# by slowly creating an app that may make editing trees a bit easier - it's not as fancy as that VB one that I mentioned previously in that I'm a way off creating some kind of visualisation preview. Mine is slightly different in that it reads all the parts.cfg files from the GameData directory and will then help with managing the tree by only allowing "installed" parts to be added into the tree.

I'm not sure when it'll be finished (hopefully soon), but it is on my mind now....just wish I'd gone with c++ or vb instead of tackling a new language!!

Edited December 10, 2013 by fronbow
Added a link to a mod.

[Ackander]

It might be worth looking at reducing the texture memory footprints rather than deleting them....or if you have some spare hdd space you could duplicate the game just so you can manage this awesome tech tree?!

Is that 2.8Gb drive space or game memory usage? (just curious!!)

My GameData directory is at 2.37Gb at the moment!

PS: Have you seen this mod? http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/59005-0-22-Release-1-1-Active-Memory-Reduction-Mod - it helps with textures

As a result of this thread, I'm now "teaching" myself C# by slowly creating an app that may make editing trees a bit easier - it's not as fancy as that VB one that I mentioned previously in that I'm a way off creating some kind of visualisation preview. Mine is slightly different in that it reads all the parts.cfg files from the GameData directory and will then help with managing the tree by only allowing "installed" parts to be added into the tree.

I'm not sure when it'll be finished (hopefully soon), but it is on my mind now....just wish I'd gone with c++ or vb instead of tackling a new language!!

If I start deleting textures, it will be in one of my alternate KSP folders for sure. Someday I'll be done with this and can finally play again. All I've played since August is a little Skyrim and GTA5.

RAM-wise, KSP takes up a little over 2.8GB when I first load it up. After changing scenes and working with TreeEdit for a little while, RAM commit size is now 3.246 GB, with a working RAM set of 2.733 GB. HDD space is 3.24GB. I'd say I'm not at the point of deleting textures yet, but if I add any more big mods, like BobCat's historic rockets like I have been wanting to, I may have to.

The texture reducer is a great mod, for sure. Since adding 16 more parts mods, my RAM footprint has been constant. Another thing to keep in mind, is that I have graphics all the way down, so it may run, but it definitely looks like scheiße.

This is similar to what I had in mind. I was going see if taking all the parts off the tree, and making one big ModuleManager cfg file to place all the parts would help with rendering the tree in TreeLoader, because when I try to load the tree with only a few mods and no TreeEdit, like Xat was doing back when, connections between some nodes were being ignored, but when I loaded with all 38 mods and no TreeEdit, all connections were there. So I'm thinking, if all nodes are empty, and ModuleManager is changing the requiredTech field for every part I have installed, TreeLoader will be able to include all connections, and fill in the parts according to their required tech, rather than what tree.cfg says.

This shouldn't be too hard, all I would have to do is delete everything from tree.cfg that isn't a part name, or the node name, and use Excel to concatenate those informations with @part() etc. Only after I get the next revision finished though, still working on a new structure to try and eliminate as many connection crossings as possible.. they bother me to no end, but I do not have a choice most times, I think.

Good luck with your "lessons",

[Ackander]

If anyone has any suggestions for science cost gradients, I'd like to here them. I know what I want to do, but I am not you and you do not want to be me etc etc.. so, does anyone really know what they want to see as far as science cost gradients throughout the entire tech tree and not just the beginning.

[diomedea]

If anyone has any suggestions for science cost gradients, I'd like to here them. ...

I have one suggestion. Hope to be able to make it clear enough, however.

In most "strategy" games, the game designer puts some sort of "elastic ribbon" mechanic, to allow players with different styles of play to use different strategies but without getting too far from the "correct path" or the game may get to absurd values.

The same concept should be applied with KSP career mode. If it isn't there already, it is because Squad has not developed the mode enough to have to calibrate it correctly, therefore no such mechanic exists.

However you are going to fill this gap, so you need something. In general, any "elastic ribbon" will be conceived so as to exchange one resources with another (both resources being needed to proceed). In KSP I can actually devise 3 basic "resources": science (of course), time, and money (not yet really implemented). Using time and science, you could allow the tech tree to cost less with passing time. Very experienced players may be very good at researching new techs, and do so in a very short time: but then subsequent steps in the tech tree will cost more than usual. On the contrary, beginners may take more time, but the cost of each new tech will decrease thus allowing to get eventually to that without too much further effort. In case one gets stuck due to no more research available, eventually the tech tree will diminish in cost to the point that one new tech will become available without taking more science.

[Stone Blue]

To be honest, I mostly used mod popularity on SpacePort to determine what mods I sorted into the TechTree.

Thats a problem right there, since Spaceport basically sux and there are lots of great new mods that people arent bothering to put on Spaceport....lol

I have a list of just over 250 mods with forum/spaceport links if you want to take a look at it to see if there are any you want to add...Just PM me if you want it.

At the very least, it might make finding a mod someone requests, easier...Since it has the forum/Spaceport links you can just click once and you got it.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Stone Blue

[Ackander]

Thats a problem right there, since Spaceport basically sux and there are lots of great new mods that people arent bothering to put on Spaceport....lol

I have a list of just over 250 mods with forum/spaceport links if you want to take a look at it to see if there are any you want to add...Just PM me if you want it.

At the very least, it might make finding a mod someone requests, easier...Since it has the forum/Spaceport links you can just click once and you got it.

I will just disagree about it sucking. And when I said mostly, I meant it. I only used SpacePort as a way to judge what everyone is using, or at least downloading the most of. I trawled through the forum on several occassions just looking at mods to impliment, albiet, in the release and showcase forum, not the WIP forum ever. Something I didn't mention was most mods I looked for were ones that either added a lot of parts i.e. KW, KSPx, Novapunch, LLL, or that were popular, i.e. Kethane Pack, MechJeb, Procedural mods. Once I find a structure that everyone likes and can put up with at the least, it will not be a big deal adding parts from mods per request.

What mods do you use that are not in the list of mods I've implimented so far? I wouldn't be above trying to add their parts to the tech tree.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Ackander

[Seyvern]

Argh. Treeedit.dll - I try it - it does nothing. I don't know why? I put it in a folder in Gamedata named treeedit. I've tried using it with and without treeloader. Basically, I get a normal science screen and no opportunity to load a differnt tree. Is treeedit a 40k dll to everyone else (signficantly smaller than treeloader?)

[Ackander]

Argh. Treeedit.dll - I try it - it does nothing. I don't know why? I put it in a folder in Gamedata named treeedit. I've tried using it with and without treeloader. Basically, I get a normal science screen and no opportunity to load a differnt tree. Is treeedit a 40k dll to everyone else (signficantly smaller than treeloader?)

Unless I'm mistaken, TreeEdit.dll is a larger file than TreeLoader.dll. Check the versions of TreeEdit and TreeLoader. I don't know if it will make a difference, but I keep my TreeEdit.dll in the .../Kerbal Space Program/Plugins/ folder. What all mods are installed? When you were running TreeLoader, did it ask you to choose a tree if you created a new game save?

[Seyvern]

Unless I'm mistaken, TreeEdit.dll is a larger file than TreeLoader.dll. Check the versions of TreeEdit and TreeLoader. I don't know if it will make a difference, but I keep my TreeEdit.dll in the .../Kerbal Space Program/Plugins/ folder. What all mods are installed? When you were running TreeLoader, did it ask you to choose a tree if you created a new game save?

OK, i think the problem then is the link on Ram0n's thread for treeedit is bad - any chance you can link a good download?

[Ackander]

OK, i think the problem then is the link on Ram0n's thread for treeedit is bad - any chance you can link a good download?

That's the only link I know of. I forgot to add that TreeEdit.dll is supposed to be 40 kB, but TreeLoader is only 25 kB. I would check TreeEdit on a clean folder of KSP that has no mods, just to make sure it will work at all for you.

Does TreeLoader work for you? What other mods do you have installed?

[fronbow]

FWIW, from the kspmodder's forum you shouldn't try to run with both TreeEdit and TreeLoader as you will get crashes

I've noticed a few times that TreeEdit seems to mangle tree.cfgs...wish we could get at the source of TreeEdit!

Cheers @Ackander, it's interesting stuff!

I'm hoping to include some way of highlighting mods that aren't installed but are present in the tree without deleting that particular entry - the logic is already forming in my brain

Oh, and I also tone down the textures settings just so that the mods all load and it doesn't crash after loading them all.

[Ackander]

Exciting developement: Partial success.

[Ackander]

Exciting developement: Partial success.

Make that complete success.

I am now able to load the entire tree using TreeLoader.dll only, no TreeEdit loaded. Not only that, but all parts are where they below.. so far, I haven't opened the whole tree to check, but it looks like they are where they belong.

This will add an extra file to download and install, and other caveats may need to be implimented, but I think it should be worth it to not have to rely on TreeEdit.

Up next, final cross discipline links, and nodal science costs. Almost there.

[fronbow]

Make that complete success.

This sounds very promising, I'd be interested to know how you got it working as intended

Cheers

[Ackander]

Maybe not as intended, but a far cry better than requiring TreeEditor to render the tech tree and its parts. That said, Module Manager is now required.

I could be wrong in my assumption though, because I just realized I never tested without TreeEdit and without VetTech, which might have been having effects on the tech tree through changing techrequired :Final for everything.

In other news, I finally mapped all the tech tree's nodes' distance from the starting node (brain was not working right today from no sleep last night, I couldn't figure out any easy way to get this done without any programming, which might have been quicker anyway.. ..took more than 4million cells in excel to get a solution (4,310,358)). So now I can analyse costs to research individual techs for a better overal picture of what I'm doing.

I still would like (need) to hear everyone's thoughts about science costs and distributions, I don't just want to make this for me and I.. (myself doesn't get out much).

Almost forgot: Current poll results stand at total science cost of 20956.52174 give or take..

Edited December 13, 2013 by Ackander

[123nick]

you should add a modpack with the download, that has ALL the compatible mods. also, if you cant due to wierd liscenscing reasons, then can you atleast PM me a download?

[Ackander]

you should add a modpack with the download, that has ALL the compatible mods. also, if you cant due to wierd liscenscing reasons, then can you atleast PM me a download?

I might just do that. Have a parts mod pack plus a seperate texture reduction pack. Not as pretty, but all those mods. I don't know why a Feed the Beast analogue hasn't been built yet, but then again I never read the forums much beyond a couple of threads. But I will message all parties for permission for an inclusive mod pack. Some may be unreachable, but not many, I wouldn't imagine. All .zip files I have installed right now add up to 811MB though, but that includes texture reduction packs. I just realized yesterday that 0.23 was being released in just two days, which might proove problematic for my tech tree's next release, if any drastic changes to how the tech tree works. Here's hoping..

[Prismatech]

hello i have a ask .

Whot modds are build in the start science. i miss Tanks for the beginning

[Ackander]

hello i have a ask .

Whot modds are build in the start science. i miss Tanks for the beginning

Logic is really a farce, not meant to do much in the way of expanding your ability to gain science. Don't mind it for now, it won't be a problem in the first revision. I mean it will still be a farce, but one that doesn't impede progression. Just something you can buy at little cost but still wonder about. Hopefully the descriptions help explain some of why I did it the way I did it.

All the 'challenge' in the first few nodes will be reduced to something of a museum of kerbal inovations, so to speak. Hopefully that is more enjoyable than uber-grind-festival-of-doom-dispair-and-destruction. We shall see.

[Ackander]

Alright. I'm going to need some input on this. I will be forever grateful:

Minimum equipment to "be comfortable" gathering science at a regularish rate?

How long does it take you to "comfortably" gather 500 science?

Linear or exponential price progression?

What types of parts do you consider essential?

Non-essential?

Total tree cost.

Stock:

All Nodes: 19,738

Minus empty Nodes: 10,738

Empty to not-empty ratio: 1.84

Here are poll results so far: 20,642

Do you want the tree to cost around 20,642?

1.84 of voted on science cost: 11,230

I don't have a stock only version of the tree, so I can only guess which nodes would be empty while playing stock. I'll probably do this tomorrow or tuesday after .23.

If anyone can think of anything else that would be useful, do not hesitate to say it.

[Prismatech]

So the idea is very good. but a part of the distribution is somewhat ill-chosen.

Hold on to the beginning nasa at the development. vice in packet start a fuel tank, the simple engine, and the short-range wide antenna for disposal.

Then part in Racketen development and first komikations satelite system for compute-wide short kerbin system(Millonen reach 90).

habe deinen techtree gespielt. ''ve played your tech tree. am 1.5 hrs through forest and had gone on foot to get to the first science with trial and so on.

And sorry for my bad english.