Tech tree question

[Esme]

Apologies if this isn't the best place for this question. Whilst I've been playing KSP for some months, and have played it a heckuva lot in those months (I'm the patient kind with a touch of role-player that really doesn't mind looong rover journeys across Minmus to rescue that crashed Kerbonaut and bring them back to base - that kind of thing..) I am evidently not, by many people's standards, very good at KSP*, and always seem to be struggling to collect enough science points to enable me to be able to get the bits that will then allow me to do stuff that others seem to do with ease with less powerful bits and pieces. This to the extent that so far, if I start a new game, I appear to be doomed to HAVING to head for Minmus first to collect as much science as I can before I can even sensibly think of attempting the Mun, let alone setting up a base there (Munar landings - well, yes, I CAN manage them, these days, but I only manage to land about half of them, whereas on Minmus my crash rate is now extremely low, haven't crashed anything there in ages).

So - my question - is there a tech tree that

(a) will let me have rover wheels and probes early

( let me sensibly get 2.5m parts a little earlier with suitable engines

© WITHOUT having to go 'full realism' (ie: I'm quite happy with the default Kerbol system at default scaling, thank you)

I've tried stock, KSP Interstellar and the one I'm currently trying which is Yargnit's (scratch that - I've now started another new one today, trying Majir's) I do also play with mods (main ones being KAS, KW Rocketry, KSP Interstellar - not that I've ever unlocked more than a part or two of the latter, but one day! :-} - plus one or other of the helper programs like Mechjeb, VOID, KER).

*which doesn't in itself bother me. It's the getting stuck in a pretty narrow rut in early gameplay that is bothering me, not how well I can do stuff compared to others. Hey, someone has to make the rest of you look good, no? :-)

Edited July 3, 2014 by Esme

[breakthrough]

TreeLoader never worked well on my computer so I can't help you much with that. You could open up the persistent.sfs file and just give yourself the science points you normally get from Minmus if you can't find a tree you like.

But, if you can't do Mun missions with fuel lines and the LV-909 you are badly misunderstanding some of the game mechanics and bigger rockets won't fix that. If it is taking more than one afternoon to mine Minmus for science, you need a biome hopping lander that can hit 4 or more biomes in a single mission. Now if you don't want advice on those things that's cool, but if you post some pictures of what your doing when you get bogged down, myself or someone else on these forums will gladly help you take your game to the next level.

[Esme]

Breakthrough, thank you for your response. The jump from doing landings in Minmus' low gravity to that of the Mun certainly was a bit of a hurdle for me - it took me a long time to judge Munar landings well, plus I'd been getting away with rather inefficient designs at Minmus, so when I tried the Mun, well I needed some help (which I then received, hereabouts. :-) ). Anyway, nowadays - yes, I can do things pretty efficently at Minmus, but as noted earlier, I quite like doing things like starting a base going and then exploring across the surface, rather than hopping about (which I can do, and occasionally do do, but only when I get really impatient). I can even land on the Mun (generally). But it's durned frustrating not being able to take a rover with me, and irritating that I don't have the option early on to send probes (lighter, and so easier to send places). As for 'misunderstanding game mechanics' - possibly - it was a while before I realised that one can collect more than one EVA report per mission (because you can only do one crew report, I simply assumed you can only do one EVA report. Finding out that isn't so has helped!). Just in case anyone's wondering - I do understand the physics involved perfectly well, but judging the appropriate point to start ones burn to slow your descent in heavier gravity - that, I'm not so good at judging, but it IS slowly improving.

Posting pictures wouldn't be informative in this instance, breakthrough. In essence, I'm wanting to find a tech tree that better suits my expectations/the way that I want to play so that I have more choice early on, eg: Send a probe or a manned ship? Create a 'hopper' to visit several biomes or take a rover? When it comes to the Mun, I have a definite preference for wanting to be able to take a rover, yet with the tech trees I've tried so far, there seems almost no point to rovers, as by the time you can build them, you can probably get by without them. Hence my question! :-)

[Claw]

Well, this isn't addressing your quetion pertaining to rovers. I too find the tree a bit imbalanced with regards to where the rover parts are.

However, on another note:

- You can take more than one crew report also. After you do a crew report, simply exit the capsule, "take" the capsules data, then "sore" the data (all via right-clicking). Also, Crew and EVA reports transmit for 100% science gain anyway. So you don't have to store them unless you really want.

- As for Mun landings, it sounds like you have the basics so just practice. Build a very simple lander with a modest TWR and enough fuel. Then do some F5-F9 practice until you get a good feel for when to start the burn. The mechanics are the same as Minmus except that you generally have to start the burn a little earlier. Unfortunately, if you are using the method where you stop all horizontal speed, then drop straight down, that is a lot more inefficient on the Mun.

[Roastduck]

You have a few options.

1) the Better Than Starting Manned mod

2) Realistic Progression LITE mod, part of Realism Overhaul (but I've used it by itself

3) manually edit your save file to change the science cost of the nodes containing the parts you want

[cantab]

This to the extent that so far, if I start a new game, I appear to be doomed to HAVING to head for Minmus first to collect as much science as I can before I can even sensibly think of attempting the Mun, let alone setting up a base there (Munar landings - well, yes, I CAN manage them, these days, but I only manage to land about half of them, whereas on Minmus my crash rate is now extremely low, haven't crashed anything there in ages).

<snip>

*which doesn't in itself bother me. It's the getting stuck in a pretty narrow rut in early gameplay that is bothering me, not how well I can do stuff compared to others. Hey, someone has to make the rest of you look good, no? :-)

I can't advise on tree changing mods, but as regards the stock game, why not try a bit of interplanetary instead? Fuel-wise a Gilly return should hardly take more than a Minmus return, if you fly it right, and Eve and Duna are both great targets for one-way landers.

[Esme]

- As for Mun landings, it sounds like you have the basics so just practice. Build a very simple lander with a modest TWR and enough fuel. Then do some F5-F9 practice until you get a good feel for when to start the burn. The mechanics are the same as Minmus except that you generally have to start the burn a little earlier. Unfortunately, if you are using the method where you stop all horizontal speed, then drop straight down, that is a lot more inefficient on the Mun.

Ah! Thank you, Claw, I had indeed been trying to halt sideways velocity first then worry about the vertical - which, of course, means I have a heckuva lot less time to do anything about my descent. I'm guessing then, that I should instead decelerate along my velocity vector as I descend, so that I'm slowing both horizontally and vertically at the same time?

[Esme]

You have a few options.

1) the Better Than Starting Manned mod

2) Realistic Progression LITE mod, part of Realism Overhaul (but I've used it by itself

3) manually edit your save file to change the science cost of the nodes containing the parts you want

Thank you Roadstock; I'd gained the impression that the first two necessitated using a resized solar system; if they don't then I'll take a closer look at them.

[Esme]

I can't advise on tree changing mods, but as regards the stock game, why not try a bit of interplanetary instead? Fuel-wise a Gilly return should hardly take more than a Minmus return, if you fly it right, and Eve and Duna are both great targets for one-way landers.

Well, the thing is, if I land somewhere, I want to explore it! And as for Duna, that's my ultimate goal (I want to set up a base/colony there, eventually), but I wanted to get the hang of landing on the Mun before attempting a Duna landing (and I don;t want to see too much of Duna beforehand so that when I eventually do explore it, it's all new to me). I did manage about an orbit and a half of Eve with a probe once, but generally I haven't paid much attention to sorting interplanetary launches yet. I had no idea that Gilly was that easy, hmmn.. that's a definite possibility then, thank you!

[Claw]

I'm guessing then, that I should instead decelerate along my velocity vector as I descend, so that I'm slowing both horizontally and vertically at the same time?

I'm right there with you on the slow exploration thing.

Your guess is right. I was trying to find a way to say it with few words, but it sounds like you already have an idea of how it works.

What I found that helped me was to set up a practice lander that's up in around a 10 or 15km circular orbit. Keep a quicksave of it up here (in orbit).

Then drop the PE to something like 5km (as you practice more, move this lower and lower).

After setting the PE, I would also set up an empty maneuver node on the PE to give you a countdown to the PE when in the flight view. (This helps later when aiming for precision landings.)

As you approach the PE, do like you said and burn toward the retrograde marker to slow horizontal and vertical at the same time. When you first start practicing with a high PE, the burns can be kind of slow. It gives you a chance to get the hang of pushing the retrograde marker around.

As you get more and more practice, lower the starting PE as I noted above. The descent burn will be at higher power, which means you'll have to be a little quicker at making steering corrections.

Eventually you can get to the point where you can place the PE right where you want to land, and then park your ship at the exact spot you want. Whenever I go to the Mun, Minmus, or Kerbin, I practice precision landings (or at least pick a spot) even if it isn't needed.

If you are chasing the retrograde marker, try to relax and keep it up in the blue half of the navball. If you panic and start burning at full throttle while flipping the ship in all different directions, it will probably end badly.

Practice, practice, practice. Think of it as getting experience in a simulator. So quickloading is totally acceptable.

[Pecan]

...And as for Duna, that's my ultimate goal (I want to set up a base/colony there, eventually), but I wanted to get the hang of landing on the Mun before attempting a Duna landing...

The big thing about Duna is that is has an atmosphere so landing can use parachutes :-)

[Esme]

Claw, thank you! Whilst I understand the physics of objects falling under gravity, I had no prior knowledge of how best to de-orbit on airless worlds, read about killing horizontal velocity first, found it worked a treat on Minmus, then found it didn't work so well (for me, leastways) with the Mun. I'll see how much trying the retrograde vector decelleration helps my landings. Might just be enough to help me out of the rut, so to speak.

Pecan - aye, but if it's anything like Mars' atmosphere (no, don't tell me, please!) it's likely to be rather thin - and it has a stronger gravitational field than the Mun. I'm thinking that until I can land reliably on the Mun there's not much point my trying to land on Duna.

(added in edit: Pecan - I noticed your tutorial link a little late. I shall look it up with interest as soon as I have time, thank you!

Anyway, I think I'll leave this as unanswered for another day or two, just in case anyone has any other suggestions re tech trees, then close it.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Esme

[MarvinKitFox]

You don't neeed to fine-tune the tech tree, you need to fine-tune your skills.

Either planning, or piloting, or strategic. Or all three.

Using true stock, no mods, a strong but realistic mission sequence would look something like this..

0) fake a launch from runway. Get science from runway and surrounds. Crew report, eva report, surface samples.

1) Bunnyhop from landing pad.

Get science for: Surface sample + eva report from (landing pad, KSC, plus 1 biome wherever you land. You can add runway, shore, water if you are willing to job Jeb around for 10 minutes.)

Crew reports for Landing pad, flying, upper atmo, low space, high space.

EVA reports for upper atmo, low space, high space.

this will flesh out your first handfull of science nodes. Get gravioli scanner.

2) manned orbital. Polar orbit. Do crew report + eva + gravioli scan for every biome on Kerbin, only 1.5 orbits needed.

3) manned minmus. All biomes, all experiments. Should be good for 4K science

4) whatever. You now have the tech to do anything.

So what skills are needed to do this?

*A bit of planning.

*A bit of strategy.

*Huge situational awareness. You need to know where you are, what your ship is doing, and what is coming up. You need to grok the navball. You need to be able to handle your ship *without* having to rotate your ship to re-orient the navball to a comfy orientation. You need to be able to judge when to decelerate for a landing at full throttle and stop not more than 1-2 shipheights above the surface. Any time spent hovering over the surface is wasted. Any fuel spend in first nulling lateral movement then dropping vertical is fuel wasted, meaning a bigger ship needed. Smaller is easier to pilot!

*either good piloting skilll, or the ability to Not Panic.

In a nutshell, you need to get yourself some more hands-on experience.

You need to be comfortable in your spaceship, not fighting it all the way.

Adding many mods is not the best way to do so, as it teaches you the mods, not core KSP.

(my exception to this... i use either Mechjeb or KER's delta-v calcs in the VAB. I can calc them myself, but at the cost of many headaches and many dead trees filled with inane scribbled figures)

.

Oh yes. Remember to take notes.

So your landing attempt on Mün failed in a crater? So what!

If you took notes, you would know what went wrong. Maybe used too much delta-v, meaning suboptimal trajectory?

Maybe started braking too late? Ok, so I braked 80% starting from 42km, and impacted at 55m/s. I need to either brake at 85%, or start braking at 46km.

Having this sort of info will make you not repeat the mistake .

[Alshain]

I too find many things seem "out of place" in the tech tree. Rover wheels are one of them. Real world had rovers in late Apollo missions and just assuming for a moment that Apollo equivalents are 1.25m parts, Rovers are way too far back there. There are other things as well. I'm thinking the tree will get refined by Squad over time. Eventually as early access approaches it's end they will likely add many many more parts and they will have to take a much closer look.

[Pecan]

Absolutely Alshain - I wrote my tutorial campaign for sandbox simply so the structure could follow the more logical sequence of driving, flying, unmanned-space, manned-space. First thing should be rover wheels for getting around on Kerbin, let alone Mun! I'm really looking forward to seeing what Squad have done with career mode for 0.24 though.

[Esme]

MarvinKitFox, thank you, but you are making a lot of incorrect assumptions, and ignoring that I asked whether anyone knows of a techtree that gives rover and probe parts early. That's it. Which makes the bulk of your post , frankly, irrelevant. So, thanks for responding, but you're off on the wrong tangent there.

[Esme]

Thanks all that responded!

[cantab]

I too find many things seem "out of place" in the tech tree. Rover wheels are one of them. Real world had rovers in late Apollo missions and just assuming for a moment that Apollo equivalents are 1.25m parts, Rovers are way too far back there.

I'd say that's an incorrect assumption. The Mk 1 Pod is loosely analogous to a Mercury spacecraft, while the Mk 2-3 is more akin to the Apollo command module.

That said, I concur the rover wheels are still too high up. They don't belong at the start, but maybe one or two levels after the first landing legs. (We have the unpowered plane wheels there actually, but it's a bit kooky to use them for rovers.)