Mod-Oriented Tech Tree (Aug 3, v0.3.3 bug fixes)

[Convieo]

From my personal experience, I found an adapter between 1.25m and 2.5m was a little out of place. I had both size fuel tanks, but still didn't have the adapter to attach them (I may be overlooking something here though). I also found the TAC life support slightly out of place. I get the small tanks just right, but the regular sizes I feel a too late, and then the larger sizes are straight after. Also the procedural fairings seem out of place. I had the base for them, but not the actual fairings to use. Again, I am no expert, this is just how I felt after one measly play of it.

Still! I awesome tree, and after trying a few out, this is what I have enjoyed the most, so thank you!

Edited December 8, 2014 by Convieo

[cvod]

From my personal experience, I found an adapter between 1.25m and 2.5m was a little out of place. I had both size fuel tanks, but still didn't have the adapter to attach them (I may be overlooking something here though). I also found the TAC life support slightly out of place. I get the small tanks just right, but the regular sizes I feel a too late, and then the larger sizes are straight after. Also the procedural fairings seem out of place. I had the base for them, but not the actual fairings to use. Again, I am no expert, this is just how I felt after one measly play of it.

Still! I awesome tree, and after trying a few out, this is what I have enjoyed the most, so thank you!

The adapter might be misplaced. I'm pretty sure procedural fairings are out of place because of an update. Life support is kinda iffy. I put most of life support later to try to give reason to use probes (also why life support nodes are cheaper than probes). But everything below spaceplanes is going to be reorganized in the next update, so I'll try to come up with a better order for the nodes.

[Lechuza]

I'm in the middle of a playthrough, and the fairing bases and the fairings themselves are all in the same node, there are later nodes that you get size upgrades for them, but you have the fairings from the beginning. Also, I deleted all the fairings from KW for this reason, since they seemed to be quite at the beginning and made the redundant, not complaining, I thought it was a good thing since I use FAR.

Overall quite an excellent tech tree, there is a node in rocketry that seems to be quite empty with only a few engines from Klockheed Martian Space Shuttle Engines that I can't remember the name of the tech right now. I also agree when it comes to life support. Apart from that, excellent tree, no other comes near it.

[JeffreyCor]

While the nodes are there for size upgrades, unless somehow you're getting different results from me the actual size upgrades are not unlocking.

[Borisbee]

I had the same thought about life support. Having them unlock later on gives a reason to use probes for your first long duration missions which I think is good. However I did see some life support nodes kind of scattered around. I believe the food, grey water, and waste containers from universal storage seem to be available a few nodes before the others.

[Streetwind]

For anyone who has played with this tree, how do you feel about the rocketry nodes? I've been unsure whether to change them or not. I feel like there's barely enough engines to justify how it's currently organized.

Still in the middle of my playthrough, and my rocketry unlocks are slow-going because I have so much else to unlock elsewhere, and get so much mileage out of my 1.25m rockets (I'm launching mainly RemoteTech sats). I have not yet unlocked the final 2.5m node (the 225 sci one), because the only 2.5m parts I use right now are for launchers of manned Mun/Minmus landers which simply don't fit into KW Rocketry's 1.25m fairings. But for what it's worth, I didn't find anything off with the progression up to that point. Perhaps the "Heavy Tanks" node is a bit of a misnomer, because it contains the smallest of the 2.5m tanks and not much beyond that, but this might be because of a mod I don't have installed. Also a little surprised that the solid booster unlocks come slower than I expected, but then again, I am able to address my needs with what I have available. Must be the pre-funds ingrained notion of "solid boosters are weaksauce earlygame stuff". Ironically at least three quarters of what I launch nowadays is all-solid up to the orbital maneuvering stage, because it's just so cost efficient

On the fairing unlock order with Procedural Fairings I can't comment, since I only use KW Rocketry and don't have PF installed. Certainly no mixups in the order of the KW fairings though, from what I could see.

I can however comment on the positioning of Near Future Propulsion engines, largely because I'm the one who does most of the engine balancing for the mod I can now see the ion propulsion node (but have not unlocked it yet), and it's mixing tier 1 and tier 2 engines. Considering that Near Future's engine tiers have very distinct performance differences, that's probably not a good idea, unless there is something going on with the positioning of the other tier 1 and 2 engines that I am not yet able to see. I'll be able to tell you more once I get around to unlocking more nodes in that general area, though it might be a couple days as I'm currently trying to get all the SCANsat things unlocked before the upcoming Duna transfer window.

[Borisbee]

I just got around to unlocking the fairing nodes and the first node gave me procedural fairings which I found a bit odd. I'd look into moving those around a bit, probably putting them in the last fairing node as they kind of render all other fairings obsolete, then again I'm probably going to end up removing that mod from my game for that reason. Tweakscale, while useful as hell in it's functionality, really bugs me having it in a career game since you can "cheat" so easily making any size engines/tanks, and so that too is probably going to be removing from my game.

[cvod]

Still in the middle of my playthrough, and my rocketry unlocks are slow-going because I have so much else to unlock elsewhere, and get so much mileage out of my 1.25m rockets (I'm launching mainly RemoteTech sats). I have not yet unlocked the final 2.5m node (the 225 sci one), because the only 2.5m parts I use right now are for launchers of manned Mun/Minmus landers which simply don't fit into KW Rocketry's 1.25m fairings. But for what it's worth, I didn't find anything off with the progression up to that point. Perhaps the "Heavy Tanks" node is a bit of a misnomer, because it contains the smallest of the 2.5m tanks and not much beyond that, but this might be because of a mod I don't have installed. Also a little surprised that the solid booster unlocks come slower than I expected, but then again, I am able to address my needs with what I have available. Must be the pre-funds ingrained notion of "solid boosters are weaksauce earlygame stuff". Ironically at least three quarters of what I launch nowadays is all-solid up to the orbital maneuvering stage, because it's just so cost efficient

On the fairing unlock order with Procedural Fairings I can't comment, since I only use KW Rocketry and don't have PF installed. Certainly no mixups in the order of the KW fairings though, from what I could see.

I can however comment on the positioning of Near Future Propulsion engines, largely because I'm the one who does most of the engine balancing for the mod I can now see the ion propulsion node (but have not unlocked it yet), and it's mixing tier 1 and tier 2 engines. Considering that Near Future's engine tiers have very distinct performance differences, that's probably not a good idea, unless there is something going on with the positioning of the other tier 1 and 2 engines that I am not yet able to see. I'll be able to tell you more once I get around to unlocking more nodes in that general area, though it might be a couple days as I'm currently trying to get all the SCANsat things unlocked before the upcoming Duna transfer window.

Any names in the rocketry nodes referring to tank size probably just weren't updated when I moved the parts around. The extra engines and tanks used to be separated instead of mixed together.

Any advice you can give would be great. Love the parts, but I've never actually used them. I started with Nertea's original node structure, but I really thought there were too many nodes so I tried to condense them based on Isp. I can add more nodes if needed though.

[Lechuza]

May I suggest spreading the KAS containers and KAS items around, it would be nice to start using winches and such a little sooner. Don't know if anyone else agrees with me.

[cvod]

May I suggest spreading the KAS containers and KAS items around, it would be nice to start using winches and such a little sooner. Don't know if anyone else agrees with me.

What parts would you like to see them grouped with? I've been meaning to spread KAS out eventually.

[JeffreyCor]

I just got around to unlocking the fairing nodes and the first node gave me procedural fairings which I found a bit odd. I'd look into moving those around a bit, probably putting them in the last fairing node as they kind of render all other fairings obsolete, then again I'm probably going to end up removing that mod from my game for that reason. Tweakscale, while useful as hell in it's functionality, really bugs me having it in a career game since you can "cheat" so easily making any size engines/tanks, and so that too is probably going to be removing from my game.

I disagree on putting all Procedural Fairings at the end. Some of us don't use any other fairings which would limit us to having none until the end. I think having the base sizes increase at unlock nodes is the best solution.

[Streetwind]

Any advice you can give would be great. Love the parts, but I've never actually used them. I started with Nertea's original node structure, but I really thought there were too many nodes so I tried to condense them based on Isp. I can add more nodes if needed though.

At its base, there are four tiers in Near Future Propulsion, so you probably want at least four nodes. Ordering by Isp doesn't really work because different engine technologies have entirely different stat weights - you can find tier 4 engines with less Isp than the PB-ION (even after the nerf that NFP applies to it out of pure necessity) because there are tradeoffs between Isp, thrust, power usage, cost, fuel type and several different derived factors. And then you get to tier 4 where engines start sporting variable Isp numbers that are adjustable mid-flight...

Tier 1: PB-ION, Gyro-One

Tier 2: AFTER, S-IE Twin Ion, Gyro-Two, Gyro-Quad

Tier 3: Hi-SNAP (basic and 12-cluster), the three MPDTs

Tier 4: DS4G, all three PITs, and all three VASIMRs

The overall performance differences between tiers follow a roughly 2 - 3 - 5 - 7 scale, so there's quite a major difference between a 3700 Isp KP-XL PIT and a 3800 Isp (post-nerf) PB-ION that isn't visible in the Isp at all. The PIT is 3.5 times as good!

RLA's electric engines, meanwhile, are supposedly balanced against the stock PB-ION. They do a... tenously acceptable job at that, at least the Type 2 and the Arcjet, while the Resistojet is much weaker. But if you apply Near Future's stat calculations to them, then the Resistojet is a (weak) tier 1 engine, the Ion Type 2 is between tiers 1 and 2, and the Arcjet is firmly a tier 2 but only in one of its two modes, with the other being catastrophically understatted. I'm not sure if that information helps you place them. I'm personally restatting them for my playthrough anyway, since their stock numbers are awkwardly all over the place. Running them as tier 1 engines with different niches because that tier has the least amount of engines in it by default.

Maybe I can convince hoojiwana to use my numbers or something, he was expressing interest in achieving parity with NFP engines at one point.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Streetwind

[Borisbee]

I disagree on putting all Procedural Fairings at the end. Some of us don't use any other fairings which would limit us to having none until the end. I think having the base sizes increase at unlock nodes is the best solution.

ah, yea you bring up a good point actually. I didn't think of that.

[Random Tank]

Okay, I hate to ask this, but I can't find where to put the "tree.cfg" folder...

I had a look back through this post to find an answer, but I couldn't see one, and I've tried putting it in a few different folders to no avail. Where is this "Career Directory" the README says about? I would assume it meant the folder where the persistent is, but even when I put it in there, Tech Manager only lets me choose the Stock KSP tree... What am I doing wrong? (and yes, I do have Tech Manager in the GameData folder)

[Streetwind]

That is sort of a relic of TreeLoader, the old API used to make custom tech trees. With newer versions of TechManager, you don't really need to put it directly in your save. I believe that you can, if you want, but it's not necessary. TechManager actually scans all of GameData for tree config files. However, in order to find them, it relies on a header - basically the file's contents need to start with the right piece of text. The current version of the Mod-Oriented Tech Tree does not have this specific header, and therefore TechManager won't find it.

I didn't want to fiddle with my savegames, so I fixed this myself. I simply placed the "tree_v0.2.97.cfg" I downloaded here directly into the TechManager folder, right where techmanager.dll sits. It's as good a place as any, really. You could even make a subfolder called "tree definitions", or call it whatever you like... as long as it is somewhere in GameData.

Then I opened the file (recommending Notepad++ or MS Word/etc as the basic Windows Editor won't give you any line breaks) and edited in the correct header by hand. It's very simple.

The tree definition as shipped looks like this at the top:

VERSION
{
id = 2
}
NODE
{
	name = newnode_9294
	techID = monoPropulsion
        ...

To conform to the TechManager header standard, I changed this to:

TECHNOLOGY_TREE_DEFINITION
{
id = ModOrientedTree
label = Mod-Oriented Tech Tree

NODE
{
	name = newnode_9294
	techID = monoPropulsion
	...

Note that TECHNOLOGY_TREE_DEFINITION opens a curly bracket. You need to close this curly bracket again at the very bottom of the file.

When you save this and load up KSP, TechManager should find it and let you select the tree from its dropdown menu at all times without having to fiddle with each individual savegame.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Streetwind

[cvod]

This is weird because I downloaded the recent Techmanager and loaded the tree without any problems and without these changes.

...I did change the tree file so that it was only "tree.cfg". I still do that out of habit from using treeloader, so I guess it works when it's named like that. Sorry for any confusion.

[JeffreyCor]

There are 2 ways of loading a tree in TechManager. The user friendly way of placing the tree file in the TechManager folder and selecting the tree from the menu which I think most prefer requires the changes.

[Random Tank]

Actually, just checked on the Tech Manager thread, found out you need to Press Alt+F7 to make a new list appear, where I could select this tech tree... thanks for the help!

Edited December 12, 2014 by Random Tank
Solved

[eddiew]

Interesting looking tree - so many nodes to play with! Having gotten tired of nearly maxing out in Kerbin's SOI, was just ready to start a new playthrough and this looks like an interesting way to add some challenge and uniqueness to it!

...my gut's still telling me to nerf science to 50% though. Not sure how well I can fill this big tree at that level, but we'll find out - might actually be more interesting if it's not actually possible to unlock everything

[cvod]

Having gotten tired of nearly maxing out in Kerbin's SOI...

That was part of what made me start this tree. Just get custom biomes and you'll be set. Although with contract science, you'll always have enough.

[eddiew]

That was part of what made me start this tree. Just get custom biomes and you'll be set. Although with contract science, you'll always have enough.

I do actually have custom biomes And DMagic's science instruments. Aaaand Station Science.

...

/me dials back the science to 30% - how hard can it be?

Thanks for working on this, I'll be sure to get some mileage out of it in the near future

[Streetwind]

I'm running science at 50% with this tree. It was actually cutting it really close at the start, because the first nodes you can buy are already as expensive as tier 3 nodes in the stock tree. And you won't have batteries or solar panels without at least two to four unlocks, so doing missions longer than a few hours in low Kerbin orbit isn't really possible until you've scrounged up a three-digit amount of science points. With 30%, better get used to exploiting all those cheaty little KSC biomes for surface samples and EVA reports, because otherwise you'll be sorta stuck - long before you get DMagic, Custom Biomes or Station Science to help you out. Later-on, when you get these parts and contracts start throwing free stuff at you, it'll get more comfortable again.

[eddiew]

It pays to be selective with early contracts After declining a few to get fresh ones up, I was able to do most of my beginner launches to cover 2-3 compatible contracts (like testing 3 things splashed down, or science from space plus a parachute at normal opening altitude and speed). Focussed my way to solar panels, after which it was off to Mun. Despite FAR not approving of my quadruple-liquid-booster lander, 1.25m parts proved perfectly fine to deliver 4x science jrs, 4x goos, and some early DMagic instruments, with the missions ultimately yielding around 200-300 science per shot.

Not really sure how many science points this cost - but there was several hours of very selective contract grinding to get to it. The aerodynamic caps are probably optional, but they detach in the upper atmosphere anyway. Obviously the 4x 909s on the lander is massive TWR overkill, but I hadn't invented fuel pipes yet and it needed 4 tanks for the delta-v

I think that Mun missions are practical with just batteries, but they would look pretty clunky and you'd have to think carefully about using your reaction wheels.

A later version was able to swap engines and science bays for a quadruple science package. Each one is detachable after use to maximise delta-v while hopping around Mun/Minmus for new biomes. The legs can be left on the surface entirely once their tanks are dry, and the core tank has 1200 delta-v, which is plenty to get home.

Tactical error; decouplers for things on top need to be upside down, else they stick to your rocket and add needless mass.

...that said, I've probably only got another 3-4 'easy' missions like this within Kerbin SOI before I'll have to get creative. I don't think the science return from just these basics is going to get me to nuclear engines, so I may be making my first interplanetary probes with 909s or KW Rocketry's Vesta engines. Round trips are looking unlikely for a while - unless the first thing I send is a Karbonite mining platform with fuel making facilities, or I start sending fuel tankers to follow. Or I need to figure out how to lift those 25 ton Station Science modules into orbit for the experiments there.

Excellent

[Streetwind]

Oh right, yeah, I made the conscious choice not to exploit the contract system. If I want new contracts, I'll need to wait for the existing ones to expire! Which may not seem to involve much more than timewarping, but does get increasingly inconvenient due to transfer windows passing by, other craft requiring attention, life support resources depleting in orbital stations, existing contracts approaching their deadlines and other tomfoolery

I didn't like using the KSC biomes, but I told myself "it's either this or launching a suborbital rocket with science equipment at every Kerbin biome", and I wasn't particularly motivated for that kind of grinding.

[eddiew]

Heh, it's interesting to see the ways that players end up constraining themselves in order to get a more challenging experience Personally I refuse to use the admin building with its disgracefully OP outsourced R&D policy, and I make one launch every 10 days, no more no less - which has similar issues with approaching transfer windows, and makes life support start to matter.

In other news, I can't start KSP 0.90 with TechManager installed, which has rather killed off this tree Any thoughts, cvod? Can it be resurrected (this tree, rather than TM, I appreciate you don't own the underlying mod)?

Edited December 17, 2014 by eddiew
clarity fail