[WIP][.90][0.43]KSAEA Tech Tree and Game Rebalance

[Pirsig]

Playing 0.43 on 0.90.0 now to see how everything works together.

Pretty sure I got all the new parts covered for the moment and everything seems to work ok, but you're going to want to delete StockFixes.cfg and make the following changes to noseCone0625.cfg:

rescaleFactor = 0.5

node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0

Squad fixed the problems with the stock model that was compensating for.

[theonegalen]

Pretty sure I got all the new parts covered for the moment and everything seems to work ok, but you're going to want to delete StockFixes.cfg and make the following changes to noseCone0625.cfg:

rescaleFactor = 0.5

node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0

Squad fixed the problems with the stock model that was compensating for.

Righto. I have to say, with the new upgrade system and the attendant restrictions, there's not much need for a hardmode for me anymore. Hardmode is so incredibly grindy now, so I'm actually playing with 80% science and rep return but 150% funds return, no reverts, permadeath, etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edit: I noticed I was only getting "check temperature" survey contracts instead of the visual survey contracts with KSAEA, so I added a line to the contracts.cfg in Gamedata/Squad/Contracts under those kinds of surveys (EVA, Visual, Suface Sample) saying "Tech = Mark1Cockpit" and now they show up again. I'm not hugely familiar with modulemanager, but I don't think it supports changing that sort of cfg, does it?

Edited December 31, 2014 by theonegalen

[Pirsig]

Edit: I noticed I was only getting "check temperature" survey contracts instead of the visual survey contracts with KSAEA, so I added a line to the contracts.cfg in Gamedata/Squad/Contracts under those kinds of surveys (EVA, Visual, Suface Sample) saying "Tech = Mark1Cockpit" and now they show up again. I'm not hugely familiar with modulemanager, but I don't think it supports changing that sort of cfg, does it?

I still have very little actual "play" time with current patch so I hadn't noticed this at all, I'll look into making an MM patch to fix it. I don't think MM explicitly states that it can target other stuff besides Part configs, but it does. That said, the Contract config is not setup in such a similar way as say the experiments config and so might not be doable, or may be interesting to make work. We shall have to see, but I suspect there will be a way to make it work.

[Pirsig]

Ok, yeah, it was actually super straight forward. Wasn't sure it would be, but simplicity wins, hurrah! Just put this config in the KSAEA folder and that should fix the visual surveys contract issue.

ContractFix.cfg

[theonegalen]

Sweet, I'll drop that in immediately. Planning for firespitter/KAX integration continues.

[The Great Potato]

I installed this mod last night; I've been looking for a good tech tree rebalance since I got kerbal, especially one that plays nice with other mods. I really like the arrangement of the tech tree in this one!

Looking at theonegalen's comment from earlier, I decided to start my progression with planes only. Unfortunately, it looks like both of the starting elevons are bugged with regards to FAR:

- Elevon 4 does not do any controlling at all. The surface moves, but the physics model doesn't look like it registers the deflection.

- Elevon 6 still uses the default physics model, so FAR freaks out.

Poking around in the configuration files, it looks like there may be a typo in tinyCtrlSrf.cfg:

//Changes for FAR, this is just a copy of the Elevon 4 config with values reduced the same % as size
@PART[[B]smallCtrlSrf[/B]]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:Final

Was the part name supposed to be tinyCtrlSrf instead?

After a clean install with the swapped name Elevon 4 works, though it still feels a little weaker than with default FAR. I can't tell if Elevon 6 works because it is so weak.

EDIT:

Found the same sort of typo in the FAR compatibility for structuralWing5.cfg, as well.

Things are going pretty well starting out the campaign mode with a basic jet!

Edited January 5, 2015 by The Great Potato

[theonegalen]

I had no problems with Elevon 4, but Elevon 6 (the tiny blue one) didn't appear to be calculated properly by FAR when putting together the center of lift. It worked alright for the basic sounding rockets, though, so I didn't mind it.

Great Potato, make sure you right click on your Elevons to set up their control deflection. I've found they usually need to be >20 degrees to be effective.

[Pirsig]

I installed this mod last night; I've been looking for a good tech tree rebalance since I got kerbal, especially one that plays nice with other mods. I really like the arrangement of the tech tree in this one!

Looking at theonegalen's comment from earlier, I decided to start my progression with planes only. Unfortunately, it looks like both of the starting elevons are bugged with regards to FAR:

- Elevon 4 does not do any controlling at all. The surface moves, but the physics model doesn't look like it registers the deflection.

- Elevon 6 still uses the default physics model, so FAR freaks out.

Poking around in the configuration files, it looks like there may be a typo in tinyCtrlSrf.cfg

//Changes for FAR, this is just a copy of the Elevon 4 config with values reduced the same % as size
@PART[[B]smallCtrlSrf[/B]]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:Final

Was the part name supposed to be tinyCtrlSrf instead?

After a clean install with the swapped name Elevon 4 works, though it still feels a little weaker than with default FAR. I can't tell if Elevon 6 works because it is so weak.

EDIT:

Found the same sort of typo in the FAR compatibility for structuralWing5.cfg, as well.

Things are going pretty well starting out the campaign mode with a basic jet!

Eh, yeah, it would seem I changed the values but not the part names. Glad you enjoy the mod and thanks for pointing that out, it'll be fixed in the next release.

Also, with the names changed to the correct parts for those two configs nothing about elevon 4's capabilities should be getting modded by KSAEA, just its tech tree position. If elevon 4 is in fact weaker it's most likely coming from somewhere else. As for elevon 6 being weak, it's supposed to be, its small and supposed to be used for controlling small rockets at the beginning of the tree before you have other control options. I just did a quick flight with the SKGU(no reaction wheel), a nose cone, couple mx fuel tanks, an lv-01 and quad lv-1r's (no gimbals) with the structural wing E and elevon 6 for control in a quad arrangement and had no problems reasonably controlling the craft.

[The Great Potato]

Eh, yeah, it would seem I changed the values but not the part names. Glad you enjoy the mod and thanks for pointing that out, it'll be fixed in the next release.

Also, with the names changed to the correct parts for those two configs nothing about elevon 4's capabilities should be getting modded by KSAEA, just its tech tree position. If elevon 4 is in fact weaker it's most likely coming from somewhere else. As for elevon 6 being weak, it's supposed to be, its small and supposed to be used for controlling small rockets at the beginning of the tree before you have other control options. I just did a quick flight with the SKGU(no reaction wheel), a nose cone, couple mx fuel tanks, an lv-01 and quad lv-1r's (no gimbals) with the structural wing E and elevon 6 for control in a quad arrangement and had no problems reasonably controlling the craft.

Yep. With galen's suggestion (thanks galen!) I was able to use Elevon 6's as pretty reasonable ailerons. And the difference I thought I saw in the Elevon 4's was from actually the reduced lift on the structural wings, before I noticed they were also bugged -- my plane was still having trouble getting off the runway. Everything is flying just fine now!

On another note:

I love the tech progression early on! I just wish I had enough cash to use it!

Playing on hard mode, I find myself high on science, but low on pretty much everything else. Using my starting craft alone, I find I can easily research tech level three before paying so much as a single startup cost. And that's without spamming research in the KSC biomes. Perhaps the science multiplier for Kerbin should be decreased a little more?

Also, part test contracts are suspiciously absent; are they tied to the original start capsule? If they could be brought back in, and perhaps added to the new .65m parts, I bet the early game would be more like the starting days of the NACA: develop and test new and more effective planes and rockets for atmospheric use.

A few more thoughts:

- If part test contracts can be brought back, can they be limited to only have sub 22000m altitudes until you have demonstrated upper atmospheric capabilities?

- Can the 33000m+ height record contracts be changed to accept unmanned craft? Probes should realistically be the first things to reach that altitude, but doing so (I think) will invalidate the contract, and the reward.

- Can action groups be added to the level one hangar/VAB? Landing planes without flaps or spoilers is a pain and a half.

- Can lateral speed contracts be added? It would be cool to have to research your way up to mach speeds and build your own X-1.

[Pirsig]

Yep. With galen's suggestion (thanks galen!) I was able to use Elevon 6's as pretty reasonable ailerons. And the difference I thought I saw in the Elevon 4's was from actually the reduced lift on the structural wings, before I noticed they were also bugged -- my plane was still having trouble getting off the runway. Everything is flying just fine now!

On another note:

I love the tech progression early on! I just wish I had enough cash to use it!

Playing on hard mode, I find myself high on science, but low on pretty much everything else. Using my starting craft alone, I find I can easily research tech level three before paying so much as a single startup cost. And that's without spamming research in the KSC biomes. Perhaps the science multiplier for Kerbin should be decreased a little more?

Ever since the difficulty settings were added this mod has no longer really modified total science values, and it never modified the body multipliers. Originally I was basically providing the same functionality as the Science Rewards slider does now, with a default setting of 80%. I removed that with the introduction of the slider and now only one or two experiments have their actual total science (scienceCap) modified by the mod. The only thing I can really recommend is to bring the slider down further for science rewards, and maybe up a bit for funds rewards if you're having an issue there.

Also, part test contracts are suspiciously absent; are they tied to the original start capsule? If they could be brought back in, and perhaps added to the new .65m parts, I bet the early game would be more like the starting days of the NACA: develop and test new and more effective planes and rockets for atmospheric use.

A few more thoughts:

- If part test contracts can be brought back, can they be limited to only have sub 22000m altitudes until you have demonstrated upper atmospheric capabilities?

- Can the 33000m+ height record contracts be changed to accept unmanned craft? Probes should realistically be the first things to reach that altitude, but doing so (I think) will invalidate the contract, and the reward.

- Can action groups be added to the level one hangar/VAB? Landing planes without flaps or spoilers is a pain and a half.

- Can lateral speed contracts be added? It would be cool to have to research your way up to mach speeds and build your own X-1.

I've been getting part test contracts with fully researched versions of the tree, so yes it's probably the same as the problem that was keeping the survey contracts from showing up early, I'll look into this. Also, most of the parts added should still have modules for the part test contract.

As for actually modifying contracts, I had given zero thought to it thus far to be honest. I'm not saying it's totally out of the question, just that I haven't looked into it really at all. It's something I'll put a bit of thought into considering now, but wouldn't expect to see anything on the matter too soon.

For action groups I would recommend Action Groups Extended. Aside from all the handy extra action groups and such it can also be used to override the lockout.

[theonegalen]

Pirsig, it looks like Firespitter isn't going to be updated anytime soon, so I'm going to shift my focus to the Kerbal Aircraft Expansion (KAX) mod. KAX is much like Firespitter, but is more stockalike and built to be used with the standard Mk1 and 2.5m fuselage. This means the parts are more versatile and not limited to being used with Firespitter, and that part redundancy is reduced. I already know where I want to place the parts, as I had intended to include them with my Firespitter config. I think this will make propeller aircraft simpler and a lot more fun.

My only regret is that it won't have the gorgeous F-86 parts that snjo made.

Also, I seem to have no trouble with the part test contracts, but I'm running a pretty heavily modded install.

Edited January 8, 2015 by theonegalen

[SpinkAkron]

Thanks for this! It's exactly what I've been looking for. Got a question/problem. I'm been unable to complete altitude contracts using the SKGU probe core. Is this by design or do I have something wrong? I've tried from a clean install with the same results.

thanks

spink

[theonegalen]

Spink, it's part of the stock game that altitude contracts must be completed with a manned craft.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And here it is! The KAX config for KSAEA! Download KAX here, copy the following code into a text file, save it in the "/GameData/KSAEA/Mod Configs" folder as KAX.cfg, and you're now starting your career with propeller aircraft!

*only works on a new save*

//--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\\
// Kerbal Space and Atmospheric Exploration Agency Technology Tree Changes for Kerbal Aircraft Expansion	\\
//														\\
// This config contains the tech tree changes for the parts in Kerbal Aircraft Expansion (KAX) and rearranges	\\
// the changes made to the stock plane parts by KSAEA to make aerodynamic tech make sense.			\\
//														\\
// Config created by theonegalen based on KSAEA by Pirsig							\\
//--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\\

//Moves the D-25 Radial Engine to Start
@PART[KAXradialprop]:FOR[KSAEA]:NEEDS[KAX]
{
	@TechRequired = start
}

//Moves the GT-580 Heavy Gear Assembly to Advanced Landing
@PART[KAXheavyGear]:FOR[KSAEA]:NEEDS[KAX]
{
	@TechRequired = advLanding
}

//Moves the Heavy Structural Fuselage to Advanced Construction
@PART[KAXmedFuselage]:FOR[KSAEA]:NEEDS[KAX]
{
	@TechRequired = advConstruction
}

//Moves the Heavy Fuselage - Jet Fuel to Advanced Construction
@PART[KAXmedJetFuel]:FOR[KSAEA]:NEEDS[KAX]
{
	@TechRequired = advConstruction
}

//Moves the Heavy Tail Boom to Advanced Construction
@PART[KAXmedTail]:FOR[KSAEA]:NEEDS[KAX]
{
	@TechRequired = advConstruction
}

//Moves the C2-B Horizon Cockpit to Specialized Control
@PART[KAXmedCockpit]:FOR[KSAEA]:NEEDS[KAX]
{
	@TechRequired = specializedControl
}

//Moves the PT100 Turboprop to High Altitude Flight
@PART[KAXturboprop]:FOR[KSAEA]:NEEDS[KAX]
{
	@TechRequired = highAltitudeFlight
}

//Moves the Jump Jet Engine to Advanced Aerodynamics
@PART[KAXjumpJet]:FOR[KSAEA]:NEEDS[KAX]
{
	@TechRequired = advAerodynamics
}

//Moves the e50 Electric Propeller Engine to Specialized Electrics
@PART[KAXelectricprop]:FOR[KSAEA]:NEEDS[KAX]
{
	@TechRequired = specializedElectrics
}

//Moves the Aerodynamic Nose Cone to Aerodynamics
@PART[noseCone]:FOR[KSAEA]:NEEDS[KAX]:FINAL
{
	@TechRequired = aerodynamicSystems
}

//Moves the Basic Jet Engine to Aerodynamics
@PART[JetEngine]:FOR[KSAEA]:NEEDS[KAX]:FINAL
{
	@TechRequired = aerodynamicSystems
}

//Moves the Mk1 Cockpit to Advanced Flight Control
@PART[Mark1Cockpit]:FOR[KSAEA]:NEEDS[KAX]:FINAL
{
	@TechRequired = advFlightControl
}

//Moves the Radial Air Intake to Aerodynamics
@PART[airScoop]:FOR[KSAEA]:NEEDS[KAX]:FINAL
{
	@TechRequired = aerodynamicSystems
}

//Moves the Tail Connector to Start
@PART[airplaneTail]:FOR[KSAEA]:NEEDS[KAX]:FINAL
{
	@TechRequired = start
}

//Moves the Swept Wings to Aerodynamics
@PART[sweptWing]:FOR[KSAEA]:NEEDS[KAX]:FINAL
{
	@TechRequired = aerodynamicSystems
}

//Moves the Swept Wing Type B to Supersonic Flight
@PART[sweptWing2]:FOR[KSAEA]:NEEDS[KAX]:FINAL
{
	@TechRequired = supersonicFlight
}

Since I'm stuck on airplanes, I might see if I can build a config for Retro Future, NoMrBond's F100 engine, or something like that next.

Edited January 8, 2015 by theonegalen

[SpinkAkron]

Spink, it's part of the stock game that altitude contracts must be completed with a manned craft.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ah, I guess I've never seen that due to never starting with probes. Thanks!

[Pirsig]

Pirsig, it looks like Firespitter isn't going to be updated anytime soon, so I'm going to shift my focus to the Kerbal Aircraft Expansion (KAX) mod. KAX is much like Firespitter, but is more stockalike and built to be used with the standard Mk1 and 2.5m fuselage. This means the parts are more versatile and not limited to being used with Firespitter, and that part redundancy is reduced. I already know where I want to place the parts, as I had intended to include them with my Firespitter config. I think this will make propeller aircraft simpler and a lot more fun.

My only regret is that it won't have the gorgeous F-86 parts that snjo made.

Also, I seem to have no trouble with the part test contracts, but I'm running a pretty heavily modded install.

I think firespitter's always been a bit of a laggard but the .dll is usually up to date since several other mods rely on it, and I believe it has in fact been updated for .90. Not sure if all the parts work the way they're supposed to and such though or not, think latest posted version is 24.2 for the parts? That doesn't mean they won't work, just that they might not. Either way obviously I've got no problem with you giving it up for the time being. Especially since it is in a weird state at the moment, though so are a couple of the LS mods. Personally, KAX has tempted me more than Firespitter in the past anyway.

Thanks for this! It's exactly what I've been looking for. Got a question/problem. I'm been unable to complete altitude contracts using the SKGU probe core. Is this by design or do I have something wrong? I've tried from a clean install with the same results.

thanks

spink

Thanks, glad you like it. Unfortunately it's not just the SKGU that won't let you complete those altitude missions, it's ALL probe cores, as galen said. Unmanned flights cannot complete these missions because that's the way squad programmed them. After some investigation prompted by earlier discussion on the subject, it seems that there is no practical way to change this. The only solution I can see would be a plugin that adds a new contract that is basically a copy of the altitude contract, but also allows probes to complete and then prevents the original altitude contract type from spawning, which I'm not sure that second part is possible/allowed. Either way it's outside the scope of what I intend to do here.

On the subject of contracts I've also spent some time trying to figure out what was going on with the part test contracts. I thought I was experiencing issues on one of my test saves, until I launched a vessel and then they showed. After messing around a bit, it seems the part test contracts won't spawn until you launch a vessel from the VAB (not SPH) that gets at least a few feet off the ground. Probably once you're out of the launch pad's weird pocket of space. Why on earth they would tie the part test contract generation to such a condition is beyond me, but that seems to be the case. In light of this, if anyone is still experiencing issues with the part test contracts I'll need some more information on the matter otherwise I'm considering it solved.

Also galen, sorry, i typed this last night and forgot to send before falling asleep so I haven't looked at the KAX config you posted at all yet, I'll probably have a chance to go over by the weekend.

[theonegalen]

No problem, man. It took me forever to get the thing done, so take your time.

[Pirsig]

So, a couple of things. First, :FINAL[] and :FOR[] are not used together as they're both telling MM which pass to run the patch in. So if something has :FOR[KSAEA] it runs in the pass for KSAEA, if it's :FINAL it runs in the final pass. Good practice is to keep things in a mod's particular pass whenever possible (KSAEA in this case) and to keep stuff out of :FINAL unless a patch wouldn't work otherwise. For personal use :FINAL is fine. In fact that's why it's good practice to keep it clean, so people can use it for personal modifications without having to resort to crazy naming crap to make sure a patch absolutely runs after something else. For your personal use until integration you'll want to take out the :FOR[KSAEA] on the stock stuff and just have them run in final.

When I do the .5 release, which'll have the KAX config in it, the way I get around this is just by adding an exception (:NEEDS[!KAX]) to all the parts in StockTechTreeRebalance.cfg that will be modified if KAX is installed. You can look at the starter antenna in that config if you want to see it, only difference is that's an exception for remote tech, but yeah. The exception allows the mod config for KAX to then still run in the KSAEA pass.

Also, I was curious why the move for the nose cone and the mk1 cockpit? Unless I'm missing something I feel this is unnecessary.

[The Great Potato]

On the subject of contracts I've also spent some time trying to figure out what was going on with the part test contracts. I thought I was experiencing issues on one of my test saves, until I launched a vessel and then they showed. After messing around a bit, it seems the part test contracts won't spawn until you launch a vessel from the VAB (not SPH) that gets at least a few feet off the ground. Probably once you're out of the launch pad's weird pocket of space. Why on earth they would tie the part test contract generation to such a condition is beyond me, but that seems to be the case. In light of this, if anyone is still experiencing issues with the part test contracts I'll need some more information on the matter otherwise I'm considering it solved.

I can confirm. Test contracts came online in a clean install by adding this to the contract fix and launching a brave probe straight into the ocean:

    @Test
    {
        @Tech = Mark1Cockpit
    }

By the way, I think the "Tech = " line in the original contract fix also needs the @ in front of it.

[theonegalen]

So, a couple of things. First, :FINAL[] and :FOR[] are not used together as they're both telling MM which pass to run the patch in. So if something has :FOR[KSAEA] it runs in the pass for KSAEA, if it's :FINAL it runs in the final pass. Good practice is to keep things in a mod's particular pass whenever possible (KSAEA in this case) and to keep stuff out of :FINAL unless a patch wouldn't work otherwise. For personal use :FINAL is fine. In fact that's why it's good practice to keep it clean, so people can use it for personal modifications without having to resort to crazy naming crap to make sure a patch absolutely runs after something else. For your personal use until integration you'll want to take out the :FOR[KSAEA] on the stock stuff and just have them run in final.

Gotcha. I'm pretty new to ModuleManager and had trouble finding documentation on the ":FINAL" function. I searched the modulemanager thread and read the github wiki, is there another good place to look?

When I do the .5 release, which'll have the KAX config in it, the way I get around this is just by adding an exception (:NEEDS[!KAX]) to all the parts in StockTechTreeRebalance.cfg that will be modified if KAX is installed. You can look at the starter antenna in that config if you want to see it, only difference is that's an exception for remote tech, but yeah. The exception allows the mod config for KAX to then still run in the KSAEA pass.

Ok, that makes sense. I didn't want to fiddle with your included configs when making my own.

Also, I was curious why the move for the nose cone and the mk1 cockpit? Unless I'm missing something I feel this is unnecessary.

I was thinking that there's not much point in putting a nose cone and nose cone-ish cockpit in the starting node because they only fit with 1.25m parts, and the front of 1.25m things would be the 1.25m radial engine, but now that I rethink it, one could make a P-38 Lightning-style airplane with the nose cone or mk1 cockpit. I was also hoping that there might be some kind of tech progression in the inside of the cockpit as well as the outside. But again, on rethinking it, maybe later we might get a cockpit that only works in atmosphere separate from or needing an upgrade to function as an orbital cockpit (which might have better IVA instruments, for example), but that functionality doesn't exist within current versions of KSP. You're right, they should go back into start.

Edited January 9, 2015 by theonegalen

[Pirsig]

I can confirm. Test contracts came online in a clean install by adding this to the contract fix and launching a brave probe straight into the ocean:

    @Test
    {
        @Tech = Mark1Cockpit
    }

By the way, I think the "Tech = " line in the original contract fix also needs the @ in front of it.

That line is useless. As far as I can tell (can't actually decompile per eula) the part test contracts aren't looking for any sort of check on tech. Without going too deep into how contracts work, the only check I can find for it to begin generating the contracts is, "have you launched a vessel from the VAB?" This means there is no way to change the conditions that it's looking for short of a plugin that replaces the contracts with a new version with different generation conditions, just like the altitude contract issue.

Also, that line is useless because Test{} has no Tech parameter in it already. @ is used when you want a patch to overwrite an existing parameter, but not create it if it doesn't exist. % will overwrite if exists and create if it doesn't. No prefix creates a new parameter, if one already exists with the same name, you'll have two. So the way that is currently written it changes absolutely nothing, which is good because it might muck things up for you if it actually worked. This same reason is why no, the Tech parameter in the contract fix should not be an @. If it was, it wouldn't work and would do absolutely nothing.

Gotcha. I'm pretty new to ModuleManager and had trouble finding documentation on the ":FINAL" function. I searched the modulemanager thread and read the github wiki, is there another good place to look?

Ok, that makes sense. I didn't want to fiddle with your included configs when making my own.

No worries, unfortunately the documentation for Module Manager is a bit... scattered. For instance, if you want to learn how to correctly use the variables I think you still need to find the post in the thread from when the first version with variables dropped. S o yeah, finding documentation for certain stuff in MM can be a bit wonky. That said, the front page and this from the wiki are the two most cohesive source of information. Everything else is kind of scattered throughout the thread and various discussions. Beyond that it's like any programming language in that you can glean a fair amount just from reading other configs once you have a basic understanding. Though there's lots of configs out there following very poor practices, because why follow standards when you can be different and difficult for no good reason? Sorry, giant pet peeve of mine...

I was thinking that there's not much point in putting a nose cone and nose cone-ish cockpit in the starting node because they only fit with 1.25m parts, and the front of 1.25m things would be the 1.25m radial engine, but now that I rethink it, one could make a P-38 Lightning-style airplane with the nose cone or mk1 cockpit. I was also hoping that there might be some kind of tech progression in the inside of the cockpit as well as the outside. But again, on rethinking it, maybe later we might get a cockpit that only works in atmosphere separate from or needing an upgrade to function as an orbital cockpit (which might have better IVA instruments, for example), but that functionality doesn't exist within current versions of KSP. You're right, they should go back into start.

Yeah, I wish there was stuff to help differentiate performance capabilities of cockpits more as well, but alas... Also, upon further examination in general I feel like some of the parts are too far up? Most modern aviation technology all seems to have come into its own at relatively the same time spanning 15 years or so surrounding WW2. (Most of this is centered around advancements in turbine engines for aviation at the time) So helicopters, for example, after crewed rocket flight seems kind of odd. The only exceptions would be the jumpjets (harriers are from the 80's) and the electric propellers (70's, though still largely experimental even today). I know I don't have specific written guidelines (I really should, they already partially exist for my own benefit) but the tiers do loosely corresponded to time frames, among other things. I'm gonna take a quick pass and shift a few things around, post it, and you can let me know what you think. On the other side of that, a couple of the changes you made to stock for KAX are probably going to become base KSAEA changes, for sure the tail section at any rate, not sure why I had left that so far up the tree.

[The Great Potato]

That line is useless. As far as I can tell (can't actually decompile per eula) the part test contracts aren't looking for any sort of check on tech. Without going too deep into how contracts work, the only check I can find for it to begin generating the contracts is, "have you launched a vessel from the VAB?" This means there is no way to change the conditions that it's looking for short of a plugin that replaces the contracts with a new version with different generation conditions, just like the altitude contract issue.

Also, that line is useless because Test{} has no Tech parameter in it already. @ is used when you want a patch to overwrite an existing parameter, but not create it if it doesn't exist. % will overwrite if exists and create if it doesn't. No prefix creates a new parameter, if one already exists with the same name, you'll have two. So the way that is currently written it changes absolutely nothing, which is good because it might muck things up for you if it actually worked. This same reason is why no, the Tech parameter in the contract fix should not be an @. If it was, it wouldn't work and would do absolutely nothing.

Hmm. That is odd, then, because without those two changes I can't get contracts to work using only the "start" tech node.

With a fresh install, unmodded aside from KSAEA, I determined that the test and survey contracts are most likely dependent on the RT-10 booster. They won't show up until Advanced Rocketry is researched and the booster is unlocked (provided a rocket had already been launched, of course). Moving RT-10 back to the start node allows the contracts to show up immediately after the first launch. There is definitely a tech dependency there, it's just not listed in contracts.cfg. Probably a default value in the C# game object.

I can assure you that the code is not useless: it allows contracts to appear in T0 without changing the tech tree from the KSAEA default. Neither contract type will show up on any of my clean tier-0 saves without those prefixes. Maybe modulemanager operates on the game objects and not the raw cfg's?

Edited January 10, 2015 by The Great Potato

[theonegalen]

Potato, I didn't notice any problem with part testing contracts.

Pirsig, I was definitely considering more game balance considerations with the electric prop and Huey parts. I figure that turboprops would follow turbojets (which is really the basic jet). I also may have been too concerned with matching the parts to the node names. I do wish we had a real efficient turbofan for large airliner-style craft. I wish there was a slightly less intense / part-heavy version of AJE, really.

I look forward to seeing both your pass on the KAX config and your basic ideas for further mod integrations.

Edited January 10, 2015 by theonegalen

[SpinkAkron]

Interstellar Flight Inc. Life Support doesn't appear to handle having life support removed from the cockpits. Pretty much instant death.

spink

[Pirsig]

Hmm. That is odd, then, because without those two changes I can't get contracts to work using only the "start" tech node.

With a fresh install, unmodded aside from KSAEA, I determined that the test and survey contracts are most likely dependent on the RT-10 booster. They won't show up until Advanced Rocketry is researched and the booster is unlocked (provided a rocket had already been launched, of course). Moving RT-10 back to the start node allows the contracts to show up immediately after the first launch. There is definitely a tech dependency there, it's just not listed in contracts.cfg. Probably a default value in the C# game object.

I can assure you that the code is not useless: it allows contracts to appear in T0 without changing the tech tree from the KSAEA default. Neither contract type will show up on any of my clean tier-0 saves without those prefixes. Maybe modulemanager operates on the game objects and not the raw cfg's?

I can assure you that code really does nothing, @ doesn't add parameters it only edits ones that already exist. After talking to Arsonide (author of Fine Print) and confirming that in fact the only condition Part Test contracts are looking for is your first launch from the launchpad, I believe I've found the culprit. The launch does not count if your vessel is not touching the ground. This means that when using a launch clamp or something, you might actually not be touching and therefore your launch won't count. It is mere coincidence that you had a launch that registered correctly when having the RT-10. This merely has to do with how you design your vessel and is why I was able to have problems with the contracts on one install but not another, and why you're experiencing issues, but galen isn't.

Interstellar Flight Inc. Life Support doesn't appear to handle having life support removed from the cockpits. Pretty much instant death.

spink

Sorry about that, I figured all LS mods handled it such that vessels don't require LS resources when in atmo on Kerbin. I'll make a change for the next release that gives the atmo cockpits 1 LS resource (1 day's worth) per kerbal for interstellar.

[d4rksh4de]

Hi, first of all, thanks for the cool mod.

I've been playing this mod with RemoteTech and I noticed that the probe and the launch clamp added by KSAEA should be modified a bit to make it even more awesome with RemoteTech. Currently the probe is overpowered because it doesn't require connection link to KSC to control it as other probes do in RemoteTech. The launch clamp doesn't have antenna which makes it difficult to use with probes, because you cannot launch without an antenna, of course you would need to add one for the probe itself, but it would be more convenient to add one for launch clamp as the RemoteTech does with the stock launch clamp.

Here is an example how I did fix these problems for myself, so it would be nice if these changes could be added to KSAEA: https://github.com/RemoteTechnologiesGroup/RemoteTech/issues/315