[Planning] Community Tech Tree

[RoverDude]

Thank you for a better explination RoverDude. I understand that anyone who uses this will be using the same tree but I was more thinking of how would one mod, like kspi, that uses nodes yall dont be incorporated with the yalls mods.

You're welcome. And I expect what will happen is someone will make a MM config that moves all of the KSPI stuff (no different than if someone made a MM config that shuffled NFT stuff into the KSPI tree. I know UndercoverYankee has done a lot of stuff in setting up interop, which rocks. So I would not be surprised if he adds something in.

[Serino]

OK then is there going to be a tree.cfg with all nodes of the full tree available just with the hidden if empty tag applied to them released with yalls mods or maybe even separately to make it easier on the person who does the mm config?

[RoverDude]

OK then is there going to be a tree.cfg with all nodes of the full tree available just with the hidden if empty tag applied to them released with yalls mods or maybe even separately to make it easier on the person who does the mm config?

Not mine, no value to that for me (i.e. it adds work). I'll be referencing the nodes directly in my configs.

[bonesbro]

@Nertea: As cvod mentioned at the start of the thread, he'd done a bunch of work in .24 to start building a mod-focused tech tree. (Thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90938-Mod-Oriented-Tech-Tree-%28September-20-v0-2-95%29). I ran a career most of the way through it and had a lot of fun. Did you ever get a chance to look over the tree he'd built?

[Nertea]

It ends up being somewhat similar, but because ctt's has some changes to the stock section, it's a little different from my goal.

[RoverDude]

Just reviewed the tree again with the latest updates - this is looking lovely!

[WaveFunctionP]

I can still define the new nodes in the part file? I prefer to have user modify the part file via MM configs instead of separately coded trees.

[RoverDude]

I can still define the new nodes in the part file? I prefer to have user modify the part file via MM configs instead of separately coded trees.

No reason why not, that's where I'm headed. Then if someone wants to do some re-arrangement on their own it's an MM file.

[pjf]

Hey all,

I'm pushing for use of the Community Tech Tree in the Realism Overhaul Career thread; I think it will not only improve interoperability a lot with late-game tech, but also save an enormous amount of work in developing Yet Another Tech Tree.

However I wanted to check if we can modify (preferably via MM) the title and description of nodes as displayed to users? We might want to change the names of some of the early nodes (eg: Stability -> Early Probes) and re-arrange the parts in each, but have the underlying techID identifiers would remain the same. This should ensure continuing CTT compatibility, but give custom tree developers the ability to customise the flavour of each node.

Ditto for will it be possible to change the science cost using MM? I'm not sure how much we'll need this, but it would be very nice to have.

Edit: I'm expecting both the answers of this to be "yes", but wanted to make doubly sure now, rather than being further along in development.

May thanks!

~ Paul

[Nertea]

I think that's more of a question for the people running the tech loading plugins than me - I have no control over that.

Anyways, I finished laying out the tech tree. I could use a couple of testers, I suppose.

[RoverDude]

Toss up a link and I can give it a whirl!

[NathanKell]

A quick question: I note the tree seems somewhat skimpy on crewed-space nodes. Where do you plan to put capsules? I noticed there's now a landing subtree, does that mean landing legs get put there and the Space Exploration subtree is for capsules?

[Nori]

I could test as well if you want.

I second Nathan's question. Now that I'm thinking about it mods like Tantares could use another node or two for crewed travel. He adds so many new pods and I know a lot of other mods do as well. Could go off of survivability maybe?

[DaveS]

I would happily test as well.

[Nertea]

A quick question: I note the tree seems somewhat skimpy on crewed-space nodes. Where do you plan to put capsules? I noticed there's now a landing subtree, does that mean landing legs get put there and the Space Exploration subtree is for capsules?

There's always been a landing subtree, hasn't there? Squad puts capsules in control nodes, which makes sense to me, but I added two nodes since that last update. So there's now Heavy Control, Enhanced Survivability, Long Term Habitation and Short Term Habitation that are new candidates for pod-makers to use.

Link

Edited November 5, 2014 by Nertea

[pjf]

There's always been a landing subtree, hasn't there? Squad puts capsules in control nodes, which makes sense to me, but I added two nodes since that last update. So there's now Heavy Control, Enhanced Survivability, Long Term Habitation and Short Term Habitation that are new candidates for pod-makers to use.

You're awesome. Thank you!

Just to check, what license are you doing the CTT under? I know it might be buried in the thread somewhere, but I haven't been able to spot it. Also, if you're doing your development on github, I'd love a link (especially as that makes it dramatically easier for me to submit corrections to typos and spot updates.)

Many thanks again!

[Nertea]

This is all very informal at the moment. I will git a project (ha... ha...) when I actually have some time.

License is CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0.

A question - I've enabled all the nodes to be shown even if empty here. If they are set to hide when empty, the tree could cut off access to later tech and for this skeletal test, it's best that the entire tree be visible. If we decide to, I'll ensure all CTT nodes are marked as hide when empty at actual release time.

Known issues: tree is not centered on the r&d field, I accidentally deleted nanolathing

Edited November 5, 2014 by Nertea

[anonish]

Nertea, if you are interested in having the tree reside in GameData instead of the save game folder (like a proper mod), then the whole config should be wrapped in one more layer of confignode, like:

TECHNOLOGY_TREE_DEFINITION

{

id = CCT_Version1

label = This is the awesome Community Tech Tree!

<the rest of the config>

}

The id is to identify the tree, the label is what will show up at the start of a game for tree selection and in the R&D center drop down to jump between chosen trees.

I tried it out.. Looks like some nodes aren't defined, stock nodes. This causes TechManager to remove those parent references and you end up with this:

If you aren't targeting TechManager, no problem. If you are, you'll need to define those nodes (and get rid of that REMOVENODE entry). If you want to only *reference* those techs, but have them researchable in another tree (I very much doubt it), use the 'external' field on the nodes representing them.

EDIT: oh, you'll need TM 1.2 for the multi-tree ability (and to load using TECHNOLOGY_TREE_DEFINITION instead of just a tree.cfg in the save game folder)

Edited November 5, 2014 by anonish

[Nertea]

The stock nodes are all defined, I'm not sure what you mean. I hadn't tested with the new version of TechManager, which I had not noticed, which seems to be the problem... it was working totally fine before I updated it.

I'll take the download down, because something's not right, even if I remove those two problems you mention.

-edit: Restored, found the problem. Seems to work ok with TechManager 1.2 now.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Nertea

[DaveS]

Looking good Nertea...

Question,

With my mod loadout, the recycling and hydroponics nodes are empty. what mods do you anticipate loading parts into these nodes? (MKS/OKS?)

And the other question, the Karbonite mod has fusion drives in the basic Nuclear propulsion node. Are we expecting the various mod developers to create configurations that would move these parts to later nodes in the tree, as fusion drives one might expect to find later in the tree than the base Nuclear propulsion node. I'm assuming that you aren't planning on filling in the parts in the tech tree itself.

Edited November 5, 2014 by DaveS

[Nertea]

Those nodes are intended for MKS/OKS and life support mods.

[DaveS]

This is very nice Nertea. I like it. Thanks for the work you've put into this.

for those of you that haven't done the math, the entire tree (assuming you have parts that need all the nodes to be researched) costs you a mere 92358 science as it sits now. That will make us go visit a pile of biomes and use a good collection of the newer science parts from the mods. I can't wait for this to be completely good to go with the support from the various mod developers fitting their parts into appropriate places in the tree.

[Nertea]

Glad you like it. I'll probably wordsmith some of the descriptions some more before release too. I plan to support NFT, SSPX and the Mk4 parts as soon as it's official released.

I was wondering what it would cost . I had to click the "add science" button a lot of times, I'll say that.

[RoverDude]

FYI - I will be moving all of the USI mods to this tree, including Karbonite, etc.

[Nori]

~snip

costs you a mere 92358 science as it sits now.

That sounds amazing!

FYI - I will be moving all of the USI mods to this tree, including Karbonite, etc.

Awesome!