[1.12.x] Community Tech Tree (August 13)

[linuxgurugamer]

Hi,

I'm working on the IFI Life Support mod, and am getting close to a beta release.

One of the new additions is a new branch of the stock tech tree.

One issue I have is with the CTT.  I have a config for it, but the CTT LS branch doesn't really match up with what I've designed.  I've kind of shoe-horned it into the CTT, but am not really happy about it.

I was wondering what people would feel if I just ignored the CTT LS branch nodes and added my branch in as a new branch of the CTT.  This would only be in my mod, I'm not talking about adding it to the CTT itself, but I do want to support the CTT.

The way i would do it is to have the new branch occupy the same on-screen area as the current LS branch, obviously a requirement would be to be totally incompatible with any other LS mod.

Thanks in advance for your comments and suggestions 

[DStaal]

40 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Hi,

I'm working on the IFI Life Support mod, and am getting close to a beta release.

One of the new additions is a new branch of the stock tech tree.

One issue I have is with the CTT.  I have a config for it, but the CTT LS branch doesn't really match up with what I've designed.  I've kind of shoe-horned it into the CTT, but am not really happy about it.

I was wondering what people would feel if I just ignored the CTT LS branch nodes and added my branch in as a new branch of the CTT.  This would only be in my mod, I'm not talking about adding it to the CTT itself, but I do want to support the CTT.

The way i would do it is to have the new branch occupy the same on-screen area as the current LS branch, obviously a requirement would be to be totally incompatible with any other LS mod.

Thanks in advance for your comments and suggestions 

As a user of a lot of mods, but unlikely to use this one...  That just sounds like a support hassle for everyone.  Worst affected are probably people who build 'generic' LS parts which get put in those nodes, who now will have to do things like 'If CTT, but not IFI' in support patches.

Can you describe what you feel CTT doesn't do correctly?  Maybe you have a better solution, and CTT can adapt some/all of it for a more universal approach.

[linuxgurugamer]

1 minute ago, DStaal said:

As a user of a lot of mods, but unlikely to use this one...  That just sounds like a support hassle for everyone.  Worst affected are probably people who build 'generic' LS parts which get put in those nodes, who now will have to do things like 'If CTT, but not IFI' in support patches.

Can you describe what you feel CTT doesn't do correctly?  Maybe you have a better solution, and CTT can adapt some/all of it for a more universal approach.

I didn't say "not done correctly", or if I did, I didn't mean that.

The tech tree I have is here, it is the bottom main branch in the image below.  You can see how it ends up with three branches, and a couple of the nodes have requirements of other nodes in the current tree.

The CTT doesn't do any cross linking, which is the main issue I have.  The different nodes between the two trees are essentially two different ways of looking at the recycling and storage, mine are more intertwined than the CTT

 

[linuxgurugamer]

I had not thought about the mods which do generic life-support parts.

So I won’t do this for their sake, but I still like the idea of interlinking dependencies.

what about adding a few new nodes to the current CTT which would be in addition to the current, there is enough space there.

Edited November 27, 2017 by linuxgurugamer

[Nertea]

As with CRP, I want to enforce going forward that a node only goes into the CTT when at least 2 mods can propose using it. So there's that to consider.

[linuxgurugamer]

6 hours ago, Nertea said:

As with CRP, I want to enforce going forward that a node only goes into the CTT when at least 2 mods can propose using it. So there's that to consider.

A bit disappointed, but I understand.

Can you tell me which LS mods currently support this? Other than USI

Thanks

[agrock]

I would like to make a possible request on behalf of FTL mod (I am not its maintainer, just a fan). @linuxgurugamer

Would you add one or two categories parallel to rocketry for FTL drives? Currently those drives are in Specialized Control which only costs 160sc which seems too easy to obtain. I think a player should need to send some old fashioned rockets to outter planets before using FTLs. Also there are 3 drives which fit kind of in 2 size-classes. It would be nice to have 2 tech nodes so heavier FTL would be more difficult to obtain.

Edited November 29, 2017 by agrock

[Nertea]

 

3 hours ago, agrock said:

I would like to make a possible request on behalf of FTL mod (I am not its maintainer, just a fan). @linuxgurugamer

Would you add one or two categories parallel to rocketry for FTL drives? Currently those drives are in Specialized Control which only costs 160sc which seems too easy to obtain. I think a player should need to send some old fashioned rockets to outter planets before using FTLs. Also there are 3 drives which fit kind of in 2 size-classes. It would be nice to have 2 tech nodes so heavier FTL would be more difficult to obtain.

There's a ton of high tech nodes up there in the tech tree. Why not use one of those?

On 11/27/2017 at 2:38 PM, linuxgurugamer said:

Can you tell me which LS mods currently support this? Other than USI

I don't know, nobody tells me nothing these days. 

[fourfa]

USI-LS might have "support" for CTT, ie the techs get placed in nodes, but IMO they're all wrong and have to be fixed for any consistency with stock and other mods.  For instance 3.75m life support tanks unlock very early, before the player would reasonably have 2.5m rocket parts.  Likewise recyclers and other high tech parts come way too early.

TBH I have the same complaint about every USI pack I've played with - seems like the techs are placed by someone who only plays sandbox or something.

Edited November 29, 2017 by fourfa

[agrock]

3 hours ago, Nertea said:

There's a ton of high tech nodes up there in the tech tree. Why not use one of those?

I agree that rocketry would be an obvious first choice for FTL drives, but... separate category would seem hmm appropriate? I dont know how much work it is to actually extend the tree, or if you or anyone in position to make these changes, are even interested in expanding the tree. But if a maintainer would agree, I would be wiling to implement these myself. 

[maja]

9 minutes ago, fourfa said:

USI-LS might have "support" for CTT, ie the techs get placed in nodes, but IMO they're all wrong and have to be fixed for any consistency with stock and other mods.  For instance 3.75m life support tanks unlock very early, before the player would reasonably have 2.5m rocket parts.  Likewise recyclers and other high tech parts come way too early.

TBH I have the same complaint about every USI pack I've played with - seems like the techs are placed by someone who only plays sandbox or something.

RoverDude always accept PRs and is open to improvements. If you think, that your part placement in CTT will be better, bring it up in the appropriate USI thread and do a PR.

[agrock]

1 hour ago, fourfa said:

USI-LS might have "support" for CTT, ie the techs get placed in nodes, but IMO they're all wrong and have to be fixed for any consistency with stock and other mods.  For instance 3.75m life support tanks unlock very early, before the player would reasonably have 2.5m rocket parts.  Likewise recyclers and other high tech parts come way too early.

TBH I have the same complaint about every USI pack I've played with - seems like the techs are placed by someone who only plays sandbox or something.

I also noticed that some early Rocketry node unlocks LifeSupport containers. It seems that those would perhaps, just perhaps, belong to a different category. But then, its not game breaking. Also there are many science instruments that are spread among different categories that doesnt make sense... except it does. Putting all instruments into few nodes would make them unlockable at once. It does make sense to spread them over different nodes. It also does makes sense to separate basic LifeSupport containers from long-term voyage parts like hydroponics/air and water filters/algea farms. In career mode, one would only unlock basic rocketry nodes (with LS tanks needed for basic mun missions), and only after some missions unlock more sophisticated LS parts like hydroponics. 

Ergo: Those LS parts might be in the right place but for reasons that are not so obvious at first glance. 

 

Edited November 29, 2017 by agrock

[linuxgurugamer]

27 minutes ago, agrock said:

I agree that rocketry would be an obvious first choice for FTL drives, but... separate category would seem hmm appropriate? I dont know how much work it is to actually extend the tree, or if you or anyone in position to make these changes, are even interested in expanding the tree. But if a maintainer would agree, I would be wiling to implement these myself. 

To my knowledge there are three active FTL mods, FTL Drive Continued, ESDL Jump Beacons and Alcubierre Warp Drive.  The first two aren't actually FTL, but actually are jump mods, although they work in different ways.

I agree with @Nertea about the nodes needing to be used by multiple mods.  So, either use the current nodes, or get a discussion going with the authors/maintainers of the three mods and let's get a consensus

 

[DStaal]

On the other hand, nodes like 'Unified field theory', 'quantum reactions' and 'ultra-high energy physics' make sense as FTL nodes to me, and already exist...

[agrock]

1 hour ago, DStaal said:

On the other hand, nodes like 'Unified field theory', 'quantum reactions' and 'ultra-high energy physics' make sense as FTL nodes to me, and already exist...

Also those categories are empty, on my KSP anyway. I have no idea what mods use those. Could you tell me? Please.

1 hour ago, linuxgurugamer said:

To my knowledge there are three active FTL mods, FTL Drive Continued, ESDL Jump Beacons and Alcubierre Warp Drive.

I meant FTL continued. Original FTL and ESDL is outdated. Alcubierre is not FTL, not by name. 

[linuxgurugamer]

Ummm, ESLD is very much alive

And Alcubierre is very much an FTL drive, also known as Warp drive

I was wrong, there is a fourth:

 

 

Edited November 29, 2017 by linuxgurugamer

[linuxgurugamer]

@agrock

Look at this:

https://go.gliffy.com/go/publish/11139139

Seems to me that the parts would end up in one or more of the teal and/or gold categories

[agrock]

@linuxgurugamer @DStaal

I will recommend to FTL maintainer, moving those drives to both High Energy physics and Applied High Energy Physics. They cost I think 2000+ sc to unlock. Therefore a player in career mode would probably send a ship or two to outter planets the old fasioned way before using FTL technology. 

This would be more or less consistent with Alcubierre mod (using Ultra High Energy physics node) and ESLD using several nodes (https://go.gliffy.com/go/publish/11139139). 

Edited November 30, 2017 by agrock

[linuxgurugamer]

7 hours ago, agrock said:

@linuxgurugamer @DStaal

I will recommend to FTL maintainer, moving those drives to both High Energy physics and Applied High Energy Physics. They cost I think 2000+ sc to unlock. Therefore a player in career mode would probably send a ship or two to outter planets the old fasioned way before using FTL technology. 

This would be more or less consistent with Alcubierre mod (using Ultra High Energy physics node) and ESLD using several nodes (https://go.gliffy.com/go/publish/11139139). 

Please keep the discussion of this specific mod in the FTL Drive Continued thread, unless it requires the input of the general CTT thread.

Thanks

[Jeb, The Lonely Kerbonaut]

I'm producing my own patch to the RLA Stockalike (one of the continued versions). I created a .cfg file, put the entries to put a engine in a certain node, but nothing happens! Where i put the file? And other thing, the name of the engine file is "lf_small_ntr". I have to put "-" instead of the "_"?

[FreeThinker]

On 29-11-2017 at 10:24 PM, DStaal said:

On the other hand, nodes like 'Unified field theory', 'quantum reactions' and 'ultra-high energy physics' make sense as FTL nodes to me, and already exist...

Personally, I think  FTL engines don't belong into any of them and rather deserves it own specialized FTL technode with higher requirments. The problem is that I need a bonafide tech level between the antimatter age (where antimatter reactor are unlocked) and the warp age (where faster than light drives are unlocked)

@Nertea I hereby would like to request an 11 th technode with is specifically meant to unlock Faster Than Light Travel

[Nertea]

Only if more than one mod author argues for and uses it. 

[fourfa]

Does anyone find it strange that there's no dedicated science track in CTT?

Never mind, I hadn't had my coffee yet.

Edited December 24, 2017 by fourfa

[ASCIInerd73]

Is it known that the gliffy viewer is broken? I can't get it to display the tech tree for me.

[Nertea]

On 12/30/2017 at 7:23 AM, Oneiros said:

Hi, good to see that your mod is still around and going strong. Well done.

But what happened to the nice little icon we could use to show that our mod supports CTT?  

I never realised how much it prettied up my mod page until it was gone.   Now all I have is a broken image like the one on your page.

Anyway I hope you're doing good and had a nice holiday season.  

That seems like an overly convoluted way to let me know that the link is broken. It'll have to be changed, I let that domain expire. I'll let you know when I have an alternate.

On 12/30/2017 at 8:31 PM, ASCIInerd73 said:

Is it known that the gliffy viewer is broken? I can't get it to display the tech tree for me.

Works fine for me. You need to give it some time to load.