[1.12.x] Community Tech Tree (July 3)

[johnsonwax]

Unfortunately CTT can't ensure that and still have dependencies. Most nodes have a single dependency, and therefore 'any' and 'all' are equivalent.

In order for this to work as intended, MM would need to be expanded to attach some kind of part info to each tech node and provide the ability to query other nodes in a selector. Then you could hide/show based on whether there are parts up the tree or not.

That said, implementing #3 is a one-line MM patch that users can implement as they wish. Doing any of the others is hardly so easy.

[ZodiusInfuser]

I realise CTT can't ensure that, but modders are generally intelligent people who care enough about their mods to spot such missing nodes and update their configs accordingly.

If the concern is these trailing arrows, then Nertea could enforce a rule on modders that if their mod unlocks a node which can be reached by multiple paths it should unlock all the nodes on those paths completely even if they do not have anything to fill them. For example with Infernal Robotics, If I was to unlock Orbital Assembly from the actuator path for some really big parts in the future, I'd also need to unlock exotic alloys and nanolathing to complete the branches. This is something I'd be fine with (from a players point of view) if it meant the tech tree looked clean.

Edited May 5, 2015 by ZodiusInfuser

[johnsonwax]

Modders are certainly intelligent enough, but we're a week into 1.0 and the mod landscape is still pretty ragged because modders take breaks from the game, etc. Some players can't repair things, others can but then they have some manner of a fork, etc. I'm sure that 2.0 won't be the last word in the tech tree, so when 2.1 lands, how much breakage will occur? That's why I suggest pursuing something a bit more bulletproof.

[RoverDude]

And my $0.02 - the reason I prefer option #3 is because it pretty much is how the stock system works. It was extremely frustrating to hit the odd dead node in the old CTT.

[rockowwc]

I have to go with 3 as well... It helps me find more mods...

[futrtrubl]

#3 here. Nothing to add that hasn't been mentioned already.

[Nertea]

Sorry Zodius - looks like you are literally the sole source of dissent . I think 3 pretty much agreed on.

And honestly in terms of support PMs - I got TONS in the old system (ermagerd node has no parts in it), but it might be worse here.

Is there the prospect of it being renamed and/or its description altered?

What would you rename it to? I'd rather not move it, but I can change the names easily enough.

[DaPatman]

Another vote for option 3 here.

1. Could you swap out the simple command modules for the enhanced survivability node from the previous CTT? It was a good place for all those airbags, floaties and improved chutes/heatshields. Maybe move it up to the 90 science tier? I guess there is very little (no?) demand for "simple" command modules, which do not fit into the flight control right next to it. And if there are parts fitting, I wonder whether they are researched for extra 45 science when you need flightControl anyway.

Simple Command Modules is for things that are between the Mk1-2 pod and the Mk1 pod. I can think of dozens. I have things to put in hydroponics eventually.

While I agree that there's a need for a Simple Command Modules node, I believe there is also room for an Enhanced Survivability node. One way to do it might be to move Simple Command Modules to Tier 4, filling the space it leaves with Enhanced Survivability, and having the latter be a (the?) prerequisite for the former, and possibly also for Landing.

[DMagic]

Yes, 3 makes sense. Always count on people to screw things up if the option is available.

[Yemo]

Another vote for option 3 here.

While I agree that there's a need for a Simple Command Modules node, I believe there is also room for an Enhanced Survivability node. One way to do it might be to move Simple Command Modules to Tier 4, filling the space it leaves with Enhanced Survivability, and having the latter be a (the?) prerequisite for the former, and possibly also for Landing.

For the SETI-CommunityTechTree (uses CTT but starts with probes), I just included the following:

    RDNode
    {
        id = enhancedSurvivability
        title = Enhanced Survivability
        description = Enhanced survivability provides launch escape systems, chutes, heat shields, floaties and airbags.
        cost = 45
        hideEmpty = False
        nodeName = ct_enhancedSurvivability
        anyToUnlock = False
        icon = RDicon_survivability
        pos = -1946, 870, -1
        scale = 0.6
        Parent
        {
            parentID = survivability
            lineFrom = RIGHT
            lineTo = LEFT
        }
    }

It adds the old enhancedSurvivability node below the simple command modules. If you want to include it into the normal CTT, that would be great.

I work with the simpleCommandModules as a 45 science node, please no more shifts.

[Yemo]

There is an insignificant error in the node definition for specializedScienceTech, the directions of the parent lines are swapped (left/right).

This is the corrected version:

    RDNode
    {
        id = specializedScienceTech
        title = Specialized Science Tech
        description = Science technology whose instruction manuals are thicker than the devices themselves.
        cost = 550
        hideEmpty = True
        nodeName = ct_specializedScienceTech
        anyToUnlock = False
        icon = RDicon_scienceTech
        pos = -1118, 810, -1
        scale = 0.6
        Parent
        {
            parentID = scienceTech
            lineFrom = RIGHT
            lineTo = LEFT
        }
    }

[alaxandir]

I've tried installing just this mod and module manager on a fresh stock game and I cant get it to work, any idea why this might be happening?

[futrtrubl]

I've tried installing just this mod and module manager on a fresh stock game and I cant get it to work, any idea why this might be happening?

What version of each?

[Kab00mBaby]

same problem here. not working on clean install. i used the newest versions of both MM and CTT

[futrtrubl]

same problem here. not working on clean install. i used the newest versions of both MM and CTT

Please never say "newest", specify what version. Quite often it isn't.

[Kab00mBaby]

Please never say "newest", specify what version. Quite often it isn't.

alright. MM is at 2.6.3 and CTT 2.0

all i get is the stock tech tree with some missing nodes and a couple of lines leading/coming nowhere

Edited May 6, 2015 by Kab00mBaby

[Sarxis]

Are all of the technologies supposed to be listed in the Community Tech Tree.cfg file? Been having a problem with the UKS Habitation Ring not showing up from the MKS/OKS mod, but noticed that advConstruction is not in the CTT cfg file. When I put the entry in there, the item showed up in the tech tree.

[Olympic1]

Are all of the technologies supposed to be listed in the Community Tech Tree.cfg file? Been having a problem with the UKS Habitation Ring not showing up from the MKS/OKS mod, but noticed that advConstruction is not in the CTT cfg file. When I put the entry in there, the item showed up in the tech tree.

AdvConstruction is a stock node but if you installed MKS v0.30.1 and CTT 2.0 the Habring should be in shortTermHabitation

[Nertea]

FYI all, I'll move to CTT v2.1 with all nodes unhidden by default later tonight.

[Sarxis]

AdvConstruction is a stock node but if you installed MKS v0.30.1 and CTT 2.0 the Habring should be in shortTermHabitation

That was it. I thought I was careful to look through all of those nodes, but I still missed it. The GUI for R&D makes the part icons so small

[RoverDude]

FYI - just a forewarning that SETI looks to be doing a blanket override. The anyToUnlock being globally changed has a pretty negative impact on a few of my mods, and will be forcing people to research some large swaths of empty nodes.

I ve set an MM overwrite as well, so that every node has "hideEmpty = False" and "anyToUnlock = False" regardless of what is decided for the original CTT.

[kcs123]

Some stupid question poped up. Is is it possible to make science cost for empty nodes to zero ?

I'm not so familiar with MM, but it could do checks if some node contain parts or not. If node does not have any, force science need to unlock node to zero.

It will be still silly to some degree for players to click on every single empty nod to unlock it, but at least it will be more fair to some degree.

[RoverDude]

@kcs123 - this is why a lot of the nodes allow alternate paths. For example, the path to the USI Alcubierre drive takes a very different path than the KSPI one (Tho both land on the far right of the tree).

[futrtrubl]

Some stupid question poped up. Is is it possible to make science cost for empty nodes to zero ?

I'm not so familiar with MM, but it could do checks if some node contain parts or not. If node does not have any, force science need to unlock node to zero.

It will be still silly to some degree for players to click on every single empty nod to unlock it, but at least it will be more fair to some degree.

That causes problems if people then install mods with parts in those previously empty nodes. They will have gotten them for free.

[Sandworm]

That causes problems if people then install mods with parts in those previously empty nodes. They will have gotten them for free.

That is a temporary issue. If they really dislike this then they can edit their save files to relock the node, or cut down on science points to compensate. Mods such as this should not adjust permanent features to avoid very temporary annoyances.