FreeThinker Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 (edited) I have a two comments on the other additions to the tree:Exotic Fuel Storage doesn't link to anything It doesn't need to, it will automaticly be a requirement if you intend to use anything stored in the Exotic storage, like antimatter, or exotic matter. Note antimatter is not only used by AntiMatter Reactor, but also by Antimatter Initiated Microfusion (AIM) Reactors, which is on a seperate branch- - - Updated - - -Artificial Intelligence coming off from Robotics seems weird to me, as robotics as a research field includes AI. Maybe the name Mechatronics would be more appropriate? It depends what peoples assumption of Robotics is, as most people do just think of the hardware side of it. It should therefore be an optional link, allowing you to get it either though robotics or Probes Edited April 29, 2015 by FreeThinker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoverDude Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 @Nertea - it will likely be the weekend before I can do a scan, tho I expect by that time most of this will be reasonably hashed out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holyvision Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 To whom it may concern:New Module Manager 2.6.2 released to support modded tech trees in 1.0.Link: https://ksp.sarbian.com/jenkins/job/ModuleManager/88/artifact/ModuleManager.2.6.2.dll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympic1 Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 To whom it may concern:New Module Manager 2.6.2 released to support modded tech trees in 1.0.Link: https://ksp.sarbian.com/jenkins/job/ModuleManager/88/artifact/ModuleManager.2.6.2.dlljust wanted to say that I'll gladly help with CTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABZB Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Is there a page anywhere, a github or even a google doc, where the proposed changes being discussed are being stuck? it would be nice if we could make/have a beta version while the final one is hammered out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympic1 Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 Is there a page anywhere, a github or even a google doc, where the proposed changes being discussed are being stuck? it would be nice if we could make/have a beta version while the final one is hammered out.There is a diagram on Gliffy: https://www.gliffy.com/go/publish/7941469It will take some time to load the page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABZB Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaPatman Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 You should probably know that Experimental Rocketry isn't a stock node any more, which I guess means it could be called something else that better fits the naming scheme of the rocketry nodes now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympic1 Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 (edited) Just a minor thing but can you correct the tiers on Gliffy?- They go from T3 to T5- They go from T9 to T11- There are 3x T12Also, I'm working on v1 of the new Tech TreeEDIT: Experimental Rocketry isn't a stock tech anymore. Maybe integrate it into CTT. Edited April 30, 2015 by Olympic1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinker Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 You should probably know that Experimental Rocketry isn't a stock node any more, which I guess means it could be called something else that better fits the naming scheme of the rocketry nodes now.I prefer to use the existing name, it prevent confusion and some parts may relay on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympic1 Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 (edited) This is what I have atm for CTT: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7ve6kksjcp9k54d/CTT%20-%20WIP.txtThis is a WIP, please do not use this as a new Tech Tree !TODO:- Some descriptions- Add icons- Positioning the iconsThe only thing I need to know is what anyToUnlock = (True/False) does. Edited April 30, 2015 by Olympic1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinker Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 This is what I have atm for CTT: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7ve6kksjcp9k54d/CTT%20-%20WIP.txtThis is a WIP, please do not use this as a new Tech Tree !TODO:- Some descriptions- Add icons- Add the positionThe only thing I need to know is what anyToUnlock = (True/False) does.It's only useful when your sure you won't lock out part following it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABZB Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 The only thing I need to know is what anyToUnlock = (True/False) does.If the node has multiple other nodes that feed into it, if that is False, all of those nodes must be unlocked for that node to be unlockable. If it is true, any one of them is sufficient to make that node unlockable. For nodes with only one node that feeds into them, there is no practical difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympic1 Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 It's only useful when your sure you won't lock out part following it.If the node has multiple other nodes that feed into it, if that is False, all of those nodes must be unlocked for that node to be unlockable. If it is true, any one of them is sufficient to make that node unlockable. For nodes with only one node that feeds into them, there is no practical difference.Thx for the info, I'll edit them mow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsantarosa Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Is there any chance there will be a upgrade for 1.0 ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nertea Posted April 30, 2015 Author Share Posted April 30, 2015 Hey Olympic, thanks for the help there. I've already done most of the moving around of the stock tree icons so do you mind if I just grab the node definitions from your file? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billkerbinsky Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 I prefer to use the existing name, it prevent confusion and some parts may relay on it.On the other hand, for an open-ended tech tree, having an "Experimental" node that will, when you get to the endgame, be deep in the tree just feels wrong... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympic1 Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 (edited) Hey Olympic, thanks for the help there. I've already done most of the moving around of the stock tree icons so do you mind if I just grab the node definitions from your file?Not at all, I wanted to give you less work to make the config.EDIT: The only thing I didn't do yet is the positioning of the icons.EDIT 2: I also just took the default cost from the tree, so you're free to edit the cost too Edited April 30, 2015 by Olympic1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nertea Posted April 30, 2015 Author Share Posted April 30, 2015 Whew this took FOREVER.https://github.com/ChrisAdderley/CommunityTechTree/tree/master/GameData/CommunityTechTree/TreeTest release with layout and positioning. Comment, note bugs, etc. No proper icons yet, that's the next step. In fact, if anyone want to go through the tree, assign fitting icons to each tech, I'd love that (just submit a PR). Would save me lots of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympic1 Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Yay, CTT is back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZodiusInfuser Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Whew this took FOREVER.https://github.com/ChrisAdderley/CommunityTechTree/tree/master/GameData/CommunityTechTree/TreeTest release with layout and positioning. Comment, note bugs, etc. No proper icons yet, that's the next step. In fact, if anyone want to go through the tree, assign fitting icons to each tech, I'd love that (just submit a PR). Would save me lots of time.Woot! Giving it a try now.I presume the stock tree modification is the reason that empty nodes are still visible? Also, Experimental Actuators should be changed to require all, rather than require any. Maybe Orbital Megastructures too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nertea Posted April 30, 2015 Author Share Posted April 30, 2015 Empty nodes have to kinda be visible to allow the parts in later nodes to be researched, if a mod doesn't provide parts for the in-between nodes. I'll consider that change though . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZodiusInfuser Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 (edited) Empty nodes have to kinda be visible to allow the parts in later nodes to be researched, if a mod doesn't provide parts for the in-between nodes. I'll consider that change though .I was meaning more that I've added the tree now, and the entire propulsion section is visible even though I have nothing in those nodes, so both the in-between and end nodes are empty.Edit: For some reason Specialised Science Tech has no arrow going to it.Edit2: Nuclear Reactors is labeled as Nuclear Propulsion Edited April 30, 2015 by ZodiusInfuser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nertea Posted April 30, 2015 Author Share Posted April 30, 2015 Yeah, that's what I mean. Before with TechManager, we had the ability to set a "Hide if pointless" flag that would hide nodes if there were no parts in any of the children. However we don't have that anymore, and setting HideIfEmpty on the new nodes could mean that someone might put a part in the Warp Drive node (which would show) and have it be unresearchable, as the path to the node would be hidden.It's really not ideal, but it's kinda the best we have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZodiusInfuser Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Yeah, that's what I mean. Before with TechManager, we had the ability to set a "Hide if pointless" flag that would hide nodes if there were no parts in any of the children. However we don't have that anymore, and setting HideIfEmpty on the new nodes could mean that someone might put a part in the Warp Drive node (which would show) and have it be unresearchable, as the path to the node would be hidden.It's really not ideal, but it's kinda the best we have.Ok, I guess people can edit the tree to remove nodes they know are unnecessary for their install. Or perhaps some MM system where each mod says which parts of the tech tree should be enabled? I don't know if MM configs of MM configs is a thing though.Everything in the tree looks ok, but there's a few naming inconsistencies between it and the gliffy (which I assume are intentional, but thought I'd raise just in case):Advanced Nuclear Propulsion is labelled Improved Nuclear Propulsion. Not sure if intentional.Fusion Propulsion is labelled Fusion RocketsHigh Efficiency Nuclear Power is labelled High Energy Nuclear PowerMechatronics could probably be put back to Robotics to fit in better with its existing description Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.