Logical Tech Tree

[Pingonaut]

I've been playing KSP for a long time and have kept to the sandbox mode for the most part. I'm really liking the look of the new things that have been added to the career game and want to play it, but the only thing keeping that is (and was before) me away is the tech tree progression. Sure, I could just research the whole tech tree up to the points I want to start with, but then I'd have no incentive to gather science or a goal to work toward.

My preferred method would be to start with rover parts, driving around to science local collection locations, then to aircraft, and then to rockets. Perhaps another way to go about it would be to separate rover, aircraft, and rocket parts into different sections, each connecting to the "Start" node. This would allow the player to choose which they want to do first (rovers, aircraft, or rocketry).

My intent with how I want to play is to start off with rovers to allow for driving around the areas local to KSC in order to gather science on foot, then moving from there to aircraft and rockets. After the basic aircraft I'd like to go to very basic unmanned rockets, and then manned rockets. From there I'm perfectly happy with stock progression, it's really just the beginning that bothers me. I'd even be alright with going straight to manned rockets from basic rovers, if need be.

I don't know what is needed to make my own tech tree, and I suppose I can if it isn't too hard. Would a custom tech tree work with mods, parts finding their place on their own (mostly)? Are there any existing tech trees that fit this description (not BTSM) that are/will be updated?

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Pingonaut

[CaptainKipard]

You may already know this but making a tree mod isn't straightforward if you want to use part mods in your game. Everything has to be added manually, sometimes part by part. Most trees that were made so far had to make patches for the most used mods, and that's really tedious work. BTSM avoids this problem by making very few mods compatible.

This is why I joined the crusade to rework the stock tree into something intuitive and more easily modable.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Pingonaut]

You may already know this but making a tree mod isn't straightforward if you want to use part mods in your game. Everything has to be added manually, sometimes part by part. Most trees that were made so far had to make patches for the most used mods, and that's really tedious work. BTSM avoids this problem by making very few mods compatible.

This is why I joined the crusade to rework the stock tree into something intuitive and more easily modable.

That's really unfortunate. I suppose I'll simply have to deal with the tech tree as it is if I want to play career, then?

[Streetwind]

Parts are assigned to tech nodes by an entry in their part.cfg file. So your easiest bet for getting a different tech progression is to write yourself a MM config that moves the parts around as you want them:

@PART[insertPartName]:FINAL { @techRequired = insertTechNodeName }

Yes, you need to do that for every single part you need moved, including modded ones. No, you cannot get away with investing less effort than this. The downside to this method is that the tech tree remains as it is - the nodes are still named the same, show the same icons, sit in the same position, have the same prerequisites and unlock the same followups. This might lead to you having rover parts in your "basic rocketry" node, for example.

The more advanced variant of this is moving, renaming and/or re-networking the nodes themselves. I recommend TechManager for the job, as it gives you the ability to create additional new nodes should you require them. And well, technically TechManager throws the stock tree out completely and requires you to write a new tree from scratch, but it does ship a stock tree config that you can copy and modify to your needs if that is easier for you.

Now, moving nodes alone sometimes won't be enough, since some of them will include parts you want and parts you don't want. So you either need to move parts again with MM configs, or you include the part placement directly in the node definitions in your tech tree config. Direct part assignment overwrites the default assignment through the part's own config file, meaning you don't have to worry about changing that field. You still need to micromanage almost every part, though, there's no way around that - and due to the nature of the task, that won't ever change, either.

Parts will find their place in your custom tree by themselves only if you name some of your nodes the same as stock nodes, as this will cause the default placement in their part configs to trigger. If you do this intelligently, you might be able to get away with having some parts assign themselves. But this will be dependant on each mod author's decision as to where they think their parts should go, which may not always line up with yours.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Streetwind

[Pingonaut]

Parts are assigned to tech nodes by an entry in their part.cfg file. So your easiest bet for getting a different tech progression is to write yourself a MM config that moves the parts around as you want them:

@PART[insertPartName]:FINAL { @techRequired = insertTechNodeName }

Yes, you need to do that for every single part you need moved, including modded ones. No, you cannot get away with investing less effort than this. The downside to this method is that the tech tree remains as it is - the nodes are still named the same, show the same icons, sit in the same position, have the same prerequisites and unlock the same followups. This might lead to you having rover parts in your "basic rocketry" node, for example.

The more advanced variant of this is moving, renaming and/or re-networking the nodes themselves. I recommend TechManager for the job, as it gives you the ability to create additional new nodes should you require them. And well, technically TechManager throws the stock tree out completely and requires you to write a new tree from scratch, but it does ship a stock tree config that you can copy and modify to your needs if that is easier for you.

Now, moving nodes alone sometimes won't be enough, since some of them will include parts you want and parts you don't want. So you either need to move parts again with MM configs, or you include the part placement directly in the node definitions in your tech tree config. Direct part assignment overwrites the default assignment through the part's own config file, meaning you don't have to worry about changing that field. You still need to micromanage almost every part, though, there's no way around that - and due to the nature of the task, that won't ever change, either.

Parts will find their place in your custom tree by themselves only if you name some of your nodes the same as stock nodes, as this will cause the default placement in their part configs to trigger. If you do this intelligently, you might be able to get away with having some parts assign themselves. But this will be dependant on each mod author's decision as to where they think their parts should go, which may not always line up with yours.

Well I guess it's the stock tree for me, then. I'm not to keen on making my own tech tree and balancing it just so I can play with rovers before rockets in an otherwise normal tech tree. Thanks for the info. Perhaps in the future we'll get an in-game tree editor, or a program to do it while seeing the nodes visually.