[0.90] ADIOS Tech Tree - V.15 - 12-03-2015

[Thorbane]

Anyone else having issue with even a basic decoupler being to far down the tech line? Seems a bit impossible to put a satellite in orbit, let alone anything else, without building some monstrosity of a rocket, due to a lack of staging. Three games now trying this tech tree, and I find myself stuck as I cannot complete any contracts as the tech tree progresses slower than the contracts are calling for.

Yeah the stack decoupler is a far into the tech tree

[DarthWall]

Yeah.... I really liked this mod, but because decoupler is so far as the control surfaces, I had to stop playing with this... =/

What is the purpose to have wings and jet engines, but dont any kind of surface controls? =P

..........and sorry for my bad english.

[TrypChangeling]

You get the radial decoupler as early as basic support construction, which is only three nodes to the right of start. You have to make some really interesting decisions with having radial only, but it's definitely not impossible.

As for control surfaces, I admit I don't do a whole lot of planes in KSP, but I was able to get creative with reaction wheels in order to steer my jet just enough to get some of the early crew report contracts done.

So far, I'm having a blast with ADIOS; it's the kind of progression mod I've been looking for.

If I have one reservation about recommending it outright, it'd be that the Station Science and Orbital Science parts unlock in an order that's confusing to someone not familiar with the mods - I had to look up why the Rocket Fuels experiment wouldn't work, for instance, and that I didn't have an MSL-1000 that Material sciences require. It's unintuitive to get parts that are useless on the path to get the parts needed to use them, but it's not a game-breaker by any means, IMO.

Again, absolutely loving the mod - I even went so far as partitioning my HDD to use Ubuntu to get more mods at once to get the full experience.

[Sandworm]

You get the radial decoupler as early as basic support construction, which is only three nodes to the right of start. You have to make some really interesting decisions with having radial only, but it's definitely not impossible.

This is a serious issue that radically changes gameplay. I'm all for difficulty but only when there is some modicum of rationality. Maybe a lack of decouplers works on the pint-sized kerbin of stock, but getting into orbit without stack decouplers of any sort is all but impossible on 6.4x, 10x, or rss installs. I was half way through building a rocket using radials only when I realized exactly how silly things were becoming. I'm now digging through the cfgs to move the stock 1.25 decoupler into the "Basic Construction" node. Will post a MM file here when I work it out.

Perhaps it should be noted in the OP that this tech tree requires "interesting decisions" and is "definitely not impossible" as is.

Here is a replacement for the ADIOS manned tech tree with the TR-18A decoupler moved to the "Jebs Scavenge Run" node. I was going to go with a MM file, but editing the adios cfg was just easier.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ybgi9cor7doizos/ADIOS-manned.cfg

PARTS

{

name = fuelTankSmall

name = rcsTankMini

name = solidBooster

name = HA.RockTank

name = PotatoRoid

name = ExSurveyStake

name = USI.PodEngine

name = KW1mtankPancake

name = NP.Capsule.Unmanned

name = stackDecoupler /// ***** edited by sandworm ******

}

Edited February 16, 2015 by Sandworm

[McyD]

This tech tree really caught my eye, but after playing with it a while, I think the author needs to take a step back and re-evaluate it. Reading the description you would think that this tree was setup to be progressive, maybe it is supposed to be; however, as implemented right now it is not.

While everything should not unlock at once and progression should take a while, this tree is sorely out of balance currently. As mentioned in previous posts, stack decoupler and control surfaces, the most prominently noticed so far, are too far down the lines for example. Also parts are put before parts they require to function:confused:, and parts that are meant first tier tech in some mods is pushed to higher tiers than they should be, upsetting the progression in those mods.

Additionally, completely opposite to what the tree is described as what its meant to replace/be an alternate to, many varieties of the same parts unlocking at once is not progression. When I got to air intakes... previously having 1-2 air intakes and unlocking 7 or more air intakes in one unlock... that is not progression, if anything it is the exact opposite. No one in the real world would develop 7 air intakes and nothing else at once... maybe 2 if they differed in features and are not over powered for the tech level compared to each other.

I really like the goal of the tech tree, however, its implementation falls far short of that goal right now. Hopefully, this will be remedied as the mod ages; otherwise I see it to be very short lived.

This is meant as constructive criticism, and I hope it is taken that way. There is the potential for one of the best tech trees available, it just needs quite a bit of work to get there.

[Errol]

I think it is worth mentioning that the author has previously stated that there will be a balance pass in the very near future, but that at the moment his focus is on mod support. I think a little patience with someone who is providing their service to a community free of charge is the least we could afford him.

@donpuccino

There is going to be some rebalancing done quite soon (V.13 or V.14 we'll see). Right now i'm concentrating on additional mod support and contract expansion. There is still a lot of work to be done with this mod

Edited February 17, 2015 by Errol

[McyD]

I understand that; however, even the way the tree is currently setup, is nowhere near what could be considered progressive. You would think that as a tech tree that is supposed to be progressive, at least some effort would have been taken to set the tech up that way from the start...

Also still trying to figure out how incompatible mods, at least according to Ckan, are listed as required and recommended...

Edited February 18, 2015 by McyD

[Arachnidek]

@Thorbane,Darthwall

It is possible but hard. I know i tried Anyway noted - in the next version a small decoupler and some control surfaces are going to be avaiable a bit sooner.

@Trypchangeling

I've been playing ksp for a long time now but I don't have a lot of experience with all of the mods (like Station Science) and that's why i need information about issues with the mod etc. - exactly like the info you've provided.

Anyway that's left for the balancing versions (soon).

@McyD

Oh boy a lot of text and from criticism to an open attack. Anyway:

Like i said before this is a early version of this mod and it will be changed along the way. Nobody is forcing anyone to play with this mod in it's current state and if you don't like it just don't play it. Easy. If you don't like the any mods included delete them. Even easier.

This tech tree really caught my eye, but after playing with it a while, I think the author needs to take a step back and re-evaluate it. Reading the description you would think that this tree was setup to be progressive, maybe it is supposed to be; however, as implemented right now it is not.

I never said it was supposed to be progressive. It's supposed to be a vision of a tech tree that would perfectly suit my gameplay preferences. You either agree with that vision or not. There isn't a mod out there that would suit every single player.

You would think that as a tech tree that is supposed to be progressive, at least some effort would have been taken to set the tech up that way from the start...

Attack no info. You know you can play with the stock tree or download another tech tree or mod this tree to suit your needs or even make your own tech tree from scratch that is going to be perfect for you? Techmanager is very easy go for it.

Also still trying to figure out how incompatible mods, at least according to Ckan, are listed as required and recommended...

Which ones ? Again no info just "it's bad ... ".

There is a subtle difference between criticism and just spitting venom. With criticism one usually should provide info what is wrong and where and preferably how can the problem be resolved (just like Sandworm did). Spitting venom is basicly calling something "wrong, bad, schiesse" and that's it.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Arachnidek

[khearn]

I like how Chutes and Ladders are together.

[Parmenides]

please keep up good work , I only play yours ! I use all mods from your list and did not find any incompatibilities

[McyD]

I never said it was supposed to be progressive. It's supposed to be a vision of a tech tree that would perfectly suit my game-play preferences. You either agree with that vision or not. There isn't a mod out there that would suit every single player.

Hmm, it was never meant to be an attack, sorry if it was taken that way. I provided all the information I had readily available at the time of my posts.

As for your claim now that it is not meant to be a progressive tree? You may want to re-read your OP then... As you specifically state in it:

At the beginning of 2014 we had a quite nice tech tree mod for 0.23 and 0.23.5 called Realistic Progression Lite. I really loved it but it wasn't being updated since 0.24 and i really wanted to fill that gap that was left behind.

So you want to "fill the gap" left by a progressive tech tree, with a non-progressive tech tree? How exactly does that work? Is that like filling a gap in the ground with air? Because neither do the same thing or are setup the same way...

Maybe that was just poor wording on your part, but you OP clearly eludes to the fact that this is meant to be a progressive tech tree. I did not think I needed any facts to back this up, as the OP itself leads one to believe it is an progressive tech tree.

If you did not intend for the mod to be progressive tech tree then you should change the OP to reflect that it is set up as a categorical tech tree (which is how it is currently implemented) if that is your goal.

Which ones ? Again no info just "it's bad ... ".

As I did not have Ckan open at the time and thought perhaps; it was a known issue, a bug in ckan, or you might ask for more information (as it is a work in progress mod), instead of leaving a wall of text right off the bat...

Again, I never stated "it's bad", and already stated in my previous posts that I understand the mod is a work in progress, maybe just that is was not as far along or as balanced as you thought it was... anyway here you go:

- Near Future Electrical - 0.3.1 -shown as incompatible, listed as a .25 mod by both the author and ckan.

- KASA IXS - 1.0 - shown as incompatible, no idea why.

On a side note: where/what are these mods?

- KAS - 0.4.10 -What is this? (I only find KAS Portable Science Container which is version 1.2.2 or Kas supplies which is 1.0)

- FantomWorks KAX Part Pack - 0.1 -What is this? not found on the forums or ckan.

- Romfarer Robotic Arms - v35 -What is this? Not found on the fourms or Ckan. Romfarer only shows as having made the lazor mod? Is this an addon by someone else?

Suggestion here, links should be provided to the mods listed and the full name of the mod used, not acronyms. Keep in mind not everyone has been playing Kerbal non-stop for the last year or two, and reading the addon releases everyday.

There is a subtle difference between criticism and just spitting venom. With criticism one usually should provide info what is wrong and where and preferably how can the problem be resolved (just like Sandworm did). Spitting venom is basicly calling something "wrong, bad, schiesse" and that's it.

Well, I tried to be helpful, acknowledged I knew it was a work in progress mod and gave supporting information over multiple posts... and there is such a thing as taking constructive criticism as it is meant and... well...not.

However, stating that mod is not a progressive tech tree (as stated in the OP) and not balanced as such; is in no way an attack, it is a simple fact in and of itself. As you just stated yourself... This leads back to the poorly worded OP... Maybe part of re-evaluating your mod, would be to ensure you are defining it correctly in the first place, so as to let the people who are downloading it know what they are getting...

Perhaps a simple, "This is not a progressive tech tree, why do you think it is?" response, instead of OMG why are you attacking me, that is not what this is, where are your facts, etc... see how that works? Constructive criticism is a two way street, and such a response would have saved 2 walls of text...

Now, from a categorical tech tree, you seem pretty much right on the money, with a bit of tweaking and balancing. However, again that is not what the OP describes this tree as...

Nobody is forcing anyone to play with this mod in it's current state and if you don't like it just don't play it. Easy. If you don't like the any mods included delete them. Even easier.

As you stated, I can remove the mod; which I did yesterday, as I am looking for a progressive tech tree (again, which this is described as in the OP). I was hoping to re-install it at a later date, once it was more balanced, but if it is not meant to be a progressive tree then I won't.

As to removing mods, I do not know where this came from or why you are suggesting it, since I use most of the mods your tree supports and one of the initial reasons I tired it. I never stated anything about not liking mods in it, only that it lists incompatible mods (according to ckan), which would not be installed... Maybe you should check and list your facts on this, lol.

So in the end, I guess ask a simple question, especially when someone is trying to be helpful, instead of... how did you word it... "just spitting venom"...

[Arachnidek]

@McyD

Maybe that was just poor wording on your part, but you OP clearly eludes to the fact that this is meant to be a progressive tech tree. I did not think I needed any facts to back this up, as the OP itself leads one to believe it is an progressive tech tree.

Actually no. Let's go ahead and look at the Realistic Progression Lite mod.

It's is a picture with the tech tree and some information on it. Even from this image you can clearly see that RPL actually wasn't a so called "progression" tree, it was mainly category and mod oriented. It might have been a bit more "progressive" (like fuel tanks were combined with engines) but that's it. Why is it called a progression tree? Don't know ask the author. I really liked and enjoyed that mod and the fact i wan't to fill the gap left by it hasn't changed. So the description is accurate - it's meant to fill the gap left BY THAT MOD not filling a gap left by a progression tech tree. TBH in some areas my mod is more "progressive" than RPL was in others it's the other way around.

maybe just that is was not as far along or as balanced as you thought it was

No it's not currently balanced i know that. I've stated that in this thread (twice), in the download page and in the readme file. Not enough ?

- Near Future Electrical - 0.3.1 -shown as incompatible, listed as a .25 mod by both the author and ckan.

- KASA IXS - 1.0 - shown as incompatible, no idea why.

NFE - it works fine. The so called incompatibility is actually an exploit in the mod. I won't go into details but it's up to the players if they wan't to use it or not.

KASA IXS - works - there is a fix for it in the forum

On a side note: where/what are these mods?

- KAS - 0.4.10 -What is this? (I only find KAS Portable Science Container which is version 1.2.2 or Kas supplies which is 1.0)

- FantomWorks KAX Part Pack - 0.1 -What is this? not found on the forums or ckan.

- Romfarer Robotic Arms - v35 -What is this? Not found on the fourms or Ckan. Romfarer only shows as having made the lazor mod? Is this an addon by someone else?

5 seconds on google. There is more to ksp than ckan. It's a great tool but it's not meant to replace everything else modwise. There are quite a few mods ckan lists as incompatible/broken/whatever that work absolutely fine if you just read the mods forum thread and apply a fix posted there.

KAS - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92514-0-24-2-Kerbal-Attachment-System-%28KAS%29-0-4-8-Fixed-for-0-24-2-x86-x64-%29

FantomWorks KAX Part Pack - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/109567-FantomWorks-KAX-Part-Pack

Romfarer Robotic Arms - http://kerbal.curseforge.com/ksp-mods/220273-robotic-arms-pack

Suggestion here, links should be provided to the mods listed and the full name of the mod used, not acronyms.

I've stated in this thread before that i removed the links for now - they're going to be back - when i finish adding mod support. But fair enough. Noted.

but if it is not meant to be a progressive tree then I won't

Going by your idea of progression it's not. Never will be.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Arachnidek

[McyD]

Lol, okay I can see from your description of Realistic Progression Lite Versus what the Diagram actually shows, is that you do not seem to understand what a progressive tech tree is. While Realistic Progression Lite could be laid out a bit better, it is obviously designed as progressive tech tree where you progress through the techs and work your way to higher ones in a, for the most part, logical order. From comparing the two, you seem to have taken the worst aspects of it and built on those... turning what was a decent progressive tree, into a non-progressive one, as you describe it and seems intended (which is your prerogative). Yet you wonder why someone is confused when you compare to your tech tree to it, and then claim yours is supposed to be like it, then claim yours is not progressive...

Actually looking at yours, you still do have some progression, though broken to the known balance issues (understandably as WIP), you just have really not though about the order or relation in some of the techs it seems and that is IMHO. As an Example: in what setting would solar power come before energy storage and lead to robotics? Robotics should be in its own line, perhaps linked to energy storage to advance in it (smaller more advanced robots need better batteries). Solar could be linked in with battery but should realistically run along side it, as batteries would not be required to make or use them; but it is understandable how a leap in solar could result (not require) a leap in batteries.

Now compare those in Realistic Progression Lite (no robotics, but you can see where they could easily fit in). I see progression there... However, you have stated that is not what you are going for, and like I said that is IMHO and just given as an example.

While you may not see Realistic Progression Lite as a progressive tech tree... Which description do you think people are going to relate, the original mod authors or someone else's? As you have just stated: I based my tech tree on XXX mod, which the author describes YYY; however, I describe that authors mod as ZZZ which is what my mod is like... Which basically states I did not base my mod on the other authors... See where the confusion comes in?

As to the incompatibilities, I was just reporting that ckan shows them as incompatible, I am sure that is for a reason. If there is a workaround, then people can choose to use it like you say. However, that messes up ckan install if you ever want to update/remove those mods again. Given its ease of use for games containing large amounts of mods and its ease in updating or adding to them, I think I will trust it over work arounds. If the mods are good, they will continue to be developed, by the original author or another.

Either way good luck with your Tech tree, you have obviously put quite a bit of work into it.

[Oracle]

Arachnidek do you use all the mods listed on your list in your test game? If so about how much RAM is ate up by the system?

Also another question; do we HAVE to use all of the highly recommended mods? I see a few I am not huge on using so curious what are some of the side effects of opting out of using a few of them.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Oracle

[Errol]

Here's an idea, continuing to badger a mod maker isn't going to help him work on balance issues any faster, as he has to constantly try to reply here. If you have specific suggestions on ways to improve the mod, then you should suggest them, rather then simply claiming this mod is not progressive and not backing that statement up.

\\EDIT: I'm lost on this conversation because I don't care about it. Instead of now trying to argue with me, please either contribute to the conversation or stop filling the forums with fluff. Complaining that something provided free of charge is not good enough, or what you expected does not constitute contributing. Thank you.

My two cents on the progression of this mod, I very much like the idea of having the smallest decoupler in the first node, or near it. I'm not sure where the side decouplers are in the tree, but thought I remembered reading they are also fairly soon in the tree. I think that with the mini decouplers and side decouplers I could easily start getting that science. And doing a lot of the other space things I want to do, like an RT network.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Errol

[McyD]

... rather then simply claiming this mod is not progressive and not backing that statement up.

You mean besides the author of the mod stating that the mod it is not progressive? How is that on me to prove? You seem a bit lost on the conversation.

And I would not call it badgering, I would call it a conversation, one that clarified quite a few things about the mod at that. I am also pretty sure that if the author did not have time to answer, they wouldn't.

Here is a thought, forums are for more than just displaying signatures and posting OPS, something is supposed to go between those two.

Edited February 19, 2015 by McyD

[Arachnidek]

@Oracle

1. On my windows testing build i have all the highly recommended/recommended ones and a few from supported which i switch around depending on what i want to add. I also have a "all mod" build but i don't use it often because it takes forever to load.

2. You don't have to have any of them It's your choice. The only thing your risking is that you'll get some empty nodes (for example empty heatshields without deadly reentry).

@McyD

Which basically states I did not base my mod on the other author

That's your opinion. You have a different idea of RPL and ADIOS progression than me (you may think it's wrong i think it's right - whatever) . Every mod is going to have some differences from the one it's based. EOT on the "progression" matter for me.

As an Example: in what setting would solar power come before energy storage and lead to robotics? Robotics should be in its own line, perhaps linked to energy storage to advance in it (smaller more advanced robots need better batteries).

And this is good info exactly the one i've created this thread for. It gave me an idea on how to rework that part of the tech tree.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Arachnidek

[BlueTiger12]

Hey Arachnidek,

looks like a fantastic mod.

I can't wait to try it.

But i wanted to ask, if you would consider adding 2 mods, that i like very very much.

The first one would be Smart Parts http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/64227-0-90-Smart-Parts-V1-5-1-KSP-AVC-and-AGX-Compatibility-Jan-8

And the other one is Space Shuttle Engines http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55985-0-90-Space-Shuttle-Engines-%28Dec-27%29

Together with those and B9 you can make really beautiful Space Shuttles.

I hope i don't ask something you allready considered, but i couldn't find anything in your thread.

[Prismatech]

nice that you make a progressions tree based on mods the pic from the lite version looks very nice, hope that you good balance the needed science point that work as no grind version. The start ist most to grinde on the way like minmus landing on other prog. trees.

[Grunf911]

Hi Arachindek,

I see that you have added in v.11 MkIV.

Could you also add perhaps OPT Spaceplane parts, but stick them veeery high on the tree

http://www.curse.com/ksp-mods/kerbal/225018-opt-space-plane-parts-v1-5

Some of their engines are very powerful, almost OP, but if you bundle them with say Alcubierre drive, this would give a sense of Future Tech or something. However if you look at their fuel consumption, they are not that much OP, just extremely powerful and extremely thirsty.

Alternatively, make a node "Starship parts", and bundle them together with say B9 HX parts. You would expect if you can build interplanetary huge carriers and stuff, to have enough knowledge to build beautiful SSTOs that are capable of interplanetary travel

Edited February 19, 2015 by Grunf911

[boa3532]

Need 152 total science to unlock the first decoupler? That's a little harsh.

Edited February 19, 2015 by boa3532

[Errol]

Could you take a look at the following mods to see if they belong in this tree somewhere?

Cacteye 2 Orbital Telescope: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/105660-0-90-CactEye-2-Orbital-Telescope-BETA-4

Hangar: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/88933-0-90-0-Hangar-v2-2-1

[Oracle]

@Oracle

1. On my windows testing build i have all the highly recommended/recommended ones and a few from supported which i switch around depending on what i want to add. I also have a "all mod" build but i don't use it often because it takes forever to load.

On your test build with all the high recommend/recommend about how much RAM do you sit at on boot? Also what OS are you running this test build in, Windows or Linux?

Edited February 19, 2015 by Oracle

[Prismatech]

i use seti have 50 mods on like b9,nova,sxt,KOS,usw use no aktiv textur but use opengl wits dds Compresion the tool that all pic in dds convert.

[Oracle]

I keep seeing people mention OpenGL but when I did the path change to force it to boot into OpenGL on windows on my current mod pack for testing and it seems very fickle (Running EVGA video card so may be part of the problem). For example if I try to go into settings on the OpenGL booted game it just endlessly attempts to load eventually locking up. Am I overlooking something?