Tech tree placement issues

PaulMaynard commented 8 years ago

The Prometheus I parts are all in General Rocketry, except for the 1.5m Decoupler, which is in General construction. Is this intentional? It seems like all the essential parts for a particular rocket should be in the same node, though not necessarily the upgrades.

CobaltWolf commented 8 years ago

I believe the intent was to try and match stock, where the structural parts are separate in the construction line.

PaulMaynard commented 8 years ago

But none of the other early rockets do that, and it makes no sense.

jsolson commented 8 years ago

Sorry, I didn't catch this discussion before merging it. Do we want the change or not?

CobaltWolf commented 8 years ago

are the other stack decouplers like that?

PaulMaynard commented 8 years ago

The 625m decoupler is in the Start node
The Vanguard parts in the Start node
The Thor 9375 and 125m decouplers are in Engineering 101
The Redstone and Diamant parts are in Basic Rocketry
General Rocketry has Titan I, Juno, Thor, and Atlas
Adv. Rocketry has Jupiter Engines, Agena D, and Titan I solids

I'll see if I can make a picture

Now that you've explained it, I think it's okay if the decouplers are separate (though i think they should be in the same tech-level, and maybe move the adapters to join them), though if it was up to me, you'd unlock things by stage.

PaulMaynard commented 8 years ago

Related, the S-IV Instrument Unit is in Large Probes, at Tier 9, while the rest of the S-IV parts are in Adv. Fuel Systems, at Tier 6. I think it should be moved down to Unmanned Tech, where the S-IVB IU is (Tier 7) or Specialized Control (Tier 6)

CobaltWolf commented 8 years ago

I think we should better define how launchers should be split up, and arranged, moving forward. Some things that I have tried to keep in mind so far:

Launchers generally have followed something similar to stock, where they are arranged in order of size, rather than very strictly historical progression. Whereas other stuff is meant to be historical.
However, more advanced things in a certain size class are placed later. See, Titan variants, Delta 2, etc.
Atlas has to come early enough to be useful for Mercury. There will be too many complaints otherwise.
generalRocketry is overpopulated. I thought we had moved Titan 1 to advRocketry, but I also see it as comparable (and in some ways inferior) to Atlas.
The 'Thor' decouplers were more meant to be generic parts for those size classes. Same for the fairing bases. The adapters don't visually fit in with other launchers and I need to look into that.

I like the idea of unlocking things by stage, though I think splitting the parts along the stock branches works as well.

The Saturn IU is an oversight. I think we need to have a talk about Saturn. What should we do with it? IMO, Saturn 1, 1B, and V are the same tech level. However, I think letting the players make the crazier early Saturn variants first would be cool. Think A2, B1, where the upper stages were clusters like the first stage. I'd like to distinguish between the canon Saturn models, and the later proposals for expansion. I don't think I want Saturn V to be the end of the tech tree, especially if we have bigger stuff coming.

jsolson commented 8 years ago

We want to stay as stockalike as possible here rather than try to improve on the stock tech tree. There are other tech trees we can use.

The F1s need to be in Very Heavy Rocketry at the end of the line. They outclass the Squad engines in there. J2 and H1s 1 level below. Work backwards from there. I do not think it should be necessary to research all the way down the Unmanned Tech line just to get the instrument units. They are glorified SAS units, not advanced probe cores, so consider Advanced Flight Control. The engine mounts could be relocated to the same node as the engines, since if these were Squad parts they would be one big part. Interstage adapters as well would be just moduleJettison stuff so don't make them too hard to reach.

Everything we have is low tech, just big, so it shouldn't be needed to research through the whole bottom half of the tech tree to build an LV.

PaulMaynard commented 8 years ago

Tech tree up to tier 4: ( think I got everything) techtree

jsolson commented 8 years ago

This is great. I wonder if the SM's shouldn't unlock in the same node as the associated CM.

CobaltWolf commented 8 years ago

You mean move them to a propulsion node of the same tier? I actually think they're fine unlocking with the CM. The propulsion line seems more fitting for LVs. Maybe later on, when they split more, it makes sense to split them. O think various Apollo project stuff should be sprinkled thru out the later tech tree, think CSM variants, AAP stations and stuff... The problem is, since the tech tree is based on gameplay, and ends around Apollo level stuff, there isn't that much farther we can go. Anything we put there will be on the same level as high end colonization and interplanetary propulsion from other mods. Off the top of my head.

Its worth noting that we can add tech nodes without a plugin ever since 1.0. Don't forget that as an option.

jsolson commented 8 years ago

I mean the exact same node as the CM, since it part of the spacecraft. I'm the wrong person to ask, I can't stand the stock tech tree.

Wouldn't adding nodes be a recipe for conflict with another mod?

PaulMaynard commented 8 years ago

This should be the whole thing, barring a few minor bits like antennas & experiments. techtree

CobaltWolf commented 8 years ago

Shit. We're all over the place...

Also, id recommend you close/delete your branch and start a fresh one after each pull request. I gather Jso and Komodo had a bit of a hectic night trying to sort out conflicts.

-----Original Message----- From: "Paul" notifications@github.com Sent: ‎10/‎3/‎2016 11:19 AM To: "CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau" Bluedog-Design-Bureau@noreply.github.com Cc: "Matthew Mlodzienski" cynical.dreamz@gmail.com; "Comment" comment@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau] Tech tree placement issues(#189)

This should be the whole thing, barring a few minor bits like antennas & experiments.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

PaulMaynard commented 8 years ago

I've deleted and reforked mine, I'm sorry for any trouble I caused

PaulMaynard commented 8 years ago

Here's a rough idea of what I'd do with the Saturn parts if it was up to me: techtree

PaulMaynard commented 8 years ago

Possible Dependencies: (maybe I'll just make my own tech tree) chart

PaulMaynard commented 8 years ago

Here's the mod I'm looking for! http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/131112-wip-historical-progression-tree-jan-31-2016/

jsolson commented 8 years ago

The Scimitar could probably go with the Apollo stuff, or at the very least much much closer to Start. And the S-IVB IU is annoying deep in the Tech/Science branch. The LO Engine is annoying deep too in miniaturization, but I can see the logic (although following that logic Explorer should be there as well). FYI, there are two upgrades for the Atlas booster engines giving you early mid and late (Atlas II) versions, and 1 for the RL-10 making it the modern A4. Look in the engine configs for details.

I like your tree. In my tree that's what the engines branch would look like. Most of the tanks/structural stuff would be unlocked pretty early.

Don't forget about Community Tech Tree. That one may have more space for all our stuff. I've never used it but will be giving it a look on my next go around.

CobaltWolf commented 8 years ago

LO engine was there because it's a later probe in the Apollo program. Scimatar should go with Apollo now that the craft it belongs with is in game.

I think we should just take a quick pass on the Saturn / Apollo stuff to make sure it generally unlocks in the same tier, then worry about a bigger look at the tech tree in the next dev cycle.

CobaltWolf commented 8 years ago

There's a lot of strangeness that I'm noticing as I'm noodling around a basically stock+BDB career today at the lab:

[ ] the 0.9375m decoupler should go in Engineering 101. Maybe move the other one (with the adapter) back to the starting node?
[ ] Redstone needs to be moved to the start. I have no idea why I didn't have it there.
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]

CobaltWolf commented 8 years ago

With the addition of new parts, many with temporary tech tree placements, the mod needs a rebalance. Current issue is - should the tree be condensed, or should Sat-V be endgame?

Leaning to condensed, to give space for ETS, Comet, ect. without needing CTT.

@minepagan

Jimbodiah commented 8 years ago

Techtrees... can't live with them, can't delete them. The idea is good, but it's hard to implement correctly. The Saturn V being unlocked in too many nodes at the end of the techtree means it is not suited for career games, where you will be going to the outer planets where the Saturn will no longer be suited. I would not put it in too far up the techtree, and in 2-3 nodes total so you can actually use it for career play in the brief moment you actually want to go to the moon still (first 10 launches, after that you are headed to Duna or the outer planets.

The entire science system is unbalanced (I get 8K science from a single biome-hopping mission to minmus), making the techtree even harder to balance out.

CobaltWolf commented 8 years ago

I still want to include a BDB-Extras folder. One of the things would be something that multiplies all the science experiment base values (including for other mods - remember it would be an informed decision by the player to install it) by some amount, and then another one that maybe would multiply the science needed for node unlocks... the game is just too fast!

Jimbodiah commented 8 years ago

I've already pacthed labs to only do 1x instead of 5x, which still means you get double the science (once for the lab, second time to actually collect it). The CTT is sort of an improvement as you have more nodes and ones that go up to 10K science to unlock. I'm playing that in my new 1.2 career to see if that is more balanced in combination with 1x science lab returns.

CobaltWolf commented 8 years ago

Yeah. Cus ideally you'd have time to sort of design, iterate launchers and crew vehicles in each tech level, for the MOS stuff have time to actually put up a station and get some operations out of it...

CobaltWolf commented 8 years ago

Any feelings on this that @minepagan made? https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/hjEb1S0VDjgVfB6NqzyCOs69SEmRxJzfNRmGm7lBIEM5x7zo0UXX8A=w1200-h630-p

jsolson commented 8 years ago

I like that. I would consider putting Atlas V post Saturn V somewhere. Even in KSP terms the RD-180 is more advanced than the F1. Same with the USRM boosters for the Titan IVB.

Not sure if stretching the Thor->Delta evolution all the way to the Heavier Rocketry level (tier 5) is possible with the part selection but that would seem to make sense.

Agena D and Centaur D and Vega and maybe Transtage should probably be parallel, with Centaur D leading to the S-IVB, but I'm not sure there's room for that.

I'm not really considering ETS stuff which will end up crammed. Perhaps Atlas V/USRM and the S-1E can go together.

Edit: The are two upgrades for Atlas, and one upgrade for Centaur to remember.

CobaltWolf commented 8 years ago

also remember that there's going to be advanced Saturn MLV stuff coming down the line too... honestly if you run out of room, just shoving it all into the last node is probably fine. Leave an IOU note.

OR, perhaps a MM config that activates if no tech tree is installed, that adds another node or two...

Jimbodiah commented 8 years ago

SSTU does that with some of it's engines; just adds a node and redirects the previous one if people are using stock trees.

jsolson commented 7 years ago

Could we move the Atlas launch clamps down to General Rocketry with the rest of Atlas? It looks silly sitting on a redstone launch clamp.

minepagan commented 7 years ago

I thought I had moved it to the same tier? If not it needs to be. Also, there needs to be some sort of way to go from 3.75m-1.875m when you unlock the S-Ia stage (for Juno-V)

jsolson commented 7 years ago

Moved it. None of them were working, I guess we renamed them on you. https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/commit/07afa881c74a54d88fd4a56bdbc355b8bf565811

minepagan commented 7 years ago

Oh I uploaded a fixed one a week or 2 ago, but it hasn't been integrated...

minepagan commented 7 years ago

Nvm, I see what you mean with the name changes. I should be able to look at the rest in class today.

jsolson commented 7 years ago

Are you working on these? I don't want to create more edit conflicts if you are. In the Gemini file, the docking port is listed twice. The last two parts have camel case typos, should be "generalConstruction". I'm suspicious that case errors like that only cause the part to be hidden in career games, because I never noticed the missing docking port in sandbox.

minepagan commented 7 years ago

Yeah I was working on this, but I'm always happy for people to point out things I missed. I think I fixed that in the latest version, but I'll check in a bit? I might jahe missed them

On a other note, does anyone know how to deal with the upgrades for engines? Or even add more?

jsolson commented 7 years ago

On a other note, does anyone know how to deal with the upgrades for engines?

@PARTUPGRADE[bluedog_Atlas1] { @techRequired = advRocketry }

Or even add more?

Look around in the atlas booster and centaur rl-10 configs. ModuleEngines has UPGRADES, there's a PartStatsUpgradeModule, and PARTUPGRADE at the bottom (same file but separate from the part).

Do not add more.

minepagan commented 7 years ago

I wasn't going to add more, just curious for future reference. I'll try and crank out an updated techtree file with all these fixes, and the part upgrades moved, soon! (tm)

minepagan commented 7 years ago

Centaur.txt So, I seem to be encountering a problem with the interstage adapters, fairing base, and the engine upgrade. Are you sure that is the right syntax for the upgrade? Also, am I just stupid and missing something?

jsolson commented 7 years ago

//not working, need to fix -- syntax error below...
@PART[bluedog_centaur1875mAdapterFairing]
} <----- This is backwards. MM silently stops reading the file on syntax errors like this. Very hard to find.
    @TechRequired = generalRocketry
}
//not working, need to fix -- ok when above is fixed
@PART[bluedog_Centaur_FairingBase]
{
    @TechRequired = generalConstruction
}
//not working, need to learn/find proper code. Not really sure if it should be changed though....
@PARTUPGRADE[bluedog_RL101]
{
    @TechRequired = precisionPropulsion // It's lower case "t" techRequired in PARTUPGRADE. Going crazy yet?
}

It appears patching PARTUPGRADE like this doesn't work. With the errors fixed I can see in the ModuleManager.ConfigCache the changes are there, but it's not updated in the tech tree. I even tried changing the title, didn't show up.

minepagan commented 7 years ago

Ahhhhhh! Now I feel really stupid, especially considering I stared at it for a few hours and still missed it. I should be able to put out the rest of the files once I get back to my computer, as they were all working right.

FoxxoniusAugustus commented 7 years ago

Not sure if it should go here or should be a separate issue. In the current dev build the Gemini docking port doesn't show up anywhere in the tech tree. To be clear I am talking about the _Gemini_Port_A or the Leo-M-C32 Nose Docking Mechanism in game.

minepagan commented 7 years ago

Last time I checked it showed up with the Gemini SM parts, but I'll take a look before I push out the tree rebalance update later tonight.

minepagan commented 7 years ago

Alright guys, @jsolson just merged the pull request, tree pass 3 is live! Thank you @FoxxoniusAugustus for pointing out the gemini bug, I've fixed that in the latest version! Tell me what you guys think, and how it works in game!

jsolson commented 7 years ago

In my playthough Agena D comes up very fast. That probably should go to General Construction. I'm wondering if we introduce the Centaur in General Construction as well, we could do the cryo progression - Centaur, S-IV, S-IVB, S-II, J-2 and advanced J-2s in the General Construction, Advanced Construction, Specialized Construction, Composites path.

Delta K shows up before Delta II.

minepagan commented 7 years ago

My bad on the delta stuff, I really need to do some research/testing for that.... About Atlas.....are you playing with reduced science gains? Its supposed to come on rather quickly, because otherwise we'd have to move everything back - and that would leave no room for future Saturn-V derived MLVs. In fact, the first 3 teirs are quite compressed, but there really is no other way to do it, without modding the tech tree itself - which would cause so many compatibility issues I don't even want to think about it.

jsolson commented 7 years ago

Agena D, not Atlas. Yes it's compressed. I'm suggesting we go a little sideways.

CobaltWolf commented 7 years ago

Yeah, that was my thought. Try and make sure things like structural parts go in construction nodes rather than the associated rocketry nodes for their launchers, etc. The placement of Agena control block and antenna, the RCS booms etc in the Stability node was something I was fond of. I don't know about avionics - they're not valuable enough to make people try and go for them IMO.

-----Original Message----- From: "jsolson" notifications@github.com Sent: ‎11/‎28/‎2016 11:43 PM To: "CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau" Bluedog-Design-Bureau@noreply.github.com Cc: "Matthew Mlodzienski" cynical.dreamz@gmail.com; "Comment" comment@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau] Tech tree placement issues(#189)

Agena D, not Atlas. Yes it's compressed. I'm suggesting we go a little sideways. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

jsolson commented 7 years ago

This is what I mean by "sideways". Not sure how non-cryo upper stage development fits into that though.

CobaltWolf / Bluedog-Design-Bureau

Tech tree placement issues #189