Tech tree placement issues #189
Comments
|
I believe the intent was to try and match stock, where the structural parts are separate in the construction line. |
|
But none of the other early rockets do that, and it makes no sense. |
|
Sorry, I didn't catch this discussion before merging it. Do we want the change or not? |
|
are the other stack decouplers like that? |
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
changed the title
|
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) |
|
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:
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. |
|
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. 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. |
|
Tech tree up to tier 4: ( think I got everything) |
|
This is great. I wonder if the SM's shouldn't unlock in the same node as the associated CM. |
|
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. |
|
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? |
|
This should be the whole thing, barring a few minor bits like antennas & experiments. |
|
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----- This should be the whole thing, barring a few minor bits like antennas & experiments. — |
|
I've deleted and reforked mine, I'm sorry for any trouble I caused |
|
Here's a rough idea of what I'd do with the Saturn parts if it was up to me: |
|
Possible Dependencies: (maybe I'll just make my own tech tree) |
|
Here's the mod I'm looking for! http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/131112-wip-historical-progression-tree-jan-31-2016/ |
|
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). 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. |
|
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. |
|
When are you planning on that? I was going to do a pass today based on feesback and my experiences in a science save, but yeah you can transcribe the existing ones. |
|
It will take me a week or two (or maybe a night if I'm really motivated). If you got changes coming I'll wait for them. No hurry. Edit: Unless I'm moving really fast, the way I'll do it is one directory at a time. Update the directory cfgs, delete the corresponding rebalance cfg, and commit. We'll minimize the merge conflicts that way. |
|
On an unrelated note, while you're at it you might want to include the updated WBT |
|
Alright, turns out I had my work cut out for me! Apparently some time in the past I'd already re-balanced most of the parts that needed it, all that was really left was Agena and a few miscellaneous parts. @jsolson you should be able to start integrating things directly into the CFGs after this, although I'd wait at least a week for feedback. Also, on the topic of additional tech tree nodes: I'd suggest adding 4 nodes, in the following places: |
Whoa, that's an option? |
|
I believe it had been descussed previously, to help relieve some of the compression in the tree. I'd said "on the topic of" b/c I'd mentioned it in the PR |
|
I'm ok with it. Do you know how to do it? And can it be made compatible Community Tech Tree? I believe that's the only one out there that extends rather than replaces the stock tree. |
|
I would have to look into the "how" of new nodes, but for making it compatible with CTT, that's something that a NEEDS:[BDB&!CTT] switch would do. I haven't looked at CTT in a while, maybe there are similar nodes to the aforementioned such that it would look much the same with or without the proposed changes? |
|
Well I know the first 2 nodes would be fine, as the earliest CTT node is down near the science and CM lines, not the rocketry ones. I think the 3rd one would also be fine, but I have a feeling that the the 300-pt one may cause some problems. |
|
Yo Jso (I can't tag on mobile) do you want me to work on changing the tech tree placement of engine upgrades? And possibly start investigating new nodes? I was going to start working on CTT compatibility as well. |
|
Go ahead. There's probably not much to do for ctt. Other than the extra command module nodes it all looks like beyond the end of the tech tree nodes. |
** note - The S1E tank was 3 tons too light. Should be retested. #189
|
I'm finally finished transcribing these changes. Among other minor things I double checked all the tank dry masses and cost and fixed a lot of little errors. One Major error was the S1E tank. It went from 6.25 tons to 9.375 tons, not a minor change. I'm tempted to suggest making it a balloon tank but I don't know if that would be appropriate. |
|
Well, one thing to keep in mind - the S-1E (Unlike most stages) is a common bulkhead design, like Atlas or Centaur. So you save the weight of one tank end and the associated interstage segment, and you get more utilization of a given cylindrical volume. It is not a balloon tank however. Actually, that's something to think about when it comes to Atlas/Centaur as well... |
|
The S-IE full build dry mass is 5 tons lighter than the S-I, and it holds more fuel. Wet their mass is almost identical. And the S-IE has more thrust. So I think we're good, balance wise between them. |
|
The Inon 1.875 fairing needs to be moved up to General Rocketry. That's a Vega part too. |
|
Continuing my 3x playthrough... The S-I stage arrives in Advanced Rocketry. But the S-IV is later in Heavy Rocketry. It's kind of useless without a second stage. Not even a p-fairing to rig something up. Solar panel balance looks really good. They come earlier than stock (much needed) but don't track the sun yet. |
|
Use Titans for upper stages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_A-1 |
|
Ok, that works. We lack a 3.75m-1.875m adapter though. There's the S-IVB 3.75m fairing base, but that and the stock one are way far down the tree. Edit: I tried tweakscaling the S-IVB wide adapter (that would have looked slick), but it works out to 3.75-2.5. |
|
Damn. I'll have to throw it in a to-do somewhere. I also sorta want to make the rest of the weird 'low energy' (as opposed to high energy hydrogen) upper stages but it's probably not worth it when there's much more desirable things to be made. |
|
@jsolson there is a way to make an adapter at that tech level. Atop the S-1 tank, you need to put a 1.875m decoupler. Atop that goes the Titan's 1st stage engine - but put the Inon 1.875m fairing, upside-down, between the titan's engine and tank. Luckily, the Inon fairing's max diameter is 3.75m I will upload my Juno-V file to the kerbalx repo soon(tm) |
|
I'm doing (another) 6.4x play through, and there may be a hiccup with the early solids. The Thor type comes online in basic rocketry node, which feels good. There is the little "Dioscuri" SRB, as well as the stack and radial 'other' Dioscuri (I admit I don't know their real life names), the 0.625 m and 0.9375 m ones. The 0.9375 m radial is the one i'm scratching my head at, as following it in the next tier (General Rocketry) is the first of the "Delta" SRB, the "Ruby". It's smaller and more powerful than the previous larger model, even more so the 0.625 m. (It's also cheaper, which to me is a secondary balance issue, but it's still there.) I imagine they're balanced properly, knowing how the backend works, I am more wondering at the gameplay aspect of the lower tier part. The window of usefulness seems very narrow. I see the rational for the inline models, they have their niche in light/All SRB booster models. There might not be an answer, but I just wanted to throw it out there. |
|
The strap ons need a look at. The old small Dioscuri and the new Castor are
the same thing, but very different sizes. Are you saying there are others
with obvious size/fuel discrepancies?
…On Feb 12, 2017 2:39 AM, "jmrd98" ***@***.***> wrote:
I'm doing (another) 6.4x play through, and there may be a hiccup with the
early solids. The Thor type comes online in basic rocketry node, which
feels good. There is the little "Dioscuri" SRB, as well as the stack and
radial 'other' Dioscuri (I admit I don't know their real life names), the
0.625 m and 0.9375 m ones. The 0.9375 m radial is the one i'm scratching my
head at, as following it in the next tier (General Rocketry) is the first
of the "Delta" SRB, the "Ruby". It's smaller and more powerful than the
previous larger model, even more so the 0.625 m. (It's also cheaper, which
to me is a secondary balance issue, but it's still there.)
I imagine they're balanced properly, knowing how the backend works, I am
more wondering at the gameplay aspect of the lower tier part. The window of
usefulness seems very narrow. I see the rational for the inline models,
they have their niche in light/All SRB booster models.
There might not be an answer, but I just wanted to throw it out there.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#189 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQC8IHnp5FbpU7BHc1dQkhHFwfFlBQUpks5rbrdLgaJpZM4KL3ad>
.
|
|
Following up on myself... We have the"Fenris-B Dioscuri" which is the strapon booster for Thor based on the Castor 1. It is correctly scaled and looks good on Thor. It is something around 0.5m. We also have the new "Dioscuri-I" in stack and radial forms at 0.625m, which is the second stage of the Scout and is also based on the Castor 1. The problem is fitting Scout into 0.9375m and 0.625m parts makes it's scale >80%, rather than 64%-ish like everything else. When you take the radial version of the Scout Castor 1 and stick it on a Thor it looks ridiculous. On the subject of fuel, initially when I did the solids I did them like the tanks: measured them and filled them to their volume. But when I compared those numbers to the real numbers it was a bunch of nonsense, unlike the tanks which lined up fairly well. What I did was disregard the visual model and fill them all to 19% fuel of whatever they are based on. That's why the old smaller Castor 1 and the new bigger one have the same performance. So, what to do about it. |
due to oversize models. The Castor is based on the Castor IV, the Algol is based on nothing. It's slightly lesser than the GEM60. It about triples the Scout's payload to orbit (0.3t in 3x). #189
|
We can just rescale the radial Scout-Castor in the config, maybe? The problem is I like the way the old SRB looked... :P |
|
Also, the Ruby being available so early was something of a concession. Perhaps push it back a bit? |
You mean you like the old original Fenris-B Dioscuri/Castor 1? I like it too. I'm unclear on why we would rescale the radial Scout-Castor. It's useful in the Castor 4 role, you can get 9 of them on a Thor ELT (aka Delta 39XX), and they look good. With this in place pushing the Ruby (GEM40) back would make sense. I was really hoping the radial Scout-Algol could be made an AJ-60A for the Atlas V because it looks much better than the GEM60 on there but it's too small. It's more of a hypothetical GEM 55. I'm fine with this Scout-XL btw. Gameplay wise it's more useful. |
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.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: