Blue Skies Research Based Tech Tree #667
Comments
|
Very cool! Regarding general design, I think it's a very solid idea. Both increasing the number of nodes and the addition of the blue sky/paradigm shift idea are pretty interesting.
|
|
As i fail to see anything that is not full of "awesome!", i have a small request: please lock down the tech tree nodes and placement before starting populating it with parts. |
|
Phineas, why do you think that is a better option? So more people can place
quickly?
…On Jun 1, 2017 2:36 PM, "Phineas Freak" ***@***.***> wrote:
As i fail to see anything that is not awespme, i have a small request:
please lock down the tech tree nodes and placement before starting
populating it with parts.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#667 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASjbf5tl9nUCPUulprHvyJdukMkOsOKwks5r_xK1gaJpZM4NtF0j>
.
|
|
Yes. The current tech tree structure does not help you find where to place new parts (at least for the later nodes that are less fleshed out). At least that is my opinion. |
|
@PhineasFreak that makes sense. I will probably continue to add ideas of what should be in each node as I continue (as you see below some of them now). |
|
Hey @leudaimon thanks for the feedback and questions.
|
|
Tiny Tim was a WWII anti-shipping rocket (hence the jokey name, like Bazooka). It should stay in the start node IMO. |
|
@NathanKell, Not that I disagree about the Tiny Tim... but that would apply to the A-4 and its guidance too, right? Btw, I didn't know a change in the buildings was being planned. Probably a good move, as you can do a lot with 40T (if you don't go R-7). Are those changes sketched anywhere? |
|
@leudaimon Well you could argue that there was time involved in adapting the V-2 into the A-4 for use on US rockets and use that as justification for pushing it up a node, rather than just being there at the start. |
|
Yeah, it's the gameplay concern that's the thing. The only flimsy justification we can make is the work the US and Russians had to do to make A-4 work with sounding payloads and upper stages. Perhaps a reasonable criterion might be: stuff used for civilian uses during the war or right at the end. That would allow the WAC and Tiny Tim but push the A-4 off a bit....? Or maybe the best criterion, sadly, really is "what's good for gameplay". It's not like the Bumper launches were after 1951 after all. |
|
Ah, ninja'd by Agathorn. |
|
Ah, here's another aspect to consider: |
|
Good points you guys raise here. I think we have to accept gameplay justification, otherwise we end up too tight in historical reconstruction. Sorry if I looked picky, just looking after clarifying the proposal and design, which is fantastic already. The beauty of this new tree is there will be place for all those engine cfgs... Btw, in another look into the tree, early RTGs could be available at the Adv. Capsules and Interplanetary probes, couldn't them? They were not used extensively before Pioneer 10, but some experimental and low power versions were designed around that time (Did a quick lookup, apparently surveyor could have used them, and some transit satellites launched in 1961 had a puny 2.5W RTG). |
|
No worries! :) Yep, AIUI Transit was the first US use. |
|
@leudaimon @PhineasFreak |
|
In-game layout of the tree. I think it works pretty well! There are some small issues with some of the dependency lines, but I don't think there is an easy way to re-arrange them to stop it from happening. As always, your feedback is appreciated! |
|
@NathanKell @PhineasFreak @jwvanderbeck @stratochief66 Alright, the tree is completed and the parts are all placed. I have not added the Procedural Parts, RF Unlocks, RCS Unlocks, or Tank Unlocks to the tree yet. I will finish that this evening. I want / need your opinions on what to do going forward for creating the tree. I know that in the past, everything was stored in Tree.yaml and was built by hand. What I have created with this spreadsheet will do much the same, but it requires some copy-paste functions. To me, the spreadsheet is vastly superior as it allows us to sort, edit, change, move and organize every part in RO. Using the current method, it is much harder to find if a specific part has been costed and placed. That being said, I will defer to your preferences. I have to leave now, but I will fully explain the spreadsheet when I get home later this evening. https://www.dropbox.com/s/6fhgeie182uptoh/Newest%20RP-0%20Tech%20Tree%20Parts%20-%20Copy.xlsm?dl=0 |
|
How recent a copy of Excel does it require? I'm back in 2003. |
|
It was written in 2013, but there are no formulas that will not work back
even earlier than that. If you have trouble opening it, I will save as an
older XLS version.
…On Jun 9, 2017 4:56 PM, "NathanKell" ***@***.***> wrote:
How recent a copy of Excel does it require? I'm back in 2003.
—
You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#667 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASjbfxySDaNbQMSijzynmxrqYDtUhi6Vks5sCb-EgaJpZM4NtF0j>
.
|
|
That'd be great! Actually, probably the best option is to do it in Google Docs, if we can. That way Linux folks can use it without touching grubby paid software, etc. :] |
|
I'll have to see about reusing the system for entry cost modifier generation too...since that's closely coupled to tree/costs anyway. |
|
@pap1723 Now that you mention it, add the RCS PartUpgrades to the available UPGRADES list. Currently, the tech unlocks without showing up in the tree. |
|
@pap1723 @NathanKell I will not discuss node costs by now. I think this will demand a lot of testing and balancing. However, looking at total science cost to get to some engines makes it look like prices are way too high. Going by branches: ScienceLooks nice, with good variety. The only inconsistency I see is the aerobee science module. It could be in the starting node, given the science it gives is available there. AvionicsNot looking into procedurals yet (I have some ideas for balancing, but this will have to wait for the non-procedurals anyway). Besides that, I think the sputnik can be pushed earlier to avionics prototypes, and the 20in core also be pushed to early avionics and probes. CommunicationsNot much to say here. My only suggestion would be to have the communotron 16 and Reflectron KR-7 on lunar range communications. One thing I also think may be very nice is to extend the range of this Reflectron to be a GEO relay station for commanding vessels in LEO. EnergyI think a tiny solar cell, vanguard like, is lacking in the game. How difficult would it be to reduce one of these models and make a part generating 3-4 W? Then, in the Satellite Era tier there could be two tech nodes, the first with this small solar cell, and then another with the panel already there (ST1) Eletronics and MaterialsIt is not clear what exactly is unlocked on those nodes, besides the "eras". For materials I understand it's diameters and fuel types. What about eletronics? Rocketry and staged combustionThings are so different here it's hard to have an impression. The pace and order of unlocking of different rockets was seriously changed. I'm not saying this necessarily is a problem, but I think that in some cases, sticking with history might actually bring problems. For example, the RD-107/108 series coming before the Vanguard engine is very counter-intuitive, and does not help gameplay. For the staged combustion, I'm also surprised, because the S1.5400 and the Proton engines used to unlock together, and now there is a series of three empty nodes between them.
SupersonicsJust one inconsistency, the X-1 cockpit is in the first node, while the conic cockpit that is a copy of it is on the third one, with the 1.25m cockpit. |
|
Thanks for the response and early feedback! I will go through each point to
I agree with you. This is going to take extensive testing and right now I put the same costs for each node in the same Year.
So the Aerobee science module from Taerobee I think is a variant that was later than the WAC-Corporal that is included in RO stock. However, that being said, I am going to move the Taerobee stuff all into the start node. It is not like it is better than the RO version, just different size diameters.
I could be convinced that you might be right, however, I want to see what the very early game feels like before making those kinds of changes to see how it all works and plays.
I would agree with you about the Communotron 16, but if a player (like @stratochief66) plays without RemoteTech, they would be without an antenna. The KR-7 (according to the description and speed at which it transmits data), it is a more advanced version of a dish than what was being thrown at the Moon in 1959. The Communotron 16 should be enough for that.
I use FASA so I have one, but I agree that a stock version of the solar panel should/could be included. All it takes is a simple CFG file that will shrink the ST1 in half and change the charge available.
Right now, absolutely nothing is unlocked in the Electronics nodes currently. That will need to be changed. Any ideas on what to unlock in there would be appreciated.
There are a lot of engine configs that are unlocked in nodes that might look blank right now. When we implement the PARTUPGRADE features on them, it will fill out the tree. As for the RD-107/108, @NathanKell and I talked about having the VERY early versions of the RD-107/108 available early, but for gameplay purposes, the Vanguard unlocking at the same time would make sense. The S1.5400 will be getting additional engine configs that will have 4 different versions that unlock in different tiers. The S1.5400 unlocked in 1960 for the Molniya launcher while the Proton didn't fly until 1966.
As mentioned above, I will move the Aerobee stuff into the start node, just makes more sense. The AJ-10's were not pushed back so much as everything was pushed up. A lot of the earliest engines (RD-100-103) were pushed back too far in the previous tree due to the number of nodes available and wanting a progression.
I will fix that, thanks! |
|
Engine thoughts:
Not sure what to do with the AJ10s. There are lots of them. Agena, too: we know Agena A first launched in January 1959. We know AJ10-104 first launched in January 1960 (but per Gunter not the 104D, that came later). I'll trawl Gunter's Thor page later. Staged
Does that make sense? For solids, what if we started the solid tree earlier, i.e. in line with liquid 2 and have the Aerojet Aerobee kick motor there, then a node in line with 5 for the Sergeant/Castor and Baby Sergeant and the original Vanguard kick motor (from GCR). Apologies for not plotting that out earlier; it might require one more rocketry node? Also, in terms of Balance (tm): |
|
I think we might want to skip a couple AJ10 configs, since some were nearly one-offs. |
|
Things I've noticed so far:
|
|
The 0.625m heatshield (LEO) seems to have disappeared. Should that be in the same node as the 1m and 1.5m? |
|
@ec429 I will comment on your previous one tomorrow, but yes, the 0.625m heatshield should be in that same node I have a screwed up name for it! Ahhh!! Will fix for tomorrow. |
Now as to @ec429's comments:
|
|
From the little playtime I had with the new tree - one thing I came across which put me off was the fairing and interstage fairings and adapter plates missing from the start node. I am pretty sure the tech at the 1950 would have enabled building at least the structural interstage parts. Correct me if that's all intended and a major gameplay mechanic to have fairings and structural parts coming in the later tech tree. (We stock or what? 😅) |
|
OK, I have continued our research into the RD-107 variants from our discussion last night. I will present my information and then you can let me know if you think it is worth it, or not, to add any additional variants. Current Variants Implemented
After looking at This Page and This Page, I can come up with two additional variants (the other variants all have the same stats as other types). The first additional variant is the RD-107_8D76 that according to Gunter's Site was only used to launch Sputnik 3. Based on the statistics from the above links, this engine has a slight increase in thrust from 972.3 to 972.8 and ISP from 306 to 310. The other additional variant is the RD-107_8D74 that was used on the earliest Vostok launches. It had a thrust of 991 and an ISP of 313. Proposed Variants
Proposed Tech Progression
The RD-108 will go through a similar progression, but has slightly different model variant numbers. |
|
8D74K was also used for the crewed Vostok launches, AIUI. 8D74, being used for the first Vostok LV variant, was thus used for the Luna launches. I think we can get by skipping 8D76, and then the comparisons would be: Do you think 8D76 is worth it? I had thought there was an uprating during Molniya flights but before Molniya M, but perhaps not. |
|
Alright, major Tree Update. Here are the details: Thanks to @leudaimon @ec429 @NathanKell @Theysen
Get it from here: Details on Engines in Nodes: |
|
So, first, don't be skeeered by how long the comments to follow are--you've done, and are doing, amazing work, and I for one love it! So, the thoughts:
That's it for now--again, you're doing awesome stuff, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on those above bits, as I said. They're as much question as statement. :) |
This is done. It was a mistake on my part as the LR87 had gotten stuck in Orbital.
When I had read your previous comment about the nodes, that is what I understood you to mean. It is moot now as the other changes you discussed are below.
Yep, typo on my part, now fixed.
Done and I agree with the reasoning.
Done, I know nothing about these (sad to say) so I defer to you.
I don't know much about Soviet engines, so having to do this kind of research is fun! I agree we should add the RD-0107 as the first variant of the RD-0110 and they will unlock in 1960 and 1964 respectively.
OK, I have renamed it ot the AJ10-104. I really like your thought process on this one. It has been moved into the 1960 node.
Works for me. I removed the tech unlock for the config, so it will not unlock in the tree.
I think this makes the solid engines in the beginning of the tree make a lot more sense! I have added a 1956-57 node and arranged the solids how you recommended.
This is completely correct and I actually had the Waxwing part unlocking in Orbital while the engine config was unlocking in solids. OOPS! Moved to 1967.
I got some bad information from Astronautix about first launch days I am pretty sure. Fixed, they will all unlock in 1966.
Interesting. I "knew" that it was a Hydrolox engine, but I also remember it as a staged engine so that is why I thought it went there. The giant orange tank is symbolic of the Shuttle and is mostly LH2 tank! Hydrolox makes much, much more sense. I have added a 1981 Hydrolox node that requires the previous Staged Combustion node of 1972 to unlock.
From what I can tell, it was not used until MA-5 System which was first used on the Atlas I Thank you very much for the feedback! This is a huge project that I want to make sure is right, so I would rather have a ton of feedback from everyone to make it play the right way. I will upload the changes and add the new RD-0107 later on. |
|
|
Should we group the early variants (RD-0106, 0107 and 0108) together? They have almost the same stats as far as i can see. |
|
@PhineasFreak I think yes. None of those variants currently exist, so I will just create a single variant of the RD-0107 as the first config inside the RD-0110 global. |
|
Alright, new large update to the Tech Tree here: https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/tree/Pap-TechTree Thanks to @NathanKell for the great feedback
|
|
Sounds great! |
|
PART: Tank Life support, shows up in TAC LS items if possible instead of Utility if TACLS is installed. 1st Rocket 2nd Rocket Part: should procedural avionics have a higher entry cost 2¥, since 1m starting is 6000¥, any reason to use it at this point vs A-4 other than size. 3rd Rocket PART: why is service bay 4000¥&16000¥ neither is in a useful diameter when allowed, 2m is close to usefull but too big, if a 1-1.25m was available that would make more sense. 1.25 would match fixed tanks at same time, 1.0 would match avionics fixed available. A 1.25m FL-T200 tank of same height is 20¥ PART: Toroidal Round 8 cryotank available. (for helium? Insulated for LOX) is this too early? 4th Rocket lots more Rockets:::::: PART: FL-T200tank, collider inside mesh putting small Rcs on they disapear under texture. PART: Battery costs ! never using anything but proceedural. Started to try and Orbit Science at this point I'm going to start again to see if i'm playing sub optimal |
|
Catastrophe Play through PART: Proc Heat Shield, does it have lunar and LEO rated separate? it had huge Ablator. reduced to 10%, is this item too soon? Probably not unless it is capable of Lunar. 1-47days, return capsule A-4. launched west 88deg, landed in central Florida, 37.9 Science, First Flight Plus firsts, 27797¥ Contracts available, karman, sounding rocket 440kmn 2142¥, xplanes low, crewed Soundbarrier Build #2 nearly the same stretched to 20t max tank, 1314¥ cost. Day 49, refurb complete Launch, shutdown on A-4, 49km AP , made it to flying low water 8.2 science including recovery Build #3, A4+Aerobee upper (XASR-1), no attempt at recovery 893¥ Day 99 recondition Launch, early A-9 shutdown, but 300km+ap, 384km AP total, got both shores and water space near, water high. Aerobee fractured on lower atmosphere...hard splash Science 13.9 Science, bank up to 76542¥ Took Sat era Matscie, '56 Orbital Rocketry, purchase Pad Upgrade 16k¥ (137d time), science rate to 33.5/yr Build #4, change nosecone to parachute, added sep motors and decoupler. 920¥ Launched headed south, good spin stabilization at 100km 50deg pitch, full burn on all engined, 850km AP, got some tropics data, but blew up from G loading at 20km, reverted Added Sat Era Electronics '56 SR engines and Early Avi&probes. upgraded science research to 0.107pts per day At this point i have only bought two part upgrades Build #5, Stubber Comms Plane, 231 days 1200¥ Day 190 Early Science Build#7, Black Iron II, add fins, put spin on Seps, change A-4 to A9, 8723m/s, 42day, 1056 Day 218 Avionics Prototype Black Iron II had A-9 shutdown early, one of the side booster XASR-1 failed, so boosters ejected on emergency, stage 3 was wobbly and failed to light, seps got final stage clear and lit last engine, 228km AP, blew up on reentry. Success on 170km SR(M) contract, 73330 Funds Purchased biosample capsule, Geiger tube, micro meteor detector and proc battery |
The other stuff I'm sure Pap has already responded to and/or dealt with. :) Thanks so much for the great feedback! |
|
@NathanKell For the PP heat shield point: i have done it for my own purposes and it works great! The only problem is that the PP code for it does not support an output resource ("CharredAblator") and that means the vessel gets much lighter than if you used a normal heat shield. If someone could take a look and add such a functionality then he/she would be an awesome person! And it would also mean that we can mark it as compatible with RO. |
|
Wait does it not use a standard ModuleAblator (or DRE's ModuleHeatShield) ? |
|
BIG correction: my mistake, it does use it but you cannot define the CharredAblator resource as a resource linked to the Ablator one. You can have both of them defined in the part config but what maxAmount can you set to the CharredAblator one (both of them are set via the stock RESOURCE nodes)? The amount of the ablative resource is set via the ProceduralHeatshield module (more specifically the ablatorPerArea parameter). This should probably be updated to include an outputResource and outputResourcePerArea field to set the name and amount of CharredAblator produced. The rest can probably be handled by the rest of the modules? |
|
Day 259 Took 1st Sat contract, spent money on Tracking, mission control and R&D Day 330 Launch 8, first snub pair one failure, XASR-1 Failed on side boosters, snub fails on last circ booster, 2900km AP, got a bit of science on the way. Sounding High and Medium complete. can't get tech to select button, tried in and out 12 times, trying to take 1958 orbital rocketry Day 18 launch 9 main sustainer stage failure, tries 15 times to get to orbit. best attempt was 7500m/s 377km AP, TF stymied the run every time. Installed FASA. Bought some parts, mainly the A-6 engine 2Y Day 114, Launch 10, easy peasy straight to orbit, I ran a sloppy upper orbit tune, left 1800dV in tanks, from over design for early shutdowns, 754kmx170km, got full TF data for the A-6's in first run Build 11, Iceberg I, a slightly modified B.Iron6, added solar cells (Lots), reduced battery, added new instruments. 6088, Take First Polar Sat, and First Solar Sat, spent 40k on build speed upgrade, 24 k on 150t launchpad Day 114 mature supersonic flight SOLUTION: got this kind note from NK ::Bornholio: It happens when you unlock a node that has parts, the entry cost of which is more than you can afford (so the Purchase All Parts button is unclickable). You have to then select a purchased node where you can afford to purchase all the parts, and hover over the Purchase All Parts button, and that gives you your highlight back.:: IDEA: Icon for ED&Landing tech could be a probe (antenna ticking out) at angle with HS & shockwave PART: CR2 Is this supposed to represent the Ramjet carried by X-15A-2 in '67? Engine should have matching shock cone include in Node PART: Jets, Avron and J57 and Derwent V should have a circular intake that matches diameter. This is easy to ignore with tweakscale... Build 12, small sounding rocket with bio samples for Air sampling in nearby biomes |
|
@pap1723 A small addition to the RP-0 part patching: the ability to automatically set the entry costs to 0 for any parts that are placed in the starting node. This can always happen if you add a new mod (or if a part is moved) and it saves some time hacking the save file to mark them as unlocked. (I was watching the TTT streams and realized that was somewhat annoying getting new parts that need funds to unlock). Or is it taken care by the new "identicalPart" tag? |
|
@PhineasFreak the functionality of KSP takes care of that (from what I understand). The only reason that has happened is with us moving parts into the start node in the middle of a game. If you start a game from scratch, all the Start node parts are automatically unlocked for free. |
|
US biological sample container is 2000$ in starting node Kevlar for chutes is available too early, 1966 earliest, Oldest I could find was Mil study for parachutes made in 1974 (ribbon chutes for Nuclear bombs) Apollo chutes are Nylon add Terylene chutes... Supersonic Ribbon Parachutes(1980's) okay done blathering |
|
On chutes, I'm not aware of tech-gating chute materials. @stupidchris is that possible? On GM tubes, hmm. That's a good point. Not sure what we can do with it though... |
|
Probably ignore GM's that early and assume that greater detail and better instruments available to Van Allen's time period is placed ok for game balance (you get it pretty fast). |
|
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ysjctyzjzy06oqb/HIAD%20Icon.png?dl=0 Hypersonic Decel https://www.dropbox.com/s/f9jzme1u2drdjqg/Nuclear%20Thermal%20Rockets%20RO%20Kerbal.ods?dl=0 List of NTRs Includes stock SXT, Vens, Kerbal Atomics, and Porks Atomic Age. Has initial entries for early RD-4XX series but too little information is available to fill in the details or back calculate values. Lastly the existing RO configs are listed for comparison. Still no NASA current notional ones added (Constellation, SNRE, RFNTR or Arcjet) |
|
Outdated. Issues addressed |
Some of you have been playing around with the tech tree that I made and have provided great feedback on it. As I have played through it, there have been some nice things and there have been some things that feel clunky with it. After some discussions with @NathanKell and @stratochief66 we discussed some ideas on how to improve things. I have put together some ideas and have the general guidelines for a tech tree.
Blue Skies Research is essentially research that does not have any tangible application. The goal is not to set out to research say a better solar panel, but it might be to research thermodynamics that then might possibly lead someone else into creating a better solar panel using some of the ideas from that research. Wikipedia describes it better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_skies_research
@NathanKell had mentioned to me that Materials Science in a tech tree should be treated as a blue sky research node that doesn't really unlock anything, but instead unlocks the possibilities to unlock the next set of technologies from the research done.
@stratochief66 and @NathanKell both had the idea to break things out into smaller nodes. That means that a node shouldn't necessarily unlock 20 parts, but 4 nodes unlocking 5 parts is preferable. The player has more decisions to make and therefore options on how to suit their play-style or needs at that particular moment. Overall, this is going to have nodes that have much smaller science requirements to unlock, so extensive playtesting will be needed to see how the values need to be tweaked.
So the beginning of the tree will progress very similar to the current tree, but it will have more nodes worth less science points. This will allow the player to unlock some every couple of months instead of fast-forwarding 200 days to get the next node.
For the blue sky reasearches, I wanted to break things out into Eras of Spaceflight. Basically, the player will be able to research applied technologies for a period of years and then they will hit a stopping point for the current level of technology that they have. They will need to put some research into the next blue sky technology to progress to the next age. Here are the ages as I have currently thought about them in my head. Please let me know if you think some tweaking should be done (there should be, but I am stuck with it for now):
Finally, here is a preview of the current tree as was in my head. The blue nodes are the normal nodes and the Green nodes are the Blue Sky Researches (I know, but it was late and I was working quickly). The orange are placeholders that mean I do not know if there should be a technology there yet. This is just the first 2 "Eras" and will obviously progress from here.
Pinging @leudaimon @rsparkyc @jwvanderbeck @PhineasFreak as all have expressed "some" interest before.
Newest Tree Layout.pdf
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: