[1.1.3] Procedural Parts - Parts the way you want 'em - v1.2.5 July 3

[Citizen247]

I saw that, but the message passing stuff is fairly core functionality though isn't it? It's not insurmountable I'm sure, but it seems like it's a change that will take sometime?

[PhoenixSpace]

I give you an idea : Procedural Pods.Hab and cargo bay. modules but I love this mod .it's add a nice side of ksp

[Citizen247]

7 hours ago, PhoenixSpace said:

Procedural Pods.Hab

Much harder than you might think, since the crew capacity of a part is set in the parts database when the part is first loaded. It can't be changed later.

[blowfish]

8 minutes ago, Citizen247 said:

Much harder than you might think, since the crew capacity of a part is set in the parts database when the part is first loaded. It can't be changed later.

It can be changed with code ... see Porkjet's habitat pack.  IVAs wouldn't really work though, and it's hard to get things like windows and airlocks to look right on a procedural part.

[Citizen247]

34 minutes ago, blowfish said:

It can be changed with code ... see Porkjet's habitat pack.  IVAs wouldn't really work though, and it's hard to get things like windows and airlocks to look right on a procedural part.

You can increase the crew capacity in flight, but you can't fill modules in the editor, which means it can't really be used as a command pod. Windows, airlocks and IVAs I can think of ways around, but not the crew capacity. I suppose the only way around it would be to have extra code that allows you to add kerbals in flight before take off, a bit like how KCT does it.

[MainSailor]

On 4/1/2016 at 6:40 PM, Enceos said:

New set of textures to give your ships badass looks:

 

I am SUPER digging the grunge look on these man. Massive props!

[Zarbizaure]

I have a suggestion: In realism overhaul, procedural parts are REALLY usefull. However, they do not look gorgeous, and creating mounts/interstage is not easy at all.

What I suggest is to create a new part, a procedural engine mount, with various shapes & textures, which would let us choose a number of nodes for placing engines (a bit like in SSTU, but with nodes instead of engines). And eventually, place nodes for interstage fairings.

Another suggestion: It would be really cool to add some more details on the tanks cylinder: now they are completely smooth, but why not add somes pipes/stripes/front or rear curved shapes on them? (which could be toggled eventually).

Thanks! (your mod is incredibly usefull though)

Edited April 10, 2016 by Zarbizaure

[hanhan658]

Well, the issue is when i build a spacecraft With a procedural tank, then ready for launch the Whole screen goes black, MechJeb goes inf, navball looses numbers all goes crazy and all the air been sucked out of the atmosphere and releases a vacuum, that is so unexpected, i redownloaded the mod, and even the game, but still black. is there a exit way out of the the problem?

[Science3002]

i REALLY REALLY hope someone makes/updates this for 1.1...

This and tweakscale really made the game for me, lol.

[OtherBarry]

18 hours ago, Zarbizaure said:

What I suggest is to create a new part, a procedural engine mount, with various shapes & textures, which would let us choose a number of nodes for placing engines (a bit like in SSTU, but with nodes instead of engines). And eventually, place nodes for interstage fairings.

This exact thing already exists as part of Procedural Fairings.

[Enceos]

On 4/3/2016 at 9:13 PM, RadarManFromTheMoon said:

Thats correct. PP depends on KSPAPIExtensions which is not going to be updated to 1.1. However, in the KSPAPIExtensions thread taniwha mentioned a solution he is going to test with Modular Fuel Tanks to replace the message handling functionality.

Looks like taniwha is done with KSPAPIExtensions.

 

[RadarManFromTheMoon]

28 minutes ago, Enceos said:

Looks like taniwha is done with KSPAPIExtensions.

 

I'm already 80% done with replacing the KSPAPIExtensions related parts. Release will be shortly after KSP 1.1s official release, at the earliest.

[sDaZe]

On 4/13/2016 at 9:23 AM, RadarManFromTheMoon said:

I'm already 80% done with replacing the KSPAPIExtensions related parts. Release will be shortly after KSP 1.1s official release, at the earliest.

Thanks for making this mod in 1.1, it makes the game so much better  

[JeeF]

On 4/13/2016 at 11:23 AM, RadarManFromTheMoon said:

I'm already 80% done with replacing the KSPAPIExtensions related parts. Release will be shortly after KSP 1.1s official release, at the earliest.

This is one of the main mods I'm waiting for, along with RO and RSS, to play 1.1.

Any news on when it's coming out?

[Rom Alexis]

On 4/11/2016 at 7:19 PM, OtherBarry said:

This exact thing already exists as part of Procedural Fairings.

True. There's a configurable

 

On 4/10/2016 at 1:07 AM, Zarbizaure said:

I have a suggestion: In realism overhaul, procedural parts are REALLY usefull. However, they do not look gorgeous, and creating mounts/interstage is not easy at all.

What I suggest is to create a new part, a procedural engine mount, with various shapes & textures, which would let us choose a number of nodes for placing engines (a bit like in SSTU, but with nodes instead of engines). And eventually, place nodes for interstage fairings.

Another suggestion: It would be really cool to add some more details on the tanks cylinder: now they are completely smooth, but why not add somes pipes/stripes/front or rear curved shapes on them? (which could be toggled eventually).

Thanks! (your mod is incredibly usefull though)

The procedural engine mount part already exists. It is pretty unempressive though - just a flat slab. So what I do is mount an "inverted cone" below it with a gold texture. I then mount the main engine at the end of the cone. If want to add smaller "gimbal engines" around the main engine, I then mount cylindrical procedural parts (same gold texture) on top of the other nodes. I then resize it to match the smaller engines, and I mount the smaller engines on top of it.

[berkekrkn]

On 4/19/2016 at 7:49 PM, JeeF said:

This is one of the main mods I'm waiting for, along with RO and RSS, to play 1.1.

Any news on when it's coming out?

 

Also with AIES mode you can put more than 1 engines easily without an addition part. 

[RadarManFromTheMoon]

ProceduralParts Version 1.2

is here

Changelog

• KSP 1.1 ready (RadarManFromTheMoon)
• Fixed NullReferenceExceptions during loading (NathanKell)
• Now compatible with the TestFlight mod (NathanKell)
• Fixed some issues with zero diameter parts (NathanKell & ferram4)

KSP 1.1 is a major update and a lot of changes were necessary to get ProceduralParts running. So bugs are expected. If you encounter any, please let us know (If possible on the github issue tracker)

Known issues:

• In editor icons do not correctly clip within the borders of the part selector.
• The display of resource amounts do not update properly when changing tank size. This is just a graphical glitch. just right click the part again to see the change.

[dlrk]

I can confirm git issue 196, that with modular fuel tanks the volumes are very small

[Galileo]

12 minutes ago, dlrk said:

I can confirm git issue 196, that with modular fuel tanks the volumes are very small

yeah same

[JohnWittle]

Thank you so much for the quick update! I, and I'm sure everyone else, really appreciate the work you put in!

Now... Well, I seem to remember the procedural tank equivalent of a stock tank being *slightly* worse, as a penalty for customization, but not all that much worse. I'm not sure where I remember this from, or if it's even true...

But it seems to me that it's much worse for pure liquid tanks, on both cost and volume.

 

As close as I can make them. Procedural's pure liquid has 2342.4 units at a cost of 4788, stock tank has 3200 units at a cost of 3000. That's a pretty big difference in both cases! So I decided to test some other comparisons.

 

 

And yup, Liquid/oxidizer is *spot on* compared to pure liquid.

What's going on with the pure liquid tanks?

Again, I don't mean to complain, this isn't a big deal at all since the weights are still calculated correctly (A procedural tank with the same amount of liquid weighs the same as stock, it's just much larger), just wanted to let you know. I can make a bug report if you want? Or is this intended, and the comparison ratio for pure liquid is some other tank?

It's really frustrating that the weight per unit calculation is correct while the volume calculation is off, because as you progress through the tech tree, you unlock larger tanks by volume, not by weight!

Edited April 22, 2016 by JohnWittle

[Enceos]

20 hours ago, RadarManFromTheMoon said:

ProceduralParts Version 1.2

is here

What a great day! All musthaves: KIS/KAS and Procedural Parts have been updated! Now my old save is alive and kicking in 1.1   Purrrr... =>.<=

 

Be sure guys to check out my procedural textures :3

Edited April 22, 2016 by Enceos

[Science3002]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PAAARRRTTYYYY!!!!

*waves flag with procedural parts made rocket wildly while chugging science and crying joyfull tears of Dv*

[nebuchadnezzar]

I'm experiencing an issue with Procedural Parts and MFT (Modular Fuel Tanks). When I have MFT installed the tank volumes are extremely small. I've tested this with only MFT, MM, and Procedural Parts installed. Here is my log from that test.

[RadarManFromTheMoon]

1 hour ago, nebuchadnezzar said:

I'm experiencing an issue with Procedural Parts and MFT (Modular Fuel Tanks). When I have MFT installed the tank volumes are extremely small. I've tested this with only MFT, MM, and Procedural Parts installed. Here is my log from that test.

 

On 22.4.2016 at 9:12 AM, JohnWittle said:

Thank you so much for the quick update! I, and I'm sure everyone else, really appreciate the work you put in!

Now... Well, I seem to remember the procedural tank equivalent of a stock tank being *slightly* worse, as a penalty for customization, but not all that much worse. I'm not sure where I remember this from, or if it's even true...

But it seems to me that it's much worse for pure liquid tanks, on both cost and volume.

 

As close as I can make them. Procedural's pure liquid has 2342.4 units at a cost of 4788, stock tank has 3200 units at a cost of 3000. That's a pretty big difference in both cases! So I decided to test some other comparisons.

 

 

And yup, Liquid/oxidizer is *spot on* compared to pure liquid.

What's going on with the pure liquid tanks?

Again, I don't mean to complain, this isn't a big deal at all since the weights are still calculated correctly (A procedural tank with the same amount of liquid weighs the same as stock, it's just much larger), just wanted to let you know. I can make a bug report if you want? Or is this intended, and the comparison ratio for pure liquid is some other tank?

It's really frustrating that the weight per unit calculation is correct while the volume calculation is off, because as you progress through the tech tree, you unlock larger tanks by volume, not by weight!

I will see if i can rebalance that a bit in the next release.

1 hour ago, nebuchadnezzar said:

I'm experiencing an issue with Procedural Parts and MFT (Modular Fuel Tanks). When I have MFT installed the tank volumes are extremely small. I've tested this with only MFT, MM, and Procedural Parts installed. Here is my log from that test.

Nothing I can do about that. I already issued a bugreport over at MFT.

[JohnWittle]

48 minutes ago, RadarManFromTheMoon said:

 

I will see if i can rebalance that a bit in the next release.

Do RCS at the same time, if you can. The Procedural RCS Tank yields about 1/8th of the monopropellant as a similarly-sized stock tank.

I'm imagining this just being swapping 2 numbers in a confic, but if its a lot of work then sorry to get on your ass.