Modding Monday: Configurable Containers!

[SQUAD]

This mod converts all the stock fuel tanks and resource containers so that you can change the resource(s) they hold in Editor and in Flight.
By Allista    #KSP

[0111narwhalz]

Nicely done, @allista!

[theJesuit]

Yay to the return of the regular Daily Kerbal!

Hadn't noticed this mod.  It's a riff done before but with a great GUI to boot. I'll now investigate. 

Peace.

[MagicFireCaster]

Pretty nice idea 

[Wallygator]

Please acquire this mod and make it stock in the next release. 

[Majorjim!]

2 hours ago, Wallygator said:

Please acquire this mod and make it stock in the next release. 

Please don't. It would make tank types meaningless.

[Blaarkies]

8 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

Please don't. It would make tank types meaningless.

Do you like building nuclear tugs with either 6 MK1 LF plane tanks, or one MK3 LF plane tank?
...yeah it's not that bad, but i would much rather just use a 18t Rockomax silver drum(with LF only) instead

[Majorjim!]

21 minutes ago, Blaarkies said:

Do you like building nuclear tugs with either 6 MK1 LF plane tanks, or one MK3 LF plane tank?
...yeah it's not that bad, but i would much rather just use a 18t Rockomax silver drum(with LF only) instead

So download the mod.

[Darnok]

1 hour ago, Majorjim! said:

Please don't. It would make tank types meaningless.

No it wouldn't since they have other properties (crash tolerance, lift area) than just fuel type.

[Wallygator]

4 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

Please don't. It would make tank types meaningless.

It's ok. There will still be literally dozens of sizes, colors, shapes, textures, weights and costs to contend with.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Wallygator

[Alshain]

7 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

Please don't. It would make tank types meaningless.

Good.  That's exactly what should happen.  I want to build my rockets for looks, not build it because of what the tank holds.  The different tank art should just be decorative.

I use Modular Fuels but it's basically the same as this mod.

It doesn't change the overall capacities of the tank, it just lets them store different things in the same amounts (or at least MF doesn't) so the different sized tanks are still there for a reason.

[HafCoJoe]

8 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

Please don't. It would make tank types meaningless.

 

58 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Good.  That's exactly what should happen.  I want to build my rockets for looks, not build it because of what the tank holds.  The different tank art should just be decorative.

I use Modular Fuels but it's basically the same as this mod.

It doesn't change the overall capacities of the tank, it just lets them store different things in the same amounts (or at least MF doesn't) so the different sized tanks are still there for a reason.

 

Hmm, am I allowed to agree w/ both of you guys? I want to be able to build things aesthetically how I want, but I feel there should be specifications as well, say solid rocket boosters only being limited to the SRB family as they require a very different tank to hold fuel from dual-propellants. It doesn't make sense to fill the orange tank with Monoprop or Xenon, but for example the Toroidal ring feels like it could be filled with whatever I want it to. Same for the oscar B, same for the ugly gray cans. Maybe different tanks should have different "propellant families"? The only thing I feel I would use these for would be to fill LOX tanks with complete Oxidizer to use in tangent with jet fuel.

[Alshain]

2 minutes ago, Avera9eJoe said:

 

 

Hmm, am I allowed to agree w/ both of you guys? I want to be able to build things aesthetically how I want, but I feel there should be specifications as well, say solid rocket boosters only being limited to the SRB family as they require a very different tank to hold fuel from dual-propellants. It doesn't make sense to fill the orange tank with Monoprop or Xenon, but for example the Toroidal ring feels like it could be filled with whatever I want it to. Same for the oscar B, same for the ugly gray cans. Maybe different tanks should have different "propellant families"? The only thing I feel I would use these for would be to fill LOX tanks with complete Oxidizer to use in tangent with jet fuel.

I haven't tried this one, but MF allows those types of configuration limits.

[beelzerob]

9 minutes ago, Avera9eJoe said:

 

Hmm, am I allowed to agree w/ both of you guys?

I'm pretty sure you know the answer to that.  Internet forum etiquette and current political discourse requires you to arbitrarily choose one over the other and then defend it to the death as the only possible solution any sane human would choose.

A pity, really.

[allista]

8 minutes ago, Alshain said:

I haven't tried this one, but MF allows those types of configuration limits.

This one also allows this. First of all, there're tank types which limit resource switching to a set of similar resources. Second, there's include/exclude directives to limit what tank types a part supports. Third, different tank types imply different cost and volume usage. And last but not least, in contrast to MFT (not that I aim to replace it!), this mod allows in-flight resource switching within a tank type.

[Galileo]

18 minutes ago, Avera9eJoe said:

 

 

Hmm, am I allowed to agree w/ both of you guys? I want to be able to build things aesthetically how I want, but I feel there should be specifications as well, say solid rocket boosters only being limited to the SRB family as they require a very different tank to hold fuel from dual-propellants. It doesn't make sense to fill the orange tank with Monoprop or Xenon, but for example the Toroidal ring feels like it could be filled with whatever I want it to. Same for the oscar B, same for the ugly gray cans. Maybe different tanks should have different "propellant families"? The only thing I feel I would use these for would be to fill LOX tanks with complete Oxidizer to use in tangent with jet fuel.

Choose sides!  Are you with us or not!? 

 

 

 

 

Cool mod though.  I need modular fuel tanks in my life.  This seems like it might be better!  Especially if there is compatibility with other part packs! 

Edited October 18, 2016 by Galileo

[HafCoJoe]

8 minutes ago, beelzerob said:

I'm pretty sure you know the answer to that.  Internet forum etiquette and current political discourse requires you to arbitrarily choose one over the other and then defend it to the death as the only possible solution any sane human would choose.

A pity, really.

 

3 minutes ago, Galileo said:

Choose sides!  Are you with us or not!? 

 

What have I started! 

[Galileo]

3 minutes ago, Avera9eJoe said:

What have I started! 

Well i never stated what side I was on either. 

 

How difficult would it be to write a cfg for procedural parts for the mod?  Or KW rocketry?  I might have a project now when I get home from class

Edited October 18, 2016 by Galileo

[HafCoJoe]

2 minutes ago, Galileo said:

Well i never stated what side I was on either. 

 

How difficult would it be to write a cfg for procedural parts for the mod?  Or KW rocketry?  I might have a project now when I get home from class

Alas, I would only use it if it were stock though :/ - I want everything I build to be doable in a clean install as well :/

Edited October 18, 2016 by Avera9eJoe
grammar

[allista]

Just now, Galileo said:

How difficult would it be to write a cfg for procedural parts for the mod?  Or KW rocketry?  I might have a project now when I get home from class

Procedural Parts are already covered and the patch will be included in the next release, as soon as they are updated to 1.2. The same goes for TAC-LS (because it's not only about fuel tanks).

Any help with other part packs will be much appreciated!

[Galileo]

9 minutes ago, allista said:

Procedural Parts are already covered and the patch will be included in the next release, as soon as they are updated to 1.2. The same goes for TAC-LS (because it's not only about fuel tanks).

Any help with other part packs will be much appreciated!

You probably already know,  but there is a 1.2 prerelease of procedural parts available on GitHub and it seems to work perfectly.  I will see what I can knock out for KW rocketry tonight unless someone beats me to it. 

[allista]

2 minutes ago, Galileo said:

You probably already know,  but there is a 1.2 prerelease of procedural parts available on GitHub and it seems to work perfectly.  I will see what I can knock out for KW rocketry tonight unless someone beats me to it. 

On the other hand, I have python script that I used to generate patches for stock parts. I can easily use it for any other pack of standard fuel tanks.

[Galileo]

Just now, allista said:

On the other hand, I have python script that I used to generate patches for stock parts. I can easily use it for any other pack of standard fuel tanks.

Well that makes things easy now doesn't it

[HafCoJoe]

xD @LaytheDragon I was browsing and saw you like that first post I made and then promptly like the joking response I made as well  gave me a chuckle

Edited October 19, 2016 by Avera9eJoe

[Firemetal]

A bit disappointing that you can't double the LF if you remove the OX in a tank. Awesome Mod though!

Fire