[1.2] Procedural Fairings 3.20 (November 8)

[Gaius]

FWIW, I decided to remove the procedural fuselage from my install. Too many accidents where I confused fuselages with fairings...

You can move them to different categories, e.g. fairings under Aerodynamic, fuselages under Structural.

[Zeroignite]

You can move them to different categories, e.g. fairings under Aerodynamic, fuselages under Structural.

That's actually a pretty good idea. In fact, e-dog might consider doing that for next release, since confusing the two seems a common problem.

[melak47]

That's actually a pretty good idea. In fact, e-dog might consider doing that for next release, since confusing the two seems a common problem.

I'd rather have them in one place, there's only 4 pieces, and it's easy enough to distinguish the gray from the yellow parts?

[mwlue]

Been trying to make SLA stuff, but i dont seems able to get the bottom node scale properly with the size change...

I that scaling built in the dll or can be adjusted in cfg?? Thanks

[Starwaster]

Been trying to make SLA stuff, but i dont seems able to get the bottom node scale properly with the size change...

I that scaling built in the dll or can be adjusted in cfg?? Thanks

it's in the cfg. last digit in the node declaration is size (node_stack_bottom x, x, x, x, x, x, <1-4>) totally going off memory, up half an hour with only half cup coffee in me so forgive if its inaccurate.

what the heck are you doing anyway? looks like you're turning a KWR interstage imto a procedural base???

[thescientist]

Waiting for p.heatshield!

[NathanKell]

PF code doesn't scale nodes as it stands; upthread I asked e-dog to include that because it's a quick one-line code change (I know 'cuz I added that to StretchyTanks). Don't know whether he saw the request, but either way he said he was a mite busy at the moment...

[mwlue]

it's in the cfg. last digit in the node declaration is size (node_stack_bottom x, x, x, x, x, x, <1-4>) totally going off memory, up half an hour with only half cup coffee in me so forgive if its inaccurate.

what the heck are you doing anyway? looks like you're turning a KWR interstage imto a procedural base???

I have already using that line already, but don't seems to work. Thanks for your "early" reply. lol Isn't that cool to have KW interstage with procedural fairing huh??

PF code doesn't scale nodes as it stands; upthread I asked e-dog to include that because it's a quick one-line code change (I know 'cuz I added that to StretchyTanks). Don't know whether he saw the request, but either way he said he was a mite busy at the moment...

boooo..... i see... let see if e-dog would add that on later release or not.

Thanks all.

[Alfondoo]

So I've been messing about with the interstage adapters coupled with the robotics mod and have come up with this, a deployable science base at the front with a spinning cargo bay door at the rear of the craft.

Pretty amazing what you can do between the two mods Keep up the good work! Love these parts.

[lewisd]

EDIT: figured it out. Was using the "fuselage shroud" instead of the "side fairing".

I can't get these fairings to separate, no matter what I try. I'm just stumped.

The imgur gallery says to make sure it's staged properly, but the fairing bases aren't adding any part to be staged. I've tried putting a decoupler above or below the fairing base, but that doesn't seem to help any. I really don't know what I'm missing.

Edited October 8, 2013 by lewisd

[Commander Zoom]

You need to mount the fairing pieces (the bits that look like eggshells) to the side mounting points on the basis, at which point they will make fairings. The bases don't do that themselves. Nor do they act as decouplers.

[Monkeh]

Also, the white fairings in the part menu have no decouplers. The yellowy orange ones are the ones that separate.

[lewisd]

Also, the white fairings in the part menu have no decouplers. The yellowy orange ones are the ones that separate.

That's the bit I missed. I thought they were just cosmeticly different.

[Gaius]

Personally, rather than trying to remember based on colors, I just read the descriptions. The ones that say "a fairing without decoupler" have no decoupler.

[Fooblack]

I tried installing this from spaceport, both manually and via mod admin. Nothing happened either time. You don't appear to have the correct folder structure. Tried fiddling with it but I don't know enough to fix it myself.

[Starwaster]

I tried installing this from spaceport, both manually and via mod admin. Nothing happened either time. You don't appear to have the correct folder structure. Tried fiddling with it but I don't know enough to fix it myself.

there is nothing wrong with the folder structure. it works for everyone else. maybe if you described what you did we can help you figure out what you're doing wrong.

Edit. Extract the contents of the zip file to your KSP install directory. Ignore the Source file if you want. it's not required.

Edited October 11, 2013 by Starwaster

[Fooblack]

I found the issue. I was deleting the empty folder tier and placing "ProceduralFairings" directly into gamedata. Had to update the paths in the config files, since they had to use relative paths from gamedata instead of simple filenames due to there being no subfolders.

Sorry, I need mod folders named for the actual mod so I can tell at a glance which folder goes to which mod. I'm not going to be able to memorize the names of the fictional companies which produced each mod that decides to do that.

[RoboRay]

You mean, like "Squad"?

Mod-makers often release more than one mod. A "maker/mod" folder structure makes it simpler to share common assets between their mods.

Rather than deviate from the installation instructions and rearranging things, then complaining about it not working, and tinkering with config files to make it work, perhaps simply installing it as distributed would give you a simpler time getting it to work.

Edited October 11, 2013 by RoboRay

[Starwaster]

I found the issue. I was deleting the empty folder tier and placing "ProceduralFairings" directly into gamedata. Had to update the paths in the config files, since they had to use relative paths from gamedata instead of simple filenames due to there being no subfolders.

Sorry, I need mod folders named for the actual mod so I can tell at a glance which folder goes to which mod. I'm not going to be able to memorize the names of the fictional companies which produced each mod that decides to do that.

You mean, like "Squad"?

Mod-makers often release more than one mod. A "maker/mod" folder structure makes it simpler to share common assets between their mods.

Rather than deviate from the installation instructions and rearranging things, then complaining about it not working, and tinkering with config files to make it work, perhaps simply installing it as distributed would give you a simpler time getting it to work.

Agreed. Fooblack, you're free to do whatever you want on your own computer with the things you download, but when it doesn't work, make sure that you yourself aren't the cause before slinging blame.

[Fooblack]

I can rename the "Squad" folder to "Stock" or "Default" or "Fahrvergnügen" and it will still work. Renaming any of the folders in this mod's tree breaks all components of it. My dislike of redundant folders is a trivial opinion that should not be mis-interpreted as being at issue here. That said, these kinds of changes are a non-issue on 99% of mods because of the way the folder hierarchy works. This is a corner case to be sure, but it's one that causes this mod to fail utterly when others handle gracefully. This flaw would also potentially affect anyone attempting to, under the rights given by the license, copy, modify or adapt parts of this mod. Would that be their fault too? The file organization in this mod needs working on, I stand by that statement.

My workaround is now here in this thread for anyone having the same problem later on to find, and so I consider the matter settled.

[taniwha]

Fooblack: what you fail to take into consideration is why Squad can be renamed without problems, but Keramzit (and many other advanced mods) cannot. Squad's models and textures are mostly unique to each part, while the more sophisticated mods do a lot of sharing between parts. This sharing requires specifying the share resource by a GameData relative path. Thus, if users who think they know better and carelessly rearrange things, the mod will break. Usually, the fix will be just to update the path in the part.cfg as well, but sometimes the dll itself will need to be updated.

The flaw is not in the mod, but rather in the user expecting the mod to perform magic even the gods would be hard-pressed to perform.

[NathanKell]

Nope, not a corner case. It's using the MODEL nodes, which Squad is moving to using. Unless you want gazillions of redundant models and textures taking up your memory.

And if you don't like the way the paths work in MODEL nodes, take it up with Squad, it's their (much-requested, I must point out) new feature.

[Commander Gizmo]

Fooblack: what you fail to take into consideration is why Squad can be renamed without problems, but Keramzit (and many other advanced mods) cannot. Squad's models and textures are mostly unique to each part, while the more sophisticated mods do a lot of sharing between parts. This sharing requires specifying the share resource by a GameData relative path. Thus, if users who think they know better and carelessly rearrange things, the mod will break. Usually, the fix will be just to update the path in the part.cfg as well, but sometimes the dll itself will need to be updated.

The flaw is not in the mod, but rather in the user expecting the mod to perform magic even the gods would be hard-pressed to perform.

What I was going to say, only 10x better. I'm very happy for the MODEL nodes. That's what makes it possible to run 48 mods at once!

[Starwaster]

I can rename the "Squad" folder to "Stock" or "Default" or "Fahrvergnügen" and it will still work. Renaming any of the folders in this mod's tree breaks all components of it. My dislike of redundant folders is a trivial opinion that should not be mis-interpreted as being at issue here. That said, these kinds of changes are a non-issue on 99% of mods because of the way the folder hierarchy works. This is a corner case to be sure, but it's one that causes this mod to fail utterly when others handle gracefully. This flaw would also potentially affect anyone attempting to, under the rights given by the license, copy, modify or adapt parts of this mod. Would that be their fault too? The file organization in this mod needs working on, I stand by that statement.

My workaround is now here in this thread for anyone having the same problem later on to find, and so I consider the matter settled.

squad's files still follow legacy structure. MODEL nodes and the current system of resource URIs didnt exist prior to .20 a going forward it was recommended that the new system be used so expect more and more mods to use it. The only 'corner cases' are end users who tamper with file structures without regard to what they're doing.

[RoboRay]

Right. If you follow the instructions, everything works fine. If you make up your own installation procedure and it doesn't work, you'll need to discuss that with the creator of your flawed installation procedure.