Jump to content

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


OtherBarry
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Zarbizaure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

hPY0Lum.jpg

 

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.

 

p3GPB7r.jpg

 

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 by JohnWittle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...