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

## Recommended Posts

Having trouble with ModularFuelTanks. The UI doesn't show up. Right click a tank and it's not there. Works for other parts though.

Edited by Motokid600
##### Share on other sites

Hi I'm not sure if this has been asked before but,

I was wondering what values were used to arrive at the "unitsPerT" figure. I'm trying to figure out the "unitsPerT" for the near future mod resources (and some others two) with the aim of integrating them into PP via MM. However i can't seem to figure out how to calculate the unitsPerT value so that they are somewhat balanced against the stock fuels.

##### Share on other sites
Hi I'm not sure if this has been asked before but,

I was wondering what values were used to arrive at the "unitsPerT" figure. I'm trying to figure out the "unitsPerT" for the near future mod resources (and some others two) with the aim of integrating them into PP via MM. However i can't seem to figure out how to calculate the unitsPerT value so that they are somewhat balanced against the stock fuels.

Their density is listed in their RESOURCE_DEFINITION nodes and the inverse is the units/ton. For NF electrical density is 0.005 for bother enriched and depleted uranium.

##### Share on other sites
Their density is listed in their RESOURCE_DEFINITION nodes and the inverse is the units/ton. For NF electrical density is 0.005 for bother enriched and depleted uranium.

Right, now pretend I'm someone who is extremely bad at math ;-)

So the density of xenongas is 0.0001 according to the resource def, but PP has 14k units per ton...

What value is the density expressed in... it's definitely not kg/m3 cause that makes no sense at all... seems more like kg/cm3

Edited by Blowout
##### Share on other sites
Right, now pretend I'm someone who is extremely bad at math ;-)

So the density of xenongas is 0.0001 according to the resource def, but PP has 14k units per ton...

What value is the density expressed in... it's definitely not kg/m3 cause that makes no sense at all... seems more like kg/cm3

See this example of a PP TankContentSwitcher module.

`MODULE	{		name = TankContentSwitcher		useVolume = true		// All mixed fuel tanks with the exception of the micro ones have the same resource per ton		// All the X200 series, plus the FL-T800 have the same dry density and resource units per kL volume		TANK_TYPE_OPTION 		{			name = Mixed			// This is the dry mass of the tank per kL of volume.			dryDensity = 0.1089			costMultiplier = 1.0RESOURCE {	name = LiquidFuel	//unitsPerKL = 78.22784	unitsPerT = 720}RESOURCE 			{				name = Oxidizer				//unitsPerKL = 95.6118				unitsPerT = 880			}		}      }`

"unitsPerT" is not for the resource density because PP gets this information from the resource definition. It detemines the tanks capacity per ton drymass. So an empty tank that weights 1t can be filled with 720 units of LiquidFuel and 880 units of Oxidizer. Alternatively you can also set up capacity per volume. ("unitsPerKL" also known as mÃ‚Â³) I'm not sure what happens if you use both at the same time but they might just get added together.

##### Share on other sites

The procedural nosecone doesn't seem to shield anything with FAR. Is this known?

##### Share on other sites

I have a bug report and GitHub isn't being nice so I figured I'd post it here.

Whenever I exit the VAB (launch, KCT simulation, exit to KSC) and come back in, any procedural parts on my rocket have reverted to their original sizes and glitch anything else attached to them. this results in a rocket that is unusable and uneditable (it also reverts the name to "Vessel Name" for some reason). I have all kinds of mods installed (the RO suite + MKS/OKS + SCANsat + science mods + a bunch more) but no part packs. I have absolutely no idea what is causing this but it is rendering my game nigh unplayable even though I'm still at the stage where I have to build a new rocket for every mission anyway.

Screenshot after the glitch:

##### Share on other sites

Seriously, this is awful, and frustrating. The parts glitches out and...looked like this. When I remove them, the nodes are clearly not where they should be, nor facing the right way.

Not sure what triggers this problem, they just seemed to occur randomly. But it was mostly found and noticed (by me) after loading some crafts or entering VAB/SPH after you exit (exit to KSC) where it sometimes reloads the craft after you leave it.

Here's a larger picture: http://i.imgur.com/FRyY2Jj.png

Edited by Wavechaser
##### Share on other sites

Can this be used to created the 'roundified' radial tanks that xenon or monoprop come in with stock parts? Or the shapes of the Mk 2 and Mk 3 tanks? If so, can I ask how? I did a cursory check of the thread as well as trying it out in-game and couldn't figure out how.

Note that I'm not using Tweakscale. Is that part of the problem?

Edited by Jovus
##### Share on other sites
Seriously, this is awful, and frustrating. The parts glitches out and...looked like this. When I remove them, the nodes are clearly not where they should be, nor facing the right way.

Not sure what triggers this problem, they just seemed to occur randomly. But it was mostly found and noticed (by me) after loading some crafts or entering VAB/SPH after you exit (exit to KSC) where it sometimes reloads the craft after you leave it.

http://i.imgur.com/FRyY2Jj.png?2

Here's a larger picture: http://i.imgur.com/FRyY2Jj.png

I had something similar to this, in which parts disappeared (happened in stock too) and the launch/load buttons didnt work. I reinstalled ksp, hopefully you dont have to.

##### Share on other sites
The procedural nosecone doesn't seem to shield anything with FAR. Is this known?

Uh...nosecones don't shield things in FAR. isShielded states whether an object is inside a fairing or shroud, not "behind a nosecone."

##### Share on other sites

I originally meant to say the fairing under the nosecone was still receiving drag, but then it just occured to me I had been clipping the nosecone down over my probe body. Couldn't have helped...

##### Share on other sites

Hi OtherBarry, NathanKell, whoever else is currently maintaining Procedural Parts,

A concern of mine that I have had for some time now- the tech-limits are *FAR* too restrictive on the size of RealFuels Procedural Fuel Tanks in Career Mode...

Currently, the size of the fuel tanks are limited to 3 meters in diameter even once you have unlocked Very Heavy Rocketry and would normally have access to 3.75 meter parts (not to mention mods such as NovaPunch2 and KW Rocketry make 3.75 meter parts available earlier, at Heavier Rocketry). Before you unlock Very Heavy Rocketry, you're limited to a volume of only 20 kL, such that it's not even possible to build a 2.5 meter tank as tall as the Rockomax-64 (which is available at this tech-level) due to both volume and length-limits...

To not even be able to build as wide as the SLS parts at Very Heavy Rocketry, or as great a total volume as the Rockomax-64 at Heavy Rocekry, once you would normally have access to *both* at these tech-levels seems excessively restrictive...

This is a MAJOR issue for me because I have taken to deleting all static-sized fuel tanks (except for a couple oddly-shaped ones such as the Toroidal...) from my install, meaning I am limited to much *SMALLER* fuel-tanks for the same tech-level using Procedural Parts. Considering this both ruins the game balance, and is already extremely unrealistic (stock rockets are only 40-50% the scale of real life: for instance the DeltaIV rocket, which the Rockomax-64 tank is clearly modeled after the main tank of, is a full 5 meters in diameter...) I would very much like to see these limits relaxed.

The file controlling the tank-sizes is in the ProceduralParts folder, under "Parts" and "ZOtherMods", and is called "RFTank". The volume, length, and diameter limits simply need to be relaxed a bit to at least allow fuel tanks as tall and wide as in stock for a given tech-level (so, the diameter-limits need to be increased to match the widest stock tank available at that time at the very least, and both the volume and length-limits need to be raised for *most all* tech-levels: such that tanks with the same volume as the largest stock tanks at that tech-level can be built... The problems of excessively-small limits on fuel tank size start *long* before Heavy Rocketry)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited by Northstar1989
##### Share on other sites

@Northstar1989:

You might want to take a look at the SETI-BalanceMod linked in my signature. Among other things it has looser PP limits and provides an AutoPruner config to get rid of the stock fuel tanks in terms of RAM usage, without deleting them.

##### Share on other sites

Northstar: was under the impression that we updated it for the new parts to be more balanced. Unless there was a light tech tree rearrangement in 0.90?

##### Share on other sites

Is there any progress on the PP Tweakscale front?

So that tweakscaled Basic Jets can be attached to procedural parts, without bugging out when loading the saved design?

Because on load it treats the tweakscaled part as standard size for the positioning and only after that rescales the part to the tweakscaled size.

So if the part is upscaled, it clips into procedural parts on load and if eg the Basic Jet is downscaled, it loads way behind the procedural part bottom node...

##### Share on other sites

I still love Procedural Parts! Want you guys to know that.

But! There's a pretty serious bug. Any of my crafts that were designed using the old PP, before the most recent update, are unable to undock from anything. I narrowed it down a part at a time until I had a craft with a capsule, two clampotrons, and one procedural tank. Unable to undock. I removed the procedural tank and it was able to undock normally. Rebuilt the craft with a new tank after updating this mod, and it undocked normally.

It's largely my fault for not keeping up and failing to notice the mod updated weeks ago. But I thought you need to know.

##### Share on other sites

Any chance of seeing toroid-shaped procedural fuel tanks? With varying inner and outer diameters and height?

##### Share on other sites

I don't know if this was covered before, if it was, I apologize but I couldn't find anything..

Anyway, it seems that offset doesn't work with Procedural parts. If I attach an object to a procedural tank (or a procedural tank itself) and then change the offset, it doesn't save: If I reload a vessel, all parts attached to Procedural tanks and Procedural tanks themselves are back in their original position.

Is this a known issue? Does anyone know if there's a fix?

Edited by Dale Gribble
##### Share on other sites
I still love Procedural Parts! Want you guys to know that.

But! There's a pretty serious bug. Any of my crafts that were designed using the old PP, before the most recent update, are unable to undock from anything. I narrowed it down a part at a time until I had a craft with a capsule, two clampotrons, and one procedural tank. Unable to undock. I removed the procedural tank and it was able to undock normally. Rebuilt the craft with a new tank after updating this mod, and it undocked normally.

It's largely my fault for not keeping up and failing to notice the mod updated weeks ago. But I thought you need to know.

I've also noticed the same thing. So I've updated the mod on a clean KSP install,Re downloaded this mod and started a new game from scratch and I still get the decoupling bug as soon as you have a part from Proceedural parts it works sometimes if you make sure to not put the docking port on any of Procedural parts it will sometimes decouple the first time... but there after the Docking bays don't undock.

Edited by Dermeister
##### Share on other sites
I don't know if this was covered before, if it was, I apologize but I couldn't find anything..

Anyway, it seems that offset doesn't work with Procedural parts. If I attach an object to a procedural tank (or a procedural tank itself) and then change the offset, it doesn't save: If I reload a vessel, all parts attached to Procedural tanks and Procedural tanks themselves are back in their original position.

Is this a known issue? Does anyone know if there's a fix?

This issue has been around since 0.90 hit, there's no fix that I know of, but I do have a work around.

The issue only happens if the procedural part is the root attach point. If you attach to a non-procedural part, then offset the attached part inside the procedural part, the bug won't happen. Hope that makes sense.

##### Share on other sites
I've also noticed the same thing. So I've updated the mod on a clean KSP install,Re downloaded this mod and started a new game from scratch and I still get the decoupling bug as soon as you have a part from Proceedural parts it works sometimes if you make sure to not put the docking port on any of Procedural parts it will sometimes decouple the first time... but there after the Docking bays don't undock.

Before updating, every single docking port in my install was bugged, every time. After updating, any craft that had been designed and saved with the pre-update parts was still bugged, but anything designed and saved with post-update parts appeared to undock normally. Now after a few flights, including two identical probes with lots of docking ports specifically to test this bug, I'm usually able to undock normally but see the bug about 1 out of 5 attempts. I don't see any relation to whether the docking port was attached directly to the procedural tank, or attached to some other non-procedural part. The only common ingredient is the presence of a procedural tank on one or both of the docked craft.

Dermeister, you and I appear to be the only two people experiencing this game-crippling bug.

My install is heavily modded, and was working normally until only a couple of weeks ago. How about you?

##### Share on other sites
Before updating, every single docking port in my install was bugged, every time. After updating, any craft that had been designed and saved with the pre-update parts was still bugged, but anything designed and saved with post-update parts appeared to undock normally. Now after a few flights, including two identical probes with lots of docking ports specifically to test this bug, I'm usually able to undock normally but see the bug about 1 out of 5 attempts. I don't see any relation to whether the docking port was attached directly to the procedural tank, or attached to some other non-procedural part. The only common ingredient is the presence of a procedural tank on one or both of the docked craft.

Dermeister, you and I appear to be the only two people experiencing this game-crippling bug.

My install is heavily modded, and was working normally until only a couple of weeks ago. How about you?

Mine is modded in moderation... but I've only started to use Procedural parts a month or 2 ago and right about when I installed Proceedural parts is when it started to do it so I've ran some basic tests to see what parts caused it and it always seems to point to if I have a procedural part at the bottom or at the top of the docking port. It could be unrelated I don't know but I'm just noting similar patterns as you mention so really I know where not giving much to the modder to work on ect but I thought id still mention it incase it might help hunt down the exact cause.

##### Share on other sites

FOUND IT!

The bug is an interaction between the latest versions of Procedural Parts and Kerbal Joint Reinforcement. Earlier versions were fine. Either mod by itself is fine. But the current versions of both mods together causes the undocking bug. Verified with a stripped down install of only stock parts and those two mods.

Specifically, it's Procedural Parts 1.0.2 and Kerbal Joint Reinforcement v3.1.1 that won't play nice together.

##### Share on other sites
Here's the github link for the dev version of KJR. This version should fix the decoupler issue.

## 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.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.