NecroBones

[1.4.1] Fuel Tanks Plus 2.0.2 (2018-03-14)

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, NecroBones said:

No, it's designed around mesh-switching. If you don't want IFS specifically, it also works with Firespitter or B9 Part Switch.

Makes sense. Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you considered making Soyuz-styled conical radial tanks? I think they'd be a good addition to this parts pack, particularly considering the presence of the Soyuz color scheme.

Perhaps one way of doing it would be to include two tiers of them; one with a 1.25m diameter at the bottom and the pointed nose at the top, and a larger one with a 1.25m diameter at the top and 2.5m diameter at the bottom so that it can either be attached to the smaller one or used for other designs.

Edited by eloquentJane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were the FTP-DS2 and FTP-DS3 decouplers ever boosted to have more thrust / SRB fuel?  They still feel like they could be boosted to have about another 2x or 3x delta-V.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2017 at 6:42 PM, eloquentJane said:

Have you considered making Soyuz-styled conical radial tanks? I think they'd be a good addition to this parts pack, particularly considering the presence of the Soyuz color scheme.

Perhaps one way of doing it would be to include two tiers of them; one with a 1.25m diameter at the bottom and the pointed nose at the top, and a larger one with a 1.25m diameter at the top and 2.5m diameter at the bottom so that it can either be attached to the smaller one or used for other designs.

 

That's not a bad idea. The tricky thing with making them stackable, is ensuring the angles line up and that they actually look good that way. But it's a versatile design, if it has the standard stack nodes to work with.

 

 

On 1/28/2017 at 7:43 PM, WuphonsReach said:

Were the FTP-DS2 and FTP-DS3 decouplers ever boosted to have more thrust / SRB fuel?  They still feel like they could be boosted to have about another 2x or 3x delta-V.

 

 

I think I boosted them a little bit, a while back. They can always be supplemented with more stuff, but yeah, I can probably bump them up a bit. To keep the mass consistent, I might default them to the current propellant amount, but allow the maximum to go higher when you're building in the VAB.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've mentioned the issue on the other respective thread but there seems to be tank definitions in FTP that are not defined in MFT, which causes a weird bug where the tank in question freezes in place at launch, the particular definition that i found was the "Cryogenic" which can't be found according to the debug window. 

Hope this helps :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2017 at 1:56 AM, Grease1991 said:

I've mentioned the issue on the other respective thread but there seems to be tank definitions in FTP that are not defined in MFT, which causes a weird bug where the tank in question freezes in place at launch, the particular definition that i found was the "Cryogenic" which can't be found according to the debug window. 

Hope this helps :)

 

I'm not sure where Cryogenic came from then. LOL. Either MFT removed it at some point, or it was a RealFuels thing, or something. I've removed that assignment for the next version. I'm also switching the MFT patches to use wildcards, so that it catches all of the tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely love the decouplers! They really help clean separations for stage recovery.

Hand making spin separated decoupling systems with stock parts is a bore.

Now the only staging mess i have to deal with is chutes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder, would it be possible to get another colour scheme for your texture switching parts - Ven-alike matte grey? Even without hand drawn details like Ven's, just a plain matte light or dark grey option would make your parts fit in with Ven's nicer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Rodger said:

I wonder, would it be possible to get another colour scheme for your texture switching parts - Ven-alike matte grey? Even without hand drawn details like Ven's, just a plain matte light or dark grey option would make your parts fit in with Ven's nicer

 

Yeah, that might be kinda cool. I'll add this to the to-do list.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@NecroBones,

I'm trying to make a part using two of the FTP dome tank models manually welded togther, but only one of them gets the texture mesh and switching capability (using IFS).  Is there a way for the texture meshes to be applied to both of the part models, either individually or collectively?  Simply including a second mesh-switching module doesn't work, just duplicates the variant buttons. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2017 at 5:37 PM, Laguna said:

@NecroBones,

I'm trying to make a part using two of the FTP dome tank models manually welded togther, but only one of them gets the texture mesh and switching capability (using IFS).  Is there a way for the texture meshes to be applied to both of the part models, either individually or collectively?  Simply including a second mesh-switching module doesn't work, just duplicates the variant buttons. :)

 

 

That's sort of tricky. I haven't really tested with it, but I think the mesh switchers don't handle it well when there are multiple objects with same-named meshes that need to be switched. I think IFS will switch one, but leave the other z-fighting? This might be a good request on the IFS thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NecroBones said:

 

That's sort of tricky. I haven't really tested with it, but I think the mesh switchers don't handle it well when there are multiple objects with same-named meshes that need to be switched. I think IFS will switch one, but leave the other z-fighting? This might be a good request on the IFS thread.

 

@NecroBones,

Yup, that's exactly what happens, one dome looks and switches like normal, the other is Z-fighting.

I'll go ask in the IFS thread too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be a problem with the shrouds when certain engines are attached. I'm not exactly sure which engines are affected, and whether this is a problem with that particular engine or with FTP. I've only encountered this issue after a restart of the game. It seems the attach-point is off or something:

FTP-issue.png

The engine still works and all, but it does create quite the visual mess. The engine used in the screenshot is 

MPR-5 from RLA_stockalike.

Additionally: vessel info directly from the safe file.

Aside from a more permanent fix, is there a way to fix this in the save-file?

Mods that may affect this:

- TweakScale

Edit: I was able to 'fix' this by editing the jettison state of the shrouds:

MODULE
	{
	name = ModuleJettison
	isEnabled = True
	isJettisoned = False # change this to True
	shroudHideOverride = False
	stagingEnabled = True

 

Edited by Moiety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Moiety said:

There seems to be a problem with the shrouds when certain engines are attached. I'm not exactly sure which engines are affected, and whether this is a problem with that particular engine or with FTP. I've only encountered this issue after a restart of the game. It seems the attach-point is off or something:

FTP-issue.png

The engine still works and all, but it does create quite the visual mess. The engine used in the screenshot is 

 

It's a bug in stock KSP with shrouds (you can see it on the stock engines like the 909).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2016 at 4:13 PM, Apocrypha said:

I am having texture problems with FTP 1.8.3.    I am using KSP 1.1.2 and no other mods, just FTP by itself.  Now, when I say 'texture problems' I really think its z-fighting, as it looks like two textures are interfering with one another.

ModuleManager 2.6.23, fresh install of KSP 1.1.2.

Stock tanks look ok.

textures.png

I have this same issue, seems I'm on newest version 2.7.5 of module manager.  Any ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2017 at 10:11 PM, AaronLS said:

I have this same issue, seems I'm on newest version 2.7.5 of module manager.  Any ideas?

 

This is explained in the troubleshooting section, in the main post at the top of the thread.

 

 

On 3/4/2017 at 0:59 PM, Moiety said:

There seems to be a problem with the shrouds when certain engines are attached. I'm not exactly sure which engines are affected, and whether this is a problem with that particular engine or with FTP. I've only encountered this issue after a restart of the game. It seems the attach-point is off or something

 

On 3/4/2017 at 10:09 PM, WuphonsReach said:

It's a bug in stock KSP with shrouds (you can see it on the stock engines like the 909).

 

I'm highly tempted to remove the shrouds completely, at this point. I don't know if anyone really gets much use out of them, and it keeps causing problems under the recent KSP versions. Anyone have any objections? It probably won't happen immediately, since I'm sitting on a few updates as it is, waiting to have some time to give things the proper treatment. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NecroBones said:

I'm highly tempted to remove the shrouds completely, at this point. I don't know if anyone really gets much use out of them, and it keeps causing problems under the recent KSP versions. Anyone have any objections?

I like having them to be honest. The 'fix' is easy enough if something does happen. In any case I think they add something that no other mod has :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NecroBones said:

 

This is explained in the troubleshooting section, in the main post at the top of the thread.

 

 

 

 

I'm highly tempted to remove the shrouds completely, at this point. I don't know if anyone really gets much use out of them, and it keeps causing problems under the recent KSP versions. Anyone have any objections? It probably won't happen immediately, since I'm sitting on a few updates as it is, waiting to have some time to give things the proper treatment. :)

Personally, I always remove them. Very rarely do I use them, in fact. Very. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2017 at 3:20 PM, NecroBones said:

This is explained in the troubleshooting section, in the main post at the top of the thread.

Sorry, I went back and read the numbered items a couple of times thru before I saw the giant underlined heading and realized they all described the same issue :) I'll try those out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2017 at 7:04 PM, Moiety said:

I like having them to be honest. The 'fix' is easy enough if something does happen. In any case I think they add something that no other mod has :).

 

On 3/27/2017 at 7:50 PM, Calvin_Maclure said:

Personally, I always remove them. Very rarely do I use them, in fact. Very. 

 

I guess another option would be to create a separate MM patch that disables them, that can be optionally downloaded if desired, and otherwise leave it as-is. Something to think about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, NecroBones said:

 

 

I guess another option would be to create a separate MM patch that disables them, that can be optionally downloaded if desired, and otherwise leave it as-is. Something to think about.

 

Yeah, I cant say id be bothered by if they're there or not, tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NecroBones said:

I guess another option would be to create a separate MM patch that disables them, that can be optionally downloaded if desired, and otherwise leave it as-is.

Or include by default and have people that want them delete the patch. That way it’s up to the users whether they want to deal with possible issues.

Edited by Moiety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2017 at 3:29 PM, NecroBones said:

I guess another option would be to create a separate MM patch that disables them, that can be optionally downloaded if desired, and otherwise leave it as-is. Something to think about.

 

Or default them to disabled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2017 at 10:01 PM, WuphonsReach said:

Or default them to disabled.

+ Vote. Or better yet, magically fix the shroud problem. /sigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@NecroBones,

I have a favor to ask, could you add (or modify) a decoupler (just one size) that is truly hollow (i.e. no colliders) on the inside to match the visual appearnce, much like the Mk1 Structural Fuselage?  I have use for such a thing as an interstage (with appropriate scale changes), and with the mesh-switching capability I could make all sorts of matching interstages.

As you may have guessed, I found out the hard way that the FTP decouplers are not actually hollow. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.