Rioliki

Extremely easy. It could be .png, .tga, .mbm or almost any other. Just put it in folder and add it to config.

Oops! Sorry

Awesome job indeed. Only one question: is there any progress in price scaling?

Features That Are Not Planned Shapes with 'holes' in them and concave shapes - including toroids. Procedural wings, procedural fairings - there's good mods for these already. Procedural engines - May happen one day, but not a priority.

Icon`s backgrounds are gray Else - great work!

Still only one possible texture at the same time?

I "made" my texture by copy-paste from original (no other changes). It would be great, but no. If you ever see those textures, you can understand, that it requires something more than basic skills and I`m none even basic. Itmight be true. I didn`t read the license, if honest. If it so, I’ll give it topeople. If no, blame NathanKell. [/COLOR] Stockdec { // by idiot sides { texture = ProceduralParts/Parts/Stockdec uScale = 2 vScale = 1 autoScale = true autoWidthDivide = true autoHeightSteps = 1 } ends { texture = ProceduralParts/Parts/ends } } [COLOR=#3E3E3E] It is good for large ones(0.625+). You can do it better to a smaller ones by cut the halve and uScale = 4.

This is based on original SQAD`s stock texture (copy - paste), so it is their intellectual property. I have no permission to use/edit it, so I have already violated their copyrights. I don`t want to make worse by distributing. So the answer is “nowhereâ€Â. But you can make them by you own. At yours own risk.

Stock-alike is the EZ as pie.

I give up. Was not worth trying. It requires a talent, which I do not have.

Thats better.

Well, I did that for myself. But I doubt that anyone would want to use it. Malevich would have been proud. If someone need it: ArrowUP { // by idiot sides { texture = ProceduralParts/Parts/Decoupler uScale = 8 vScale = 1 autoScale = true autoWidthDivide = true autoHeightSteps = 1 } ends { texture = ProceduralParts/Parts/ends } }

Again about decouplers. After rotation of it you can`t not exactly know where is “upâ€Â. I mean, which side will be decoupled and which remains attached. Of course, it is easy to fix, if make it a separator, but separators makes a lot of debris. Most non-procedural decouplers have arrows on their texture or asymmetrical model to distinguish decoupled side. I guess, the simplest way to solve the problem – add a texture with the arrow. Although forced to admit, that this is a problem of the third plan. There are more urgent.

Well, actually, I already did that. But now the point is “If PF has toggle crossfeed button, why PP haven`t?â€Â

I just encountered with fuel crossfeeding problem. No, decouplers are not fuel crosfeeding, but I need that in my craft. Of course it could be fixed by fuel tubes, but I think more broadly about that. Is it possible to add fuel crossfeed toggle button? Not to all parts, only decouplers and structural. It would be very useful.

Exactly. *This message is too short*

Well, thanks, but MM 2.1.0 suddenly solves the problem. It has to be 2.0.9 issue.

I was used SCANsat with pod integration, found somewhere here long time ago (must be outdated now). Suddenly it stops working. It happens right after updating procedural parts v 0.9.8 and Module manager 2.0.9. I don`t really think this is because PP, rather MM. But KER pod integration still works fine… Anyway, if it is exist, please give me link to pod integration cfg. Thank you. Also to Thank you brave connoisseurs of SCANsat, who took development into their own hands. Only two notes: - Can you change the description to show scanning altitudes? I learned this to remember, but new users have to seek it in .cfg or lurk over forum. - Toolbar icons has gray backgrounds. Sometimes it looks not good. Transparent would be great.

I don`t really think that procedural docking ports is good idea. Easy from the viewpoint of standardization: all docking ports have discrete value nodeType = sizeX. Even if there is a realization of fractional values, everyone still would use a limited number of sizes just because docks should fit each other. If so, why not standard? There are too few situations, where non-standard docks are needed. 1 Use any other part as first. 2 Attach large dock to it. 3 Make your subassembly over dock. 4 Save all of subassembly, first part too. 5 When need to use this assembly, put it somewhere on craft, detach dock with everything else, delete first part, attach dock with everything else where needed. 6 … 7 Profit. Also, you could try to save only detached part where dock will be root part. Or just use mods to change root part. Or modify stock large dock so it can be the first part…

Screenshot of that, please! Also, craft would be great.

No, they are not. Also my KER is OK with procedural parts.

I have tested this a lot. No bugs found. Except when parts in contact with the surface and/or water, but this is, how I understand, the long known issue.

Is it possible to fairings to have more than one texture? Also it would be great to choose between them right in the VAB, just like in procedural parts mod. Even if no, still thank you for the great mod.

0.9.5 bug found. I'm so bored that I did GIF.

Yup, MM 2.0.3 fix it. Proposition to keep “stable version†link side by side with the newest version link. Just because some idiots does not save mod’s previous version archive and replace modfolder in gamedata via deleting old one. And now they cant play using this mod.