Gumysh

I experienced also some strange behaviour related to KJR. Everything looked fine until I loaded a quicksave. The ship, a very small and simple on a stable low orbit around Mun, just wobbled a bit after a second or two after loading and exploded. When I uninstalled KJR, I could load the quicksave without any problems – the ship remained whole and I could return to Kerbin. And there might be another problem related to KJR (maybe… like EnterElysium, I have a very modded installation too): when the ship stands on the launch pad on a KW Rocketry engine (just some?), it simply sticks to the ground and can't lift off. Without KJR, it can. I can provide more details and try to reduce the situation to the easiest reproducible state. In the case of the exploding ship, I have no better idea than to send the quicksave file with the list of minimal mods that are needed. If it is wanted, of course. Are there any instructions what else should I do to help with finding the issue?

Not sure if this is the best channel, but I think I found a bug: the techlimits don't apply in Science Sandbox mode. The problem seems to be in ProceduralPart.cs, InitializeTechLimits(). Could a dev fix the condition there, please?

Sadly, I observed this behaviour too. I installed a few new promising mods and it took me a while to find out which mod caused that. Finally, I abandoned TweakScale rather than Procedural Parts after it broke half of my vessels. But as you say: I'd love to use both. I suppose that more mods could expose similar behaviour. For instance Infernal Robotics use some scaling too. It would be great if KSP developers provide common support for part scaling, so that mods would not clash in this way.

Question/Proposal I wonder if girders are one of the parts that are not planned (Shapes with 'holes' in them and concave shapes - including toroids). Extensible girders would be great. I tried to use TweakScale mod, however, it turned out that it causes total mess with other mods that I use – I suspect interference with Active Texture Management as the main factor: parts started to have wrong sizes, to float above surfaces etc., but when I deleted TweakScale and cleared the texture cache, everything returned to normal. It took a while before these effects occurred and in the short period before I experienced troubles, I become somewhat addicted to scalable girders. When scaled up, a girder was even more sturdy which was really what I missed for attaching some heavy structures radially. Another great part would be a procedural radial port (like the stock BZ-52). I appreciated the scalable girders much also because of their ability to attach radially. I must admit that I struggle with this challenge. I know no parts which provide strong radial connection in the same way as girders and BZ-52 attach. Is there any plan to fill this gap with Procedural Parts?

I took your advice and installed Procedural Parts. They are really wonderful and enabled me to apply new ship designs Thank you for the hint once again. Nevertheless I still miss the fuel crossfeed toggle for the thrust plate. Even if the toggle allow to choose between full crossfeed and top-down crossfeed (and optionally no crossfeed as the third option), it would be great help – the plate is simply an excellent component with many uses where the unidirectional crossfeed is limiting. Please, please, please – add the toggle in the next release

Changing the fuel crossfeed would be nice anyway. So I'm looking forward if it appears in the future. Regarding the Procedural Parts, I didn't know about that mod. I'll try it. And the node attachment: well, everybody knows the stock BZ-52 Radial Attachment Point. It is fine, but small and not much firm. It would be great to have a procedural radial attachment point. So far clear, I hope. Then I begun to mix more ideas in… and the result must have confused you What if the attachment point could have more nodes like the thrust plate has? Or what if it could have variable height (not only radius), so it could span further from the part which the point is attached to? Anyway, you do good work and I'm looking forward to any news Thank you for that!

Hi, this mod is amazing. I like the fairings, but even more I like the thrust plate. However, I think it might be improved a bit and perhaps another "procedural" addition might fit it very well. Here is the improvement proposal. What about the possibility to set the allowed fuel crossfeed for the thrust plate? The couple of tweaks "Allow top-to-down fuel crossfeed" and "Allow down-to-top fuel crossfeed" (if possible) looks like the best way to use it. If it could be used in flight, it would be even better (imagine using the plate as a compartment divider), but even having it just in the editor would be great. Below I attached an image how I used the plate and what made me think of this feature. What about having the possibility to change both top and down radius and the height of the thrust plate? Alright, it stops being a thrust plate A more suitable name (procedural fuselage, perhaps?) might be used. Anyway, again the image below can explain what it might be good for. And finally, what about making a radial version the procedural fuselage? One of the big challenges, which I could not solve to my full satisfaction, is attaching larger (and heavier) parts radially. Maybe I miss something, but stock parts are quite limited, and neither KW Rocketry nor B9 offers much more in this direction. A radially attachable structural part, that would allow tweaking to work and look good with larger parts, would be a gift from heavens. Now the promised image(s). Here is my Kethane mining tower. I don't like much the bottom side of the plate and I wanted a thicker base plate, so I attached two together with bottom sides facing each other. Almost perfect, just without TAC Fuel Balancer (or ugly external fuel ducts) the top fuel tanks can't feed the engines on the feet of the tower. Here comes the crossfeed direction tweak. With the procedural fuselage (with multiple attach points) it would be even simpler. I believe there is almost no need to emphasize how much radial attachment ports are missing. But here is another example.