TomTheHand

The posted download isn't Real Fuels; it's something much smaller.

You guys are killing me : I have not updated to 1.0.3/1.0.4 yet.

Still doing a bit of troubleshooting. Wish I could grab a clean install of 1.0.2, but Steam only lets me have 0.90 or 1.0.4. I'm not getting that specific error any more, which makes me regret posting so early. Let's take a brief moment to make sure I'm not an idiot. In the past, I used to be able to right-click a part and change tech level and engine config right from there. Now I no longer have those tweakables, but I can click "Engine Show GUI" and get a popup window that lets me change that stuff. Is this an intentional change, or do I actually have a problem?

I'm having some trouble with RealFuels. I'm not sure when it started happening, but I no longer have tweakables for tech level and fuel. I can make some adjustments to these using "Show Engine GUI", but not everything. When I look at my log, I get this error repeatedly: [EXC 11:51:31.853] ArgumentException: Getting control 1's position in a group with only 1 controls when doing Repaint Aborting UnityEngine.GUILayoutGroup.GetNext () UnityEngine.GUILayoutUtility.DoGetRect (UnityEngine.GUIContent content, UnityEngine.GUIStyle style, UnityEngine.GUILayoutOption[] options) UnityEngine.GUILayoutUtility.GetRect (UnityEngine.GUIContent content, UnityEngine.GUIStyle style, UnityEngine.GUILayoutOption[] options) UnityEngine.GUILayout.DoButton (UnityEngine.GUIContent content, UnityEngine.GUIStyle style, UnityEngine.GUILayoutOption[] options) UnityEngine.GUILayout.Button (System.String text, UnityEngine.GUILayoutOption[] options) RealFuels.ModuleEngineConfigs.engineManagerGUI (Int32 WindowID) UnityEngine.GUILayout+LayoutedWindow.DoWindow (Int32 windowID) UnityEngine.GUI.CallWindowDelegate (UnityEngine.WindowFunction func, Int32 id, UnityEngine.GUISkin _skin, Int32 forceRect, Single width, Single height, UnityEngine.GUIStyle style) It seemed like it might be relevant. Does it look familiar? I'm using 1.02, and I've uninstalled all of my mods except Real Fuels and its dependencies, though I haven't always used CKAN and my install might be a little "dirty" somewhere.

Quick bug report: the RD-0120 engine from Bobcat's Soviet Engine Pack is given an ISP of 760.443 s SL / 941.0 s vac, which is impossibly high; the real ISP is more like 359 / 455.

Although it might be slightly out of scope for an "engine config" pack, I was hoping you'd consider including configs for the fuel cells included in stock and some mods which convert LiquidFuel and Oxidizer into electricity.

That looks awesome. I love it. I see it has a size tweakable; does that start at the bottom of the piece and grow upward, start at the top and grow down, or center on the piece and grow in both directions?

There is some discussion in the FAR thread about a possible problem with Procedural Parts. It starts here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/20451-1-0-2-Ferram-Aerospace-Research-v0-15-1-Fanno-5-10-15?p=1951896&viewfull=1#post1951896 And in the following post, it is speculated that the fuel tank has a hole in the bottom and so when FAR sweeps back and forth it sees a discontinuity: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/20451-1-0-2-Ferram-Aerospace-Research-v0-15-1-Fanno-5-10-15?p=1952247&viewfull=1#post1952247 I'm posting it here so that it can be looked at by the Procedural Parts team.

Is there a way to add comments to a PRNL file, and have AutoPruner ignore them? I would appreciate this feature, so I could include my logic for pruning things a certain way.

I love this mod, and I consider it to be one of the most important ones available for KSP. In my opinion, Procedural Parts' greatest virtue is its ability to eliminate large numbers of parts, decluttering the UI and saving lots of RAM (which is incredibly important with the ~3 GB RAM limit). I have a few suggestions that have occurred to me as I've played. I don't know anything about their technical feasibility, so I apologize if I'm asking the impossible. First, earlier in the thread someone suggested slanted parts; I'd like to second that suggestion. I'd love to eliminate the various slanted adapters and be able to make custom ones. Second, a hopefully small and easy one to implement: procedural reaction wheels. Procedural probe cores might be a reasonably simple spinoff from that. Simple cylindrical drone cores with batteries and reaction wheels that scale with size would be great; procedural stock-like polyhedrons might come later. Third, procedural crew compartments. Let me adjust the size of the module, divide by the volume required per Kerbal, and round down. Not referring to command capsules here, just parts with Kerbal-carrying capacity. Fourth, and tangentially related to the above, allow repeating of textures in addition to stretching. Maybe have a "repeat texture" slider that defaults to 1; if I increase it to 3, repeat the texture vertically three times instead of stretching it to fill the whole part. Maybe even include "repeat vertical" and "repeat horizontal" sliders. This occurred to me because I felt like the best texture for a procedural crew compartment would be like an airplane fuselage, with a line of windows, but it'd be better for such a texture to repeat rather than stretch, so you get more windows on a longer part. Finally, and perhaps most important to me, the gap between procedural decouplers and procedural heat shields drives me NUTS. The decoupler only contacts at the very center of the heat shield. I have a few thoughts on how to address this, and hopefully one of them will turn out to be practical. For the most part, my ideas center around giving decouplers a cylindrical extension upward. This could be hollow (though I know you do not intend to implement parts with holes in them, I don't know if this would "count"), or it could be filled in but the attachment node could be buried inside. Either way, the gap between the decoupler and the heat shield would be filled. Perhaps procedural decouplers could detect procedural heatshields above them and extend appropriately, or maybe they could have a "heat shield fairing" check box. Maybe they could have an adjustable "fairing height" slider; something like that might even allow procedural decouplers to cover engines that lack their own fairings or whose fairings are smaller than the parts around them.