RadarManFromTheMoon

Since the new super fancy FAR got released, I have a little anouncement to make: Yes, PP makes FAR revoxelize the craft after changing the shape of a part. So it should be fully compatible. You can check that by pressing alt-F12 and open the debug console. A Message like "voxelization something something" should pop up everytime the shape gets updated. However, if you encounter any weirdness. Please let me know.

Seems like we missed updating the battery. Thanks for the heads up. Sounds good. I'll put it on the list. I cannot reproduce that. Can you please upload the full output.log (not KSP.log, see here how to find it). Any other mods installed? If so, I need a list of all your installed mods.

It's not explicitly in the changelog (mainly because FAR wasnt released then) but ProceduralParts should already be compatible with FAR.

You can find information about changing the tech requirements on the first post of the thread.

I just released version 1.1. For download link and changelog please follow this link Note that there are still some problems with this release: The part preview list in editor mode always shows the same old cylinder with the same texture. Launching a craft that consists entirely out of procedural parts causes KSP to crash. avoid using the root changing tool in editor since it causes weirdness when procedural parts are involved. I will push a hotfix as soon as I have a solution.

Nope, it is not running yet. 1.0 is a big update and I just started to dig through every part of the mod to see what needs attention.

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 = 1.0 RESOURCE { 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 m³) I'm not sure what happens if you use both at the same time but they might just get added together.

Seems to be a RealFuels issue (source, second comment) You can change the "length" of the decoupler in the config file. Parts with "holes" in them are not planned however (like the OP states). Yeah, seems like really big parts are causing problems occasionally. I'm aware of it but so far I haven't figured out the reason. Would be nice indeed, but I don't think bulkheads would be feasible to implement. Standard parts are much more detailed while procedural parts are very flexible. It's not easy to get both. That doesn't mean that there is no room for improvement in the future though. But at the moment there are other priorities, like getting 0.90 part clipping running, balancing, and new shapes.

Nope, not a known bug. Please read this on how to get support. "It's not working" is not enough information to figure out whats wrong.

Are you using other mods like RealFuels, ModularFuelSystem, RO...? Also does the Bug occur only with SRBs or also on normal fuel tanks? Looks interesting. Maybe in the future. Thats a known bug. Part clipping and PP doen't go well together. I'm on it, but it might take some time to fix.

OtherBarry is working on the Karbonite integration. I don't know how far he has come with it though. If you already have a working and balanced config could you please contact him? No need for the same thing to be done twice, after all

Oops. What I really meant is not ballonet pressure, but envelope pressure. Since the ballonet can not deflate any further and athmospheric pressure decreases with altitude, the envelopes pressure relative to the outside pressure will rise, causing the hull to fail eventually. This would happen even in a rigid airship unless gas is vented (or stored otherwise) to avoid that. The pressure of the inflated ballonet is not taken into account at all at the moment. The opposite case however would be the envelope getting compressed by increasing athmospheric pressure while sinking. There are two scenarios now: A) The lifting gas is stored directly in the envelopes hull. The hull cannot counteract relative pressure changes since it is rigid. While sinking, the atmospheric pressure would start crushing the now underpressured hull. Inflating the ballonets prevents this by reducing the envelopes effective volume, thus increasing the pressure of the lifting gas. This is how PA currently works and it is a troublesome approach since ballonets would control both buoyant volume (lift) and pressure. The Aeroscraft works very similar but instead of controlling the buoyant volume with the ballonets, it compresses lifting gas into the "HPEs" and uses ballonets only as a pressure balancing measure. the lifting gas is stored inside a bladder inside the envelopes hull and can expand freely, The volume not used by the gas would get occupied by air. Buoyancy control would only be possible through ballast and gas venting. It's the oldschool way of airship construction. These are the problems I would say PA is facing at the moment: -PA envelopes are blackboxes. You can not really look inside them so it is not easy to make sense out of the values provided by the right-click-menu. A Flight mode GUI with gauges would help a bit but besides that my vision for PA would be an editor that lets the player decide how the Envelope is structured inside. This way it would be possible to use various airship techniques or even try out new ones. The downside would be that it is not exactly a trivial task to realize something like that. -KSP is a space exploration game so of course it would be nice to let player take their airships into space. Non rigid airships that can get inflated/deflated would be the solution. Again, not trivial to realize. Thanks for your offer to help. It is very much appreciated. Are you fimiliar with fluid dynamics? The ideal gas calculations work quite well but so far, I was failing to grasp things like: How fast does a fluid flow from one vessel into another given a pressure difference and valve diameter. Or, maybe more important: How quickly does lifting gas temperature change in respect to athmospheric temperature/pressure changes. Thanks for the headsup on the HAVOC project. Thats a really fascinating idea. Would be great if something like that would be realized within our lifetime. (I'm actually a bit pessimistic when it comes to bigger(or even manned) missions )

At the moment, PA very much relies on ballonets, which are basically balloons filled with air inside the envelopes. So when you are inflating your ballonet you are basically drawing surrounding air into the envelope (and by doing so increase pressure/reduce static lift). So what you typically what to do is start with inflated ballonets and deflate them gradually while climbing in order to give the lifting gas more room to expand. Withing a distinct pressure margin you can also use the ballonets to influence buoyancy. However, after all your critique is very valid and I'm already working on an more or less complete overhaul to adress these problems. Here is a little insight on what I'm planning: PA, in its current form, actually mixes up some concepts. Ballonets, for example, are actually more common on non-rigid, than on rigid airships. Thats also where the "explode on venting" problem comes from. PA just checks the relative pressure of the ballonet and, if it exceeds a distinct margin, causes an explosion. That actually wouldnt happen in a rigid airship since the gas-"bag" could "shrink" inside the ballonet after venting gas. So to make everything more realistic and interesting I'm planning to introduce "modular envelopes". The idea is basically a lot like modular fuel tanks/real fuels. An envelope has a volume and the player can then add modules and choose how much of that volume these modules should take. This would make it possible to add fuel/lifting gas/ballast etc. tanks into the envelope or to use ballonets or pressurized envelopes like the aeroscraft uses it. One more thing: I'm actually not an expert on airships. I see PA very much as a way to learn more about them and how they work. If there are airship "enthusiasts" out there who wanna help and/or can provide detailed information/literature tips on the subject, that would be very much appreciated.

Sorry guys. I had a little break from KSP lately. Needed to see and do other things. Looks like there have been some issues with the conic shapes lately. Unfortunately, so far, I failed to reproduce any of them. :/ Screenshots are great but I really, really, really need precise reproduction steps and logs. Otherwise it's really hard to pinpoint and fix the problem.

After releasing, I had this rising worry that I might have overdone it a bit on the triangle count. :/ Well, easiest way would be to replace the dll with the one from the previous release. But that will of course revert the SRB bugfix. I will release a less agressively reduced version shortly. Maybe I can even make it configurable. edit: I released version 1.0.2 wich is exactly like 1.0.1 but without the poly reduction. I think I might can reduce polygons in a less visible way in a future release.

I agree with OtherBarry.The idea is interesting, but out of scope of PP. If someone wants to develop such a mod, I will happily help integrating it with PP. edit: I just released Version 1.0.1 it is a hotfix release mainly aimed to resolve a bug that appeared when placing the root part below a procedural SRB. Also: Procedural Parts now use much less polygons which should increase performance especially when bigger parts are used but may look awkward on smaller ones. Feedback on this is highly appreciated. Changelog: Fixed a bug that appeared when the stack below a procedural SRB contained the root part. Added procedural liquid fuel tank cone Tweaked nose cone cost and mass Cost display now shows dry and actual cost Shapes now use much less polygons

Hmmm.. I understand your concerns regarding security, but IMHO limiting connections to the loopback is overkill. What about a whitelist which, by default, only contains 172.0.0.1? This way everyone could define explicitly which connections are trustworthy.

Oh! I see. I don't think thats going to happen. Adding a new shape is not a trivial thing to do. Shouldn't be a problem to use the existing shapes to build pontoons by setting an appropriate density though.

I think the solution to the riddle is that you compare the hex cans with the PP parts. The PP parts are balanced against the cylindric tanks. (no hexagonal shapes in PP) screenshot1 screenshot2 If EL is inconsistent in itself, there is nothing I can do about it.

I'm not sure what you mean. Couldn't you use normal radial attachment? Strange... I will do some testing on RSS. Either I have overlooked something, or we are talking about different things. Logs and Screenshots always help Is the bug appearing on a newly launched, or on a previously existing vessel? We try to match stock balancing as good as we can. But it's not 100% possible since PP calculates those parameters in a linear way. Stock parts, however, don't scale linearly. So yes you could delete all stock tanks and use PP instead of them. But it won't be exactly like in stock. Yes it should work as intended. (of course) - Not sure how you got to 0.17, but not only the dry density, also the capacity changed. Might that explain the discrepancy? What I posted on the prevoius thread are the changes since 0.9.21. The changelog in the download contains the changes since 0.9 and is a bit compressed. Maybe a bit too compressed so sorry for the confusion. A note on the TACLS tanks: These are balanced based on the 1.25 m TACLS tanks and should obey the new ratios. Bigger and smaller tanks might deviate a little bit from their originals because TACLS tanks don't scale in a linear way.

Whoopsie. I am not able to edit the OP. Get it here

Not really planned. But it would be nice indeed and I might see what I can do after finding a solution to make part clipping possible. I can not change the OP and thread title. But OtherBarry will open a new thread in the release forum soon.

Resource amounts are now persistent after loading a craft in editor Fixed the "wandering SRB bell" bug Working tech limits in science sandbox mode Cost and mass adjustments (Extraplanetary and TAC life support tanks) Version file now uses the correct version format Get it here: https://github.com/Swamp-Ig/ProceduralParts/releases

kerbalstuff seems to be down. it should work with mods hosted on github.

had a little browse through the HL source and I think you are right. PA does not have such a "slow-down button" but anchoring with KAS should work.