Jump to content

[0.90WIP] Procedural Parts - Parts the way you want 'em 0.9.21, Dec 19

swamp_ig

By swamp_ig
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Would you prefer decouplers to:  

118 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you prefer decouplers to:

    • Closely as possible follow stock behaviour
      15
    • Have a sensible relation between size, decoupler force, and mass
      153

Recommended Posts

Motokid600

Motokid600

Posted
Posted

That exactly, but it'd be nice if the IS adapter could function like that so it can be edited. Either that or if I can just tweak the cfg so thrust can pass through it that'd work well enough. I'm trying to emulate the SaturnV stage separation perfectly. Stage1 burnout>decouple,ulage motors>Stage2 ignite>IS drop. And onward..

The problem is.. since I can't thrust through the IS adapter the rocket loses too much momentum before the IS is clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Azimech

Azimech

Posted
Posted
OP already said there would be no hollow shapes. Oval tanks already exist, just use two bezier cones.

I mean oval like the Mk2 tanks, those are not possible with bezier cones.

About the hollow shapes: I REALLY hope someone will reconsider. Building a gas turbine or a reciprocating engine is a very cumbersome and time consuming stuff this way, even with all the mods.

It's like gearheads are shunned or something, and everyone's focused on the macro stuff. Rocket parts enough but try to find a coil spring. I've been asking for months for a simple bearing and a cylinder, because I can see where KSP can expand once people are tired of building spaceships, planes and seeing dancing kerbals on empty planets. Someday a genius freak will build a working fluid dynamics simulation, everyone will want to build a working rocket engine and they'll find they can't find parts for building valves or a turbopump.

Someday stacking tanks won't be enough anymore. The hardliners will have ships 10K+ parts, with working electrical, hydraulic and mechanical systems designed by themselves. It will bring whole new magnitudes in realism and enjoyment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Uberdude9001

Uberdude9001

Posted
Posted (edited)
I mean oval like the Mk2 tanks, those are not possible with bezier cones.

About the hollow shapes: I REALLY hope someone will reconsider. Building a gas turbine or a reciprocating engine is a very cumbersome and time consuming stuff this way, even with all the mods.

It's like gearheads are shunned or something, and everyone's focused on the macro stuff. Rocket parts enough but try to find a coil spring. I've been asking for months for a simple bearing and a cylinder, because I can see where KSP can expand once people are tired of building spaceships, planes and seeing dancing kerbals on empty planets. Someday a genius freak will build a working fluid dynamics simulation, everyone will want to build a working rocket engine and they'll find they can't find parts for building valves or a turbopump.

Someday stacking tanks won't be enough anymore. The hardliners will have ships 10K+ parts, with working electrical, hydraulic and mechanical systems designed by themselves. It will bring whole new magnitudes in realism and enjoyment.

10,000 part ships aren't practical with KSP's engine. This mod has much more important issues that need dealing with, like the mass update issue.

Edited by Uberdude9001
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HoneyFox

HoneyFox

Posted
Posted
That exactly, but it'd be nice if the IS adapter could function like that so it can be edited. Either that or if I can just tweak the cfg so thrust can pass through it that'd work well enough. I'm trying to emulate the SaturnV stage separation perfectly. Stage1 burnout>decouple,ulage motors>Stage2 ignite>IS drop. And onward..

The problem is.. since I can't thrust through the IS adapter the rocket loses too much momentum before the IS is clear.

Try the hollow interstage adapter I uploaded in the ProcFairings thread... it has dedicated collider that will not block the engine's thrust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
swamp_ig

swamp_ig

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yeh tis all working. Just been trying to get RF working nicely.

It's going now, so just a bit of config tweaking for balance and hopefully will release when I get home from work today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OtherBarry

OtherBarry

Posted
Posted
Yeh tis all working. Just been trying to get RF working nicely.

It's going now, so just a bit of config tweaking for balance and hopefully will release when I get home from work today.

Yes! Thank you so much. With this and the ARM release, I don't think I'll have much of a life outside of KSP for a good few weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theSpeare

theSpeare

Posted
Posted

Getting a lot of this:


dest.radius>=0.0f

(Filename: ..\..\Core\Common\src\CapsuleShape.cpp Line: 133)

dest.radius>=0.0f

(Filename: ..\..\Core\Common\src\CapsuleShape.cpp Line: 133)

dest.radius>=0.0f

(Filename: ..\..\Core\Common\src\BoxShape.cpp Line: 126)

dest.radius>=0.0f

(Filename: ..\..\Core\Common\src\SphereShape.cpp Line: 96)

dest.radius>=0.0f

(Filename: ..\..\Core\Common\src\CapsuleShape.cpp Line: 133)

dest.radius>=0.0f

(Filename: ..\..\Core\Common\src\CapsuleShape.cpp Line: 133)

dest.radius>=0.0f

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Uberdude9001

Uberdude9001

Posted
Posted
OK haven't updated the first post yet, but here it is:

https://github.com/Swamp-Ig/ProceduralParts/releases/tag/0.8.0

I suspect there may be some munging of the configs of the SRBs for Real Fuels, I don't really use it so I've just taken a guess at how it should work.

How does one get this to work? It's missing ProceduralParts.dll and KSPAPIextensions.dll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
curiousepic

curiousepic

Posted
Posted

Is there a reason the Smooth Cone's top won't go any wider than 1.25? I got excited about recreating a classic/retro rocket design but immediately hit that roadblock. It's certainly possible in Stretchy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
swamp_ig

swamp_ig

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Is there a reason the Smooth Cone's top won't go any wider than 1.25? I got excited about recreating a classic/retro rocket design but immediately hit that roadblock. It's certainly possible in Stretchy.

This issue is now fixed, see first post to download. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Okay, I was going to test the earlier issue for you because I figured "who needs sleep?" and, well, this happened:

ObVFaWx.jpg

Also, I can't make the top of a cone bigger than the bottom, like before, which screws up a lot of my designs. I fear this save game is done for.

I'll test the craft loading/rendezvous for you tomorrow when I have a little time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
swamp_ig

swamp_ig

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Also, I can't make the top of a cone bigger than the bottom, like before, which screws up a lot of my designs. I fear this save game is done for.

I'll test the craft loading/rendezvous for you tomorrow when I have a little time.

You might find some save games work, but no promises. There's no easy way around that unfortunately - the part mass issue needs at least a relaunch to fix. I guess this is the thing with 'beta' software :huh:

It's deliberate that you can't make the bottom smaller than the top on cones. It solves some aesthetic and functional issues which I won't delve into here. You can always turn the cone upside-down if you need to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
swamp_ig

swamp_ig

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hmm... Might rethink something I've done there with regards to breaking saves. Problem is that to undo it will break saves again :huh:

Don't build anything until the next version is out that you want to keep!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
It's deliberate that you can't make the bottom smaller than the top on cones. It solves some aesthetic and functional issues which I won't delve into here. You can always turn the cone upside-down if you need to.

Sure, that just screws up craft that are in flight. Not a big deal, I get that this is in development.

Hmm... Might rethink something I've done there with regards to breaking saves. Problem is that to undo it will break saves again :huh:

I still have a backup of that save if you want me to test anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OtherBarry

OtherBarry

Posted
Posted
Curious ... not at home so can't test it till later tonight, but what radius sizes does this mod create? Including the new larger stock size?

I'm pretty sure it's infinite. I've had tanks they were 15 meters wide, so I'm sure the new 3.75 meter parts will work fine. When you do get around to playing it, can you let me know how well it works with 0.23.5? I've been holding back on updating my modded game in case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jsimmons

jsimmons

Posted
Posted (edited)

In some config files I have been working I now see the follow. The same is true for just building a normal rocket:

[LOG 18:47:15.196] System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object

at ProceduralParts.ProceduralAbstractShape.RaiseChangeAttachNodeSize (System.String name, Single minDia, Single area, Int32 size) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at ProceduralParts.ProceduralAbstractSoRShape.UpdateNodeSize (ProceduralParts.ProfilePoint pt, System.String nodeName) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at ProceduralParts.ProceduralAbstractSoRShape.WriteMeshes (System.Collections.Generic.LinkedList`1 pts) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at ProceduralParts.ProceduralAbstractSoRShape.WriteMeshes (.ProfilePoint[] pts) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at ProceduralParts.ProceduralShapeCylinder.UpdateShape (Boolean force) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at ProceduralParts.ProceduralAbstractShape.Update () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

Do you know what I'm doing wrong?

Edited by jsimmons
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...