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

[Warq]

Is there a way to auto snap the ends to fit irregular fuselage shapes so maybe it could snap to the and of the Mk2 fuselage and have a nice seamless transition?

[sharpspoonful]

Question: is there a way to add the plugin to other parts? I would like to add the Procedural Parts plugin to the large and small truss sections of the IR model/texture reworks for adding a "spine" to my stations. I've gotten away doing so by shimming pieces together, but it can be a bit slap-dash and KSP sometimes doesn't like that.

[SpacedInvader]

Any chance of getting procedural Russian style booster tanks?

[OtherBarry]

Any chance of getting procedural Russian style booster tanks?

Not yet. From what I understand, that requires extruded shapes, which most likely won't be made possible for a few months. You can kind of cheat one by radially attaching a long conic tank and then clipping some parts to give it a flat base.

[SpacedInvader]

Not yet. From what I understand, that requires extruded shapes, which most likely won't be made possible for a few months. You can kind of cheat one by radially attaching a long conic tank and then clipping some parts to give it a flat base.

I'll give that a try, but I've never had much luck with part clipping... things tend to become unpredictable...

[nanowinner]

I have a bug to report but I don't want to register at GitHub.

I used a B9 capsule and an Proc. SRB only to test the mod. I made the SRB pretty big and this is what it looks like in the VAB + it's details:

Everything looks normal, right? Right?

Whoa, what? And this is before the game has fully loaded. Once it loads, BAD things happen.

My Kerbals are suddenly flung left at speeds around the one showing with a crazy rotation bounding their fate to die in a blaze.

The problem is avoidable IF I use clamps so the ship is lifted from the ground but the bug is still there. I successfully replicated the bug so it wasn't a one-time thing.

I hope this help in the development of this wonderful mod!

[R0cketC0der]

I have a bug to report but I don't want to register at GitHub.

I used a B9 capsule and an Proc. SRB only to test the mod. I made the SRB pretty big and this is what it looks like in the VAB + it's details:

http://i.imgur.com/MY73JSQ.jpg

Everything looks normal, right? Right?

http://i.imgur.com/SvkuXeT.png

Whoa, what? And this is before the game has fully loaded. Once it loads, BAD things happen.

http://i.imgur.com/xqGmVub.png

My Kerbals are suddenly flung left at speeds around the one showing with a crazy rotation bounding their fate to die in a blaze.

The problem is avoidable IF I use clamps so the ship is lifted from the ground but the bug is still there. I successfully replicated the bug so it wasn't a one-time thing.

I hope this help in the development of this wonderful mod!

This is a known bug. Check the "known issues" in the OP.

[nanowinner]

I am sorry for posting it then and thank you for the lighting fast reply.

Should I delete the post (including this one) or should I leave it so people can learn from my ignorance?

[OtherBarry]

I am sorry for posting it then and thank you for the lighting fast reply.

Should I delete the post (including this one) or should I leave it so people can learn from my ignorance?

Meh, up to you. As you have now seen, If people aren't going to learn from the first post, they're probably not going to learn from yours. Nonetheless, thanks for the clear and concise bug report. It's a lot more helpful than people just complaining about things not working/exploding/whatever.

[Tortoise]

This mod is awesome, all it needs is a procedural SAS, so I don't have to mess up the beautiful colors on my rocket with a default SAS module.

[OtherBarry]

This mod is awesome, all it needs is a procedural SAS, so I don't have to mess up the beautiful colors on my rocket with a default SAS module.

It'd be pretty easy to make one, but you'd be limited to a set torque and power consumption. Just copy the structural element cfg file and add the sas module lines to it.

[jsimmons]

The math to do SAS properly for scaling is a bit more complicated. I would say another low hanging piece of fruit would be procedural docking ports.

[OtherBarry]

The math to do SAS properly for scaling is a bit more complicated. I would say another low hanging piece of fruit would be procedural docking ports.

The docking module isn't something i've ever really looked at, but from what I gather, it's related to attachment node size being the same, which would theoretically already work with the current PP setup. Not saying it won't happen, but what would you need procedural docking ports for? I've never really felt limited with the stock ones....

Also, I remember you looking into this earlier, but can't remember where, so what is it that complicates SAS scaling?

Edit: Looking into it, it's seems to just be just making sure that

	nodeType = size<x>  

are the same on both ports. This is a tad more complex, but still doable (eventually), assuming it works with decimal places and the like. TweakScale might work better for this sort of thing, as docking ports wouldn't look great using the current shapes.

Edited July 1, 2014 by OtherBarry

[PetWolverine]

This is an essential mod - thank you swamp_ig for your work on it.

I was wondering if there's a way to change the energy density of the batteries. Realism Overhaul changes the storage capacity of stock batteries and those from other mods, standardizing (I think) on 1 charge = 1 kW*s = 1kJ. The capacities end up much higher and leave the procedural batteries in the dust. I didn't see anything for energy density in the config; this would be a nice thing to add.

Also, with the ability to change the energy density would come the possibility of making it tech-dependent. After all, as far as realism, there's no sense in having a limit on the size of a battery (other than a very small minimum size) - you can always pile on more batteries and stick them in a bigger metal tube. But as technology advances, we get more watt-hours with less mass and volume.

[NathanKell]

Just to follow up, RO energy density is 3600x what stock's is. (Based on the battery weight of Ranger 5 IIRC).

[Gumysh]

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?

Edited July 3, 2014 by Gumysh
typos and phrasing, sorry for my English

[merendel]

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?

As a short term solution you could use the BZ and stick a procedural structural structural element on it to make a sort of gheto procedural girder. It would let you adjust the length and such and would have a node on the end for you to use. You could also make a copy of the BZ and give it a rescale factor of 2 to make it larger should you find a need for a 2.5 radial attachment point. Its in the utility folder instead of the structural one for some strange reason.

[jrandom]

I've got an odd interaction between tweakscaled parts and the bottom node of procedural parts: When loading a saved craft, the tweakscaled part appears below a gap instead of being flush with the node like it was when it was saved. This only occurs when attaching underneath a procedural part. No gaps appear below, nor above if attached to a non-procedural part.

Anyone know of a fix for this?

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Mihara]

I've got an odd interaction between tweakscaled parts and the bottom node of procedural parts: When loading a saved craft, the tweakscaled part appears below a gap instead of being flush with the node like it was when it was saved. This only occurs when attaching underneath a procedural part. No gaps appear below, nor above if attached to a non-procedural part.

...I can confirm that this happened to me at least once, but I thought it was random.

Thinking back on that, yes, it's indeed interaction of some kind with procedural parts.

[Crimor]

For some reason, my game has stopped loading at proceduralTankSRB after I used it the first time(When I launched the vessel the game crashed), The game isn't freezing when it gets to that part, but it just keeps trying to load proceduralTankSRB forever. Even deleting the save doesn't seem to have helped.

Deleting the mod, starting the game up, quitting, and putting the mod back in seems to have fixed it.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Crimor

[Tyrador]

I've got an odd interaction between tweakscaled parts and the bottom node of procedural parts: When loading a saved craft, the tweakscaled part appears below a gap instead of being flush with the node like it was when it was saved. This only occurs when attaching underneath a procedural part. No gaps appear below, nor above if attached to a non-procedural part.

Anyone know of a fix for this?

http://imgur.com/a/Xl8sF

I can confirm this as well. Sometimes for me it even happens on orbit.

[NathanKell]

Both mods modify the position of the tweakscaled part. Sounds like one is doing it before the other resizes, thus the movement is incorrect.

[jrandom]

Both mods modify the position of the tweakscaled part. Sounds like one is doing it before the other resizes, thus the movement is incorrect.

Any way around it? I'd love to be able to use tweakscaled cargo bays to build sophisticated service modules, and unlike procedural fairings, I can radially attach RCS thrusters to the (non-door) sides of a cargo bay.

[NathanKell]

Yes, one mod has to add special handling for the other.

Or, they have to recognize when they are being loaded (vs. edited) and not touch positions in only that case. That could also work, I think.

[NoMrBond]

Having an issue with PP 0.9.14 and Infernal Robotics 0.16.5a (under 0.23.5)

If you (node) attach a procedural structural part directly to a rotatron robotics part, that part will suddenly twist/flex when the vessel is loaded, often to the point of destruction

If this is done with symmetry, only the initial part (but not the symmetrically added ones) will do this

If you use a spacer (any regular structural part) between the PPart and the IR rotatron, it works fine (similarly attaching directly to other parts seems fine)

More testing for specifics to follow when I have time

Edited July 6, 2014 by NoMrBond