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

[Jasmir]

I just tried tha latest version. In VAB tank size and form doesn't change, it will only update when on the launchpad…

Funfact: Only the cylinders are affected. (Normal and filled) The Cones are working...

[mecki]

And: When I have Procedural Parts installed, the Tweakable diameter of e.g. the Procedural Fairings just disappears.

When I uninstall Procedural Parts, all other mods work again.

Other mods with KSPAPI installed (all up-to-date):

Infernal Robotics

Tweakscale

Procedural Fairings

[lajoswinkler]

Ok, now it's totally bonkers.

Can't resize anything, can't change shape of the tanks...

[Master Tao]

Ok, now it's totally bonkers.

Can't resize anything, can't change shape of the tanks...

That looks like the KSPAPIExtensions conflict. This new version should handle different versions more gracefully in the future, but only after all the other modders have had time to update. e-dog has already updated Procedural Fairings, and sirkut is aware of the new version and planning to update Infernal Robotics.

The new version is probably not a drop-in replacement for old versions, so you'll just have to wait. You can still use old versions until they're all updated.

[lordkrike]

That looks like the KSPAPIExtensions conflict. This new version should handle different versions more gracefully in the future, but only after all the other modders have had time to update. e-dog has already updated Procedural Fairings, and sirkut is aware of the new version and planning to update Infernal Robotics.

The new version is probably not a drop-in replacement for old versions, so you'll just have to wait. You can still use old versions until they're all updated.

Interestingly, even with only Procedural Parts 1.7, you get the same error. It's not just KSPAPIE.

[boribori]

I have the same issue as above with 0.9.17.

In addition, before I updated Procedural Parts, I updated to the latest version of Extraplanetary Launchpads (4.2.3) today which totally broke Procedural Parts 0.9.16. It did remove the KSPAPI message at start up, so I guess that's the culprit.

I also removed the scale.dll from Goodspeed Aerospace and I updated to the latest KAS fix. I reverted those changes back and forth and those didn't seem to have any influence on this issue. (removing Goodspeed's scale.dll did fix another tweakscale issue though).

The different combos I tried:

PP 0.9.16 and EL 4.2.2: everything ok.

PP 0.9.16 and EL 4.2.3: procedural parts won't resize in VAB, existing ships fall apart (the procedural parts set back to default).

PP 0.9.17 and EL 4.2.2 or EL 4.2.3: procedural parts won't resize in VAB, existing ships are fine.

I didn't think of saving the logs in between, sorry.

Thanks for the great mod!

[lajoswinkler]

That looks like the KSPAPIExtensions conflict. This new version should handle different versions more gracefully in the future, but only after all the other modders have had time to update. e-dog has already updated Procedural Fairings, and sirkut is aware of the new version and planning to update Infernal Robotics.

The new version is probably not a drop-in replacement for old versions, so you'll just have to wait. You can still use old versions until they're all updated.

It worked with the version right before the latest one. I don't have that one anymore.

[TK421d]

im having the same troubles, except i can see the tweakers for size, they just dont do anything when i use them.

[Master Tao]

Interestingly, even with only Procedural Parts 1.7, you get the same error. It's not just KSPAPIE.

Confirmed* on KSP 0.24.2 (Mac) in my stock install with a fresh sandbox save. Normally, I'd say "post your logs," but I see no errors/exceptions in my player.log.

*The differences I'm seeing can probably be attributed to platform differences: the context menu works, but shape selection is partially broken and the diameter slider doesn't affect the part.

[gh7531]

*The differences I'm seeing can probably be attributed to platform differences: the context menu works, but shape selection is partially broken and the diameter slider doesn't affect the part.

I have the same with my install WIN 7 64bit in 64bit and 32bit ksp. Before the update it worked just fine.

[NathanKell]

Apologies. I will deal with this.

[Northstar1989]

@NathanKell

I apologize if this has been asked too much for your liking- but did you eventually figure out a way to implement some sort of procedural cost for this mod in 0.24.2 Career Mode?

It looks like RealChutes mod has managed to implement procedural part costs somehow (as of its July 27th update- based on part mass and canopy size), so it might be worth looking into if you haven't managed it yet for this mod:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/57988-0-24-x-RealChute-Parachute-Systems-Procedural-cost!-v1-2-3-27-07-14

The most logical system to me would seem to be to base the base cost of the fuel tank on part dry mass, and the dry mass and fuel capacity on the Square-Cube Law and the geometric laws governing change in surface area and volume for various shapes (this is IMPORTANT- a 5 meter fuel cylinder has a MUCH better fuel fraction in real life than a 2.5 meter cylinder due to the Square-Cube Law!)

A 5 meter tall, 5 meter diameter fuel cylinder compared to a 2.5 meter fuel cylinder of the came proportions (one with half the diameter and height), for instance, should have 4 times the surface area (and thus dry mass and cost), but 8 times the volume! (and thus a better fuel fraction)

So, to use arbitrary numbers, but with the proper geometrical equations; if the Base Cost were figured as 100 Funds per 3.14159 square meter of surface area:

2.5 meter cylinder, 2.5 m tall

S.A. 25 pi m^2

Volume 15.625 pi m^3

Base Cost 2500 Funds

5 meter cylinder, 5 m tall

S.A. 100 pi m^2

Volume 125 pi m^3

Base Cost 10000 Funds

This ignores the factor that the walls of the 5 meter cylinder would probably be thicker than that of the 2.5 meter cylinder, of course- but they wouldn't need to be twice as thick (for the same strength and safety factor in engineering), so the larger cylinder would still be cheaper/lighter per cubic meter of volume!

Regards,

Northstar

Edited August 3, 2014 by Northstar1989

[lordkrike]

Apologies. I will deal with this.

No need for that, you're a volunteer!

But that'll teach you to push out an update and then go to sleep.

[Northstar1989]

@NathanKell

A worked example for a pair of (tall) conical adapters using the same base price per square meter of Surface Area:

1.25 meter top, 2.5 meter base, 2.5 meters tall

S.A. 17.48 pi m^2

Volume 9.766 pi m^3

Base Cost 1748 Funds

2.5 meter top, 5 meter base, 5 meters tall

S.A. 69.90 pi m^3

Volume 78.125 pi m^3

Base Cost 7812.5 Funds

Note that, as before, when the proportions are kept in the same ratios, but doubled; the volume increases by a factor of 8, but the surface area only increases by a factor of 4.

The necessary thickness of the walls for the the total rocket (assuming wider stages are placed towards the bottom), meanwhile, can best be modeled as a very tall, thin cone that has a height equal to the rocket. The radius of the cone at any given point is proportional to the amount of structural material needed to support all the weight above that point. A cone works for the model shape (even though idealized structures have a slope that gradually decreases towards the base) because real rockets are built to designed safety margins- and the statistical error of deviations in construction becomes smaller and smaller in absolute terms the thicker the thicker the walls/ larger the structure. Plus, real rocketry materials are so strong the change in slope is relatively small over the height of the idealized model to begin with. It would be different if you were building out of something like soap or soggy cardboard.

It should quickly be noted that the upper third of the cone only contains only a tiny proportion of the total structural material, whereas the lower third contains far more material than the two upper two thirds combined. The degree of taper of the cone is proportional to the strength-to-weight ratio of the material. However, the effect of increasing wall thickness on fuel tank cost with any reasonable-sized rocket is relatively trivial- especially since the cost-per-mm does not increase linearly (thinner walls are relatively much more expensive to construct per kilogram of material than thicker walls, due to manufacturing costs.)

Players using larger-diameter fuel tanks for the upper stages of a rocket also cannot be taken for a given- perhaps a player is launching a large, EMPTY fuel depot, for instance- which will only be filled in zero-G. And the strength the rocket needs to be built to increases with its TWR. Plus, on top of all this, real rockets make use of advanced composite materials and structures like honeycomb-walls that have strengths that are different from that of the underlying material (Metamaterials, basically), so it's probably not worth trying to work through all the possible complexities. All in all, I think it's best to ignore the effect of increasing wall thickness with part diameter on rocket cost.

I would be more than happy to help you figure out/implement the proper equations to apply for price and mass-scaling for each of the different shapes available in Procedural Parts (PM me if you're interested in my help). One of my best subjects was Geometry back in my high school days (though I've now graduated from Graduate School).

Regards,

Northstar

Edited August 3, 2014 by Northstar1989

[lajoswinkler]

Could there be a way to introduce right n-prism parts? For example, that would make include triangular prisms, cubes and cuboids, pentagonal prisms, where n is the number of prisms. When n is infinite, you get a cylinder, obviously.

[acc]

I updated all my mods except pParts, but it breaks anyway (like described from others here). Guess it even breakes if another mod has the new KSPAPIE included.

If needed:

- output_log

- gamedata dump

[NathanKell]

lordkrike: indeed. >.>

acc: I've been working on that this evening. What's infuriating is that with only PP installed in a clean KSP install, *nothing* shows as an error in the log.

Northstar: thanks for the offer! Right now my plan is just to balance things with stock values; if one cares about realistic costs, one is liable to want to use RF etc anyway. OtherBarry has come up with some nice generic functions for matching stock values, so that shouldn't be too hard. (Note that with .24.1, we do have procedural cost support, which, though imperfect in terms of UI support, does work.)

[OtherBarry]

I would be more than happy to help you figure out/implement the proper equations to apply for price and mass-scaling for each of the different shapes available in Procedural Parts (PM me if you're interested in my help).

Thanks for the offer Northstar. As NK said, I've already started working on it, and while I quite like your ideas on how it ought to be done, a core part of this mod is to keep it as close to stock as possible, which unfortunately means slightly less consistency, but gives the mod a more balanced feel with the game. For example, Standard fuel tanks (LF+Ox) have their priced based off Cost = 2*(LF units + Ox units), while plane fuselages use Cost = Mass*800.

Depending on how cost gets implemented, it would be good to develop your ideas further once the realism mods (RSS/RO) get proper support of career mode.

[marce]

Hi Nathan, just a quick heads-up: I have to admit I only checked with the LFO tank, but PP does not want to scale the cylinder shape. The other shapes (like cone etc.) seem to work fine and I can also switch shape, but while it's set to cylinder size and content does not change.

I looked through the log and found absolutely nothing related to PP, which is really strange, sorry!

Personally I'm expecting some problems with KAE and the other users of it (PF, TweakScale), but don't have a real evidence, just a gut feeling on which I won’t blame anyone

[Cocox]

Can you please make tanks for the Karbonite mod?

[Master Tao]

Cocox,

Check out page 2: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/89407-3-Aug-Bits-and-pieces-for-Karbonite

[SebFierce]

Hi Nathan, just a quick heads-up: I have to admit I only checked with the LFO tank, but PP does not want to scale the cylinder shape. The other shapes (like cone etc.) seem to work fine and I can also switch shape, but while it's set to cylinder size and content does not change.

I looked through the log and found absolutely nothing related to PP, which is really strange, sorry!

Personally I'm expecting some problems with KAE and the other users of it (PF, TweakScale), but don't have a real evidence, just a gut feeling on which I won’t blame anyone

I think it's because of the new 1.35 KAE plugin.

[marce]

I think it's because of the new 1.35 KAE plugin.

Isn't the latest version 1.7? Anyway, I wanted to report it since there might be the need for a recompile.

[Master Tao]

I believe SebFierce is confusing TweakScale with KAE. In any case, NathanKell is working on it:

I've been working on that this evening. What's infuriating is that with only PP installed in a clean KSP install, *nothing* shows as an error in the log.

It's a mischievous little bug that must result from some interaction between PP and KAE that neither PF or TS has.

[marce]

It's a mischievous little bug that must result from some interaction between PP and KAE that neither PF or TS has.

Ahh, I missed that. Poor guy, we should send him an extra stack of boosters