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

[White Owl]

I take back what I said about the textures reverting to default. One part's custom texture reverted to default, and that was one I'd been messing with last night; so that's my fault. Sorry, I get angry and don't think straight, and post stupid things.

No craft file; this is a complex orbital construction kind of thing. I'd share the persistent file... but this is a seriously modded install. I doubt anybody else has my same mixture of mods, or would want to install the whole mess, complete with manually removing half the parts to avoid the RAM limit. (One reason I love this mod!)

In an hour or so, after my PC finishes rendering a video, I'll load up the game and look at the log.

[swamp_ig]

Actually I'm thinking about it - I think I know what's going to be the issue:

In the old version of MM anytime a mod touched some module, but not any others, then that module would be moved to the end of the module list. This would have broken any saves depending on that part.

What's happened in the new version of MM, is that problem has been fixed. Unfortunately that means any saves you created (that would of course be broken with respect to what it should have been) will now be broken.

If you really want to fix it what I suggest is that you have a look at the save file, and the order of the modules as defined in it. Then save a craft or something with the same parts. Finally, edit your save so that they have the same order.

This is really a KSP bug that we don't (yet) have a workaround for. I have some ideas of how to fix it however and will be attempting to do something in that regard in the not too distant future.

[White Owl]

My output_log.txt shows initializing flight mode, then several hundred repetitions of PartModule is null. They all look like this, but for different parts:

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d3d49558e4d408f4/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 53)

Part CBM-A cannot load module #1. It only has 1 modules defined

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d3d49558e4d408f4/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 53)

PartModule is null.

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d3d49558e4d408f4/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 53)

Part CBM-A cannot load module #2. It only has 1 modules defined

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d3d49558e4d408f4/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 53)

PartModule is null.

Not having the experience and education to understand exactly what's going on there, I can only think that you were talking about modules getting changed around, and now these modules certainly appear to have something incorrect about them...

It's a good idea to manually fix it. that would work if this were some long term mission critical vessel. But honestly, I was thinking about deorbiting the whole station anyway to get rid of some totally unrelated problems. The thing is full of obsolete parts, and if I get rid of it I can update or uninstall several mods. It'll be fun!

[swamp_ig]

Cool bananas. It is what I think it is.

I'll repost this to the MM thread since it's going to affect other MM users too.

NB: you could likley downgrade MM to 2.0.8 and it would work again.

Edited May 5, 2014 by swamp_ig

[Benoit Hage]

Hello.

When I strectch a tank with this mod, it seems that the RCS Build Aid mod doesnt recognize the difference between the dry and the wet mass of the new formed part. Would it be possible to make RCS Build Aid able to make the difference like with a stock tank?

[Albert VDS]

How do you only use the TankContentSwitcher module? I copied the TankContentSwitcher portion of 1TankLiquid.cfg to an other part.cfg but the resource show NaN/0.00.

So how do you set the actual resource amount?

[swamp_ig]

How do you only use the TankContentSwitcher module? I copied the TankContentSwitcher portion of 1TankLiquid.cfg to an other part.cfg but the resource show NaN/0.00.

So how do you set the actual resource amount?

Please note - this is an entirely unsupported use which I've never even attempted.

But if you were to do this, you may well find that this source line might help you quite a bit.

You will of course need to figure out the volume for whatever you're applying it to.

[Albert VDS]

Thanks, swamp_ig. That did the trick.

[Rioliki]

I just encountered with fuel crossfeeding problem. No, decouplers are not fuel crosfeeding, but I need that in my craft. Of course it could be fixed by fuel tubes, but I think more broadly about that.

Is it possible to add fuel crossfeed toggle button? Not to all parts, only decouplers and structural. It would be very useful.

[AndreyATGB]

I just encountered with fuel crossfeeding problem. No, decouplers are not fuel crosfeeding, but I need that in my craft. Of course it could be fixed by fuel tubes, but I think more broadly about that.

Is it possible to add fuel crossfeed toggle button? Not to all parts, only decouplers and structural. It would be very useful.

You can just copy paste the .cfg and put true for fuel crossfeed. Remember to change its name though, don't want 2 parts with the same name.

[Rioliki]

Well, actually, I already did that. But now the point is “If PF has toggle crossfeed button, why PP haven`t?â€Â

[swamp_ig]

Seems reasonable to add cross-feed enabling, will do that at some unspecified time in the future.

[Rioliki]

Again about decouplers. After rotation of it you can`t not exactly know where is “upâ€Â. I mean, which side will be decoupled and which remains attached. Of course, it is easy to fix, if make it a separator, but separators makes a lot of debris. Most non-procedural decouplers have arrows on their texture or asymmetrical model to distinguish decoupled side. I guess, the simplest way to solve the problem – add a texture with the arrow.

Although forced to admit, that this is a problem of the third plan. There are more urgent.

[swamp_ig]

You could create a decoupler texture if you wanted

[TomatoSoup]

Again about decouplers. After rotation of it you can`t not exactly know where is “upâ€Â. I mean, which side will be decoupled and which remains attached. Of course, it is easy to fix, if make it a separator, but separators makes a lot of debris. Most non-procedural decouplers have arrows on their texture or asymmetrical model to distinguish decoupled side. I guess, the simplest way to solve the problem – add a texture with the arrow.

Although forced to admit, that this is a problem of the third plan. There are more urgent.

You can press space to reset its orientation.

[White Owl]

You could create a decoupler texture if you wanted

Or just use any existing texture that has a visually separate top and bottom.

[Rioliki]

Well, I did that for myself. But I doubt that anyone would want to use it.

Malevich would have been proud.

If someone need it:

              
         ArrowUP	{
		// by idiot
		sides
		{
			texture = ProceduralParts/Parts/Decoupler
			uScale = 8
			vScale = 1
                        autoScale = true
			autoWidthDivide = true
			autoHeightSteps = 1		
		}
		ends
		{
			texture = ProceduralParts/Parts/ends
		}
	}

[Azimech]

I made a 17,5m heatshield for a huge Eve lander. Ablatives are not consumed. The shield glows yellow-hot but it's temperature readout remains like ambient temp. Newest DR and PP 0.98.

[White Owl]

Rioliki, don't put yourself down. Simple and functional is good.

[OtherBarry]

I made a 17,5m heatshield for a huge Eve lander. Ablatives are not consumed. The shield glows yellow-hot but it's temperature readout remains like ambient temp. Newest DR and PP 0.98.

I replicated this as best I could, and it heated up correctly, but barely any ablative was consumed at all. I then tested it with 2.5m and 1.5m heatshields, and it seems to be around 2m that the heatshields switch from being overpowered to underpowered. For example, a 1.25m procedural heatshield has 5% ablative left post re-entry while same sized DRE has 50% left. Doing the same thing with 2.5m meter and I get 80% left on the procedural shield and 40% left on the DRE shield.

Hopefully we'll figure out why this is happening and fix it in time for the 1.0 release.

[Rioliki]

Thats better.

[Phredward]

Two questions:

Is it possible to get the keyboard-style resizing options like procedural fairings and the old stretchy SRB have? I really like the exact sizing options that the tweakable UI has, but when prototyping a craft, it's faster to be able to slide things around quickly.

I've noticed that when the top of a procedural fairing overlaps a procedural tank, a wavy line is produced. With stretchy SRB they merged smoothly (ie in a regular line), but now they look like a sin wav around the tank.

[Rioliki]

I give up. Was not worth trying. It requires a talent, which I do not have.

[AndreyATGB]

It's not bad, but it doesn't quite fit the style of stock parts. Should be OK considering some of the textures with PP are really weird as well.

[White Owl]

I think your first texture was the best.