NathanKell Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 swamp_ig: assuming you're doing all model changes on load, then KJR (which everyone should be using, basically) should properly interpret part size and set joints accordingly.jsimmons: it's actually pretty tough (unless I hit an inspiration, or taniwha gets one) to change MFT/RF tanks on the fly. There's certainly no existing support for it. That's why there were so many different stretchy RF tank types. I would like to allow changing on the fly for PP tanks, but...no ETA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamp_ig Posted March 14, 2014 Author Share Posted March 14, 2014 I did. What happen if anyone wants to create a new part?Not for your mod, just for the game (lets said a decoupler), but they dont want add 1 part for each standard diameter. They can borrow your code (with all credits listed) to make their part with your system?Or that is against your wish?I'm fine with people doing whatever they want with my code. However, for the sake of avoiding fragmentation, it's generally best to contribute rather than fork, and for the same reason it's better if one person keeps control of a project or it tends towards cruftification. Thanks to the work of jsimmonds, Decouplers are implemented and will be in the next release.In case they can, how easy is to addapt your code?Shouldn't be too hard. It's pretty well documented.THat it would be the choice of the player, had some differences in the models or reduce their count part ,increasing game performance and increase their part possibilities by a lot.If you dont remplace the standard parts with yours, you are doing the thing that you dont want.. That is, increase the part counts.So maybe in the future needs to be a way to remove all game parts, or just ignore them in the game load.You can hide parts in the VAB by setting the category in the config file to -1, you can do this pretty easily with module manager. The advantage of part hiding (rather than removing) is that existing ships with those parts don't disappear from your saves. It's really the part count on the ship you're flying that makes any difference to performance. Having parts just sitting around in the VAB makes no difference.It wouldn't really be up to me to decide what parts people won't want to use any more. Procedural parts currently replaces all the stock tanks, but the detail level is lower and probably will remain so. The stock tanks will remain more pretty, so you might never use that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelLestat Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 ok good to know, I hope this project receive more contributions.(thanks jsimmonds)About the hide.. In that case all parts would be load anyway and consume memory (from my low undestanding of the game engine).In my case I have like 5 min of loading time with the active texture reduction mod. But maybe is just me.Well you know, if you have some work that is repetitive and tedious, pm me, and I will see how to help you. (without credits). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamp_ig Posted March 14, 2014 Author Share Posted March 14, 2014 About the hide.. In that case all parts would be load anyway and consume memory (from my low undestanding of the game engine).Yes that is true. I guess you could go forth and delete a pile of tanks and suchlike.So the things we can happily delete:Tanks - really for those containing stock resources.1:1 Part adapters - these can be replaced by structural tweakablesNose cones - as aboveStack Decouplers / Separators - new stack decoupler part now availableAgain, you could do that with a module manager config file really. That way if you want to install a new version of whatever mod, you don't have to go through removing things again. Feel free to create a few module manager configs to do those things if you like, I'll make them available in a zip file much like StretchySRBDeprecated.zip.Come to think of it really the contents of StretchySRBDeprecated would be best done as a module manager.Anyhow, got another job I can PM you about if you're keen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamp_ig Posted March 14, 2014 Author Share Posted March 14, 2014 @swamp_ig: would it be possible on the Bezier cones to add offset to the top? That way we could make tanks like these radial tanks from KW Rocketry...Good idea, will get that going for the next release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OtherBarry Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I also have some free time in my hands, so if there is ModuleManager/Data gathering stuff, or any thing that doesn't require actual coding knowledge, I'm happy to help.Also, will the next update have proper RealFuels/ModularFuelTanks properly implemented? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamp_ig Posted March 14, 2014 Author Share Posted March 14, 2014 New release is out See OP for details. I think RF should be working now, but will work with NathanKell to do something official for configs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamp_ig Posted March 14, 2014 Author Share Posted March 14, 2014 There were a couple of bugs in 0.7.0, now up to 0.7.2 released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yarbrough08 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Good idea, will get that going for the next release.Awesome, looking forward to it. This is fast becoming one of the must have mods for KSP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhoark Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Here's another one for you: procedural text decals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yarbrough08 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 (edited) I'm having trouble integrating this with RFs still. I'm getting very, very low volumes (less than 1.0 units at the default size). Also the mass is reset to 0.0Javascript is disabled. View full albumThis is the RCS tank, I just renamed it to balloon.And this is with a clean install, with only Procedural Parts and RFs installed. Edited March 14, 2014 by Yarbrough08 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirklick Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I just created created a bunch of bug reports on gitHub - the idea being that it is better to get these ironed out now rather then later. Let me know if you need screenshots, files, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OtherBarry Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 So RealFuels is definitely not working at the moment.Javascript is disabled. View full albumThese are both with the same payload and engine, as wells the same fuel type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamp_ig Posted March 15, 2014 Author Share Posted March 15, 2014 Ok just released 0.7.3 - solved the tumbling issue.Next target is full integration with RF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frizzank Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 What do you think of getting rid of decouplers and just selecting the attach node on any part you want to decoupler from and giving it the decouple property? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acc Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 atm i build a space station and because of the part count i have some related suggestions:- battery module (stack)- life support module (stack; TACLS integration)- docking port with adapter (stack; conic adapter) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathsoul097 Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Could we have a Procedural Crew Cabin or Pod/Lander Can? I reckon that would be awesome. Maybe which one it is could be defined in the tweakables, and offer different textures/Geometries depending on the purpose of the part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Destroyer Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 All I want is a procedural engine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acc Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Could we have a Procedural Crew Cabin or Pod/Lander Can? I reckon that would be awesome. Maybe which one it is could be defined in the tweakables, and offer different textures/Geometries depending on the purpose of the part?i think the bigest problem there is the interior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathsoul097 Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 i think the bigest problem there is the interior.Hmm. That has occurred to me, but, this would really help to lower part count and make things more efficient, which is in my eyes what procedural parts are for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamp_ig Posted March 15, 2014 Author Share Posted March 15, 2014 What do you think of getting rid of decouplers and just selecting the attach node on any part you want to decoupler from and giving it the decouple property?Hmm... not something I personally like, but I can make the DecouplerTweaker module compatible with doing this if you want and you can roll your own configs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamp_ig Posted March 15, 2014 Author Share Posted March 15, 2014 Ok, another bugfix release - 0.7.4 - is out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamp_ig Posted March 15, 2014 Author Share Posted March 15, 2014 Could we have a Procedural Crew Cabin or Pod/Lander Can? I reckon that would be awesome. Maybe which one it is could be defined in the tweakables, and offer different textures/Geometries depending on the purpose of the part?This is being worked on.The main issue with crew cabins is the IVA, which would need to be rescaled. Procedural probe cores aren't too difficult, but will think about them later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John FX Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 It would be cool to be able to have a huge bell housing on a standard engine (power, TWR and ISP unchanged), then the Apollo CM could be reproduced without having a skipper in it...Is this a separate mod or is it a continuation of stretchy tanks?What I mean is, will my ships that I have built with stretchy tanks need rebuilding? (I`d probably do this but wouldn`t want to)Can`t wait for the `proc pack` which (in my mind) would be the one stop shop for proc parts in a single mod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathsoul097 Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 An evolution/continuation of StretchyTanks/SRBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts