[1.1.3] Procedural Parts - Parts the way you want 'em - v1.2.5 July 3

[xyifer12]

Will procedural engines be made? I needs me more procedurals!

[ThorBeorn]

Will procedural engines be made? I needs me more procedurals!

From the first post: "Features That Are Not Planned

Shapes with 'holes' in them and concave shapes - including toroids.

Procedural wings, procedural fairings - there's good mods for these already.

Procedural engines - May happen one day, but not a priority."

Nitrous Oxide: Super cool textures/normals. Love the rusty one!

[RadarManFromTheMoon]

Sorry guys. I had a little break from KSP lately. Needed to see and do other things.

Looks like there have been some issues with the conic shapes lately. Unfortunately, so far, I failed to reproduce any of them. :/

Screenshots are great but I really, really, really need precise reproduction steps and logs. Otherwise it's really hard to pinpoint and fix the problem.

[Yemo]

Is there any chance of including the Karbonite config within the next days?

Otherwise I will just include it for procedural parts in my SETI-BalanceMod (link in signature), assuming sfharris has no objections to this.

@Atrius129: About the densities, I would just make an educated guess roughly based on the MKS/OKS storage. It does not seem like Roverdude has noticed the question in the MKS/OKS thread. I will ask there again, but I doubt I get an answer considering the pace of RoverDudes threads. Easy to miss stuff there and bugfixing is a priority, compared to compatibility/requests.

[RadarManFromTheMoon]

Is there any chance of including the Karbonite config within the next days?

OtherBarry is working on the Karbonite integration. I don't know how far he has come with it though. If you already have a working and balanced config could you please contact him? No need for the same thing to be done twice, after all

[Yemo]

So I put this in the 1TankLiquid.cfg file.

TANK_TYPE_OPTION 
        {
            name = Karbonite
            dryDensity = 0.1089
            costMultiplier = 1.0
            RESOURCE 
            {
                name = Karbonite
                unitsPerT = 80
            }
        }

sfharris posted that a few pages ago for the liquid fuel procedural part, I assumed it would be integrated?

- - - Updated - - -

Also, Atrius129 got the info about the MKS/OKS storage density, so that might be coming up as well.

[shoe7ess]

I'm currently compiling some home-made textures for this pack. So far they include every color (including some dark/lights) with multiple setups for each color (i.e. alternate meshes), and a few new patterns. What I aim to do is create a procedural part of any color (including those that come standard) and the ability for each color to be matched with all available stock meshes (the NRM files). For example, for the cryogenic texture, you would be able to use the stock normal, or even the tiles instead of the base.

The general idea is to give more variety to each part at no additional memory cost (besides the 1.2Mb of extra colors I added).

The following displays the colors I've created (on the left), and the same colors (subbed out the black for the cryogenic) with stock-alike and interstage meshes (on the right):

If this is something the community is interested in, I'll go ahead and flesh this out and post it here.

All credit for original work is kept in the config, only added notations for .png files I specifically created, and just figured that because I enjoy the idea of making procedural parts in every color/texture imaginable, maybe others will too

Also, thanks to the mod creator(s) and all who have contributed to the shaping of the mod.

*Afterthought* Now that it comes to it, I have a suggestion that could make the work I'm doing obsolete (for the most part): If possible, make the "Texture" portion when building specific to .png files (maybe rename it to it to "Colors") , and add a secondary bar between that and "Shape" for the normal files. That way everyone could benefit from more customization.

Edited February 11, 2015 by shoe7ess

[Parmenides]

Great mod!

But I have a problem with masses

Whenever I save/load the rocket my mass is massively wrong. There is a difference reported by Mechjeb and Craft stats up to 20x

Its also the same after each mission

See also http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/103196-0-90-Realistic-Progression-Zero-%28RP-0%29-Lightweight-RealismOverhaul-career-v0-23-8-Feb?p=1726419&viewfull=1#post1726419

[Axelord FTW]

After having seen some interesting offset and angled ended parts, I'm wondering if PP could ever do something like that.

[Dermeister]

HEy guys have any of you noticed that when you Pres 2 and move a engine for example to edit the emplacement on the Modular tanks, then save the rocket, then reload it ... the engine Dosent save in the position you placed it?

[RadarManFromTheMoon]

Great mod!

But I have a problem with masses

Whenever I save/load the rocket my mass is massively wrong. There is a difference reported by Mechjeb and Craft stats up to 20x

Its also the same after each mission

See also http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/103196-0-90-Realistic-Progression-Zero-%28RP-0%29-Lightweight-RealismOverhaul-career-v0-23-8-Feb?p=1726419&viewfull=1#post1726419

Are you using other mods like RealFuels, ModularFuelSystem, RO...? Also does the Bug occur only with SRBs or also on normal fuel tanks?

After having seen some interesting offset and angled ended parts, I'm wondering if PP could ever do something like that.

Looks interesting. Maybe in the future.

HEy guys have any of you noticed that when you Pres 2 and move a engine for example to edit the emplacement on the Modular tanks, then save the rocket, then reload it ... the engine Dosent save in the position you placed it?

Thats a known bug. Part clipping and PP doen't go well together. I'm on it, but it might take some time to fix.

[Dermeister]

Are you using other mods like RealFuels, ModularFuelSystem, RO...? Also does the Bug occur only with SRBs or also on normal fuel tanks?

Looks interesting. Maybe in the future.

Thats a known bug. Part clipping and PP doen't go well together. I'm on it, but it might take some time to fix.

cool

[Bomber355]

This refuses to work for me.

0.90.0, 32 bit

[Wercho]

I quite like the idea of straight color sets. I might lower the saturation or something to make them less bright, but whatever. Your suggestion of separating the nrm and color also appeals to me, though not so much that it would be worth a lot of developer time. But it would allow some cool colored craft, with interesting texture. The customization of appearance as well as function is already one of the things I like so much about PP.

[Dermeister]

IS it a known bug that Decoupling Dosen't work when you use Procedural tanks and add a coupling device?

[RadarManFromTheMoon]

This refuses to work for me.

0.90.0, 32 bit

IS it a known bug that Decoupling Dosen't work when you use Procedural tanks and add a coupling device?

Nope, not a known bug.

Please read this on how to get support. "It's not working" is not enough information to figure out whats wrong.

[Parmenides]

Are you using other mods like RealFuels, ModularFuelSystem, RO...? Also does the Bug occur only with SRBs or also on normal fuel tanks?

I am using RealFuels with RO.

Bug is only with SRB , I have correct weights with standard Tanks RO, and RealFuels

[Subcidal]

Would be nice to have the option to make decouplers more compact, Or hollow like the oldschool decouplers in part packs.

[GiantTank]

Um...Yeah...

(I rescaled launch clamps since they clipped through the nozzle). The rocket may be too big, idk.

[Whirligig Girl]

Is it possible that this mod will get an aesthetic update? That's the main reason I don't use ProcecuralParts, really. They don't look really good. Even if you use a texturepack. They all have flat ends with that flat rivet texture. If they had end-caps or bulkheads or something like that, and somehow had texture which look like baked shadows even though it's a stretchy part, then I'd definitely use this. Or if they had support for TextureReplacer's reflection functionality, man would it look cool for the Atlas texture to really be reflective.

[RadarManFromTheMoon]

I am using RealFuels with RO.

Bug is only with SRB , I have correct weights with standard Tanks RO, and RealFuels

Seems to be a RealFuels issue (source, second comment)

Would be nice to have the option to make decouplers more compact, Or hollow like the oldschool decouplers in part packs.

You can change the "length" of the decoupler in the config file. Parts with "holes" in them are not planned however (like the OP states).

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

Um...Yeah...

(I rescaled launch clamps since they clipped through the nozzle). The rocket may be too big, idk.

Yeah, seems like really big parts are causing problems occasionally. I'm aware of it but so far I haven't figured out the reason.

Is it possible that this mod will get an aesthetic update? That's the main reason I don't use ProcecuralParts, really. They don't look really good. Even if you use a texturepack. They all have flat ends with that flat rivet texture. If they had end-caps or bulkheads or something like that, and somehow had texture which look like baked shadows even though it's a stretchy part, then I'd definitely use this. Or if they had support for TextureReplacer's reflection functionality, man would it look cool for the Atlas texture to really be reflective.

Would be nice indeed, but I don't think bulkheads would be feasible to implement. Standard parts are much more detailed while procedural parts are very flexible. It's not easy to get both. That doesn't mean that there is no room for improvement in the future though. But at the moment there are other priorities, like getting 0.90 part clipping running, balancing, and new shapes.

[Motokid600]

like getting 0.90 part clipping running.

Whats wrong with the part clipping?

Is it possible that this mod will get an aesthetic update? That's the main reason I don't use ProcecuralParts, really. They don't look really good. Even if you use a texturepack. They all have flat ends with that flat rivet texture. If they had end-caps or bulkheads or something like that, and somehow had texture which look like baked shadows even though it's a stretchy part, then I'd definitely use this. Or if they had support for TextureReplacer's reflection functionality, man would it look cool for the Atlas texture to really be reflective.

I proposed in a suggestions thread awhile back that a "Cosmetics" mod be made just for that. Pipes, wire harness, tanks, tank butts as scalable caps you can stick on the end of each procedural tank. And switch their look just as you can textures to match it up. That being said. You don't need a mod to do it. With procedural fairings you can actually make a tank butt that looks really good. Take an interstage base and stick two on each end of the tank. Make a second, half-sphere shaped tank, stick that onto the interstage base then take the fairings and adjust the height to that of the tank you just added. Boom. Tank butts.

[ThorBeorn]

OtherBarry: I found an interaction/bug between Procedural Parts, DaMichelsFuselage, ClockworkIndustries (and Real Fuels). Basically DaMichelsFuselage and ClockworkIndustries have RealFuels MM patches (for their own parts) which uses :FOR[RealFuels] instead of :NEEDS[RealFuels]. This somehow tricks Procedural Parts into loading the Procedural RealFuels tank (and not loading the stock version) despite RealFuels not being present in GameData. Since RF is not present it lacks definitions for the stock fuels and the Proc RF tanks can't be fueled at all.

I'll mention it to the two part mod authors also.

[NathanKell]

That is not something we can fix on our end, that's how MM works.

Do not use FOR[foo] unless you *are* foo.

[Goddess Bhavani]

Is it possible to have Procedural Parts and delete most of the 2.5m and larger stock rocket parts? In the same way, B9 procedural wings makes a lot of wing and control surfaces obsolete, since generating your own makes for more interesting and geometrically interesting airfoils.

I bet that would save a lot of memory for those memory-challenged installations.