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

[futrtrubl]

So I noticed stock fuel tanks have an action/function that dumps the ore-tank's payload. Is there any way to add that to PP's ore tanks too?

Yup. Whip up a module manager config that adds

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleFuelJettison
}

to the part.

[Entropius]

Nice, thanks futrtrubl.

[westamastaflash]

Problem solved: There are 3 KSPAPIExtensions dlls in my GameData directory: Infernal robotics, EPL, and tweakscale. All 3 mods are working properly, but Procedural parts refused to work. Infernal robotics had different file size compared to other mods so i updated it to the latest version, seems to be working now. thanks for the help.

Just be warned that something may be broken with IR. Are you using the latest IR download? I think there is a problem with the CKAN one - be sure to get the latest - I saw no differences in mine.

[TomTheHand]

I love this mod, and I consider it to be one of the most important ones available for KSP. In my opinion, Procedural Parts' greatest virtue is its ability to eliminate large numbers of parts, decluttering the UI and saving lots of RAM (which is incredibly important with the ~3 GB RAM limit). I have a few suggestions that have occurred to me as I've played. I don't know anything about their technical feasibility, so I apologize if I'm asking the impossible.

First, earlier in the thread someone suggested slanted parts; I'd like to second that suggestion. I'd love to eliminate the various slanted adapters and be able to make custom ones.

Second, a hopefully small and easy one to implement: procedural reaction wheels. Procedural probe cores might be a reasonably simple spinoff from that. Simple cylindrical drone cores with batteries and reaction wheels that scale with size would be great; procedural stock-like polyhedrons might come later.

Third, procedural crew compartments. Let me adjust the size of the module, divide by the volume required per Kerbal, and round down. Not referring to command capsules here, just parts with Kerbal-carrying capacity.

Fourth, and tangentially related to the above, allow repeating of textures in addition to stretching. Maybe have a "repeat texture" slider that defaults to 1; if I increase it to 3, repeat the texture vertically three times instead of stretching it to fill the whole part. Maybe even include "repeat vertical" and "repeat horizontal" sliders. This occurred to me because I felt like the best texture for a procedural crew compartment would be like an airplane fuselage, with a line of windows, but it'd be better for such a texture to repeat rather than stretch, so you get more windows on a longer part.

Finally, and perhaps most important to me, the gap between procedural decouplers and procedural heat shields drives me NUTS. The decoupler only contacts at the very center of the heat shield. I have a few thoughts on how to address this, and hopefully one of them will turn out to be practical.

For the most part, my ideas center around giving decouplers a cylindrical extension upward. This could be hollow (though I know you do not intend to implement parts with holes in them, I don't know if this would "count"), or it could be filled in but the attachment node could be buried inside. Either way, the gap between the decoupler and the heat shield would be filled.

Perhaps procedural decouplers could detect procedural heatshields above them and extend appropriately, or maybe they could have a "heat shield fairing" check box. Maybe they could have an adjustable "fairing height" slider; something like that might even allow procedural decouplers to cover engines that lack their own fairings or whose fairings are smaller than the parts around them.

Edited May 14, 2015 by TomTheHand
clarifying procedural crew compartments

[AngelLestat]

I am agree with TomTheHand request, in case they are possible..

About the gap between heatshields and decouplers, maybe is possible to do the same than official heatshields and decouplers do in 1.0

If you put a decoupler under a heatshield, it creates a tiny skirt (fairing) to hide the gap.

[ebookah]

is it possible to add other resources aka karbonite , and if so how would i go about doing that?

[Entropius]

Here's a config I had lying around for procedural karbonite tanks. I assume it still works.

ProceduralKarbonite.cfg

EDIT: I'd recommend putting it outside of the ProceduralParts folder, so when you update PP this custom config isn't nuked. Maybe put it in your own custom-mod folder.

[ebookah]

thank you so much. You are awesome.

[futrtrubl]

is it possible to add other resources aka karbonite , and if so how would i go about doing that?

You could also install Modular Fuel Tanks, this adds a more comprehensive fuel switching system.

[Kolago]

Cryogenic Engines need both oxidiser and liquid hydrogen to work.

If we could get a MM patch or new config that added the options of Liquid Hydrogen or Liquid Hydrogen/Oxidiser, PP would not just be a massive improvement on the stock parts, but perfect.

ModularFuelTanks v5.5.1 works fine for this.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/64117-1-0-2-Modular-Fuel-Tanks-v5-5-1

Edited May 15, 2015 by Kolago

[jrandom]

Sorry to pester, but for the life of me I cannot get curve selection for smooth cones running in a sandbox science setup. I've tried all sorts of symbols in front of the allowCurveTweaking line, including '@', '%', and no modifier symbol at all. Everything else seems to be working fine, with all parts and sizes available.

Any help would be appreciated, if possible.

Current .cfg file:

@PART[*]:HAS[~TechRequired[]]:Final
{
    TechRequired = start
}

@PART[*]:Final
{
    @TechRequired = start
}

@PART[*]:HAS[~entryCost[]]:Final
{
    entryCost = 0
}

@PART[*]:Final
{
    @entryCost = 0
}

@PART[*]:Final
{
    @MODULE[ProceduralShapeCone]
    {
        @techRequired = start
    }

    @MODULE[ProceduralShapePill]
    {
        @techRequired = start
    }

    @MODULE[ProceduralShapeBezierCone]
    {
        @techRequired = start
    }
}

@PART[proceduralTank*] 
{
    @MODULE[ProceduralPart]
    {
        @TECHLIMIT,*
        {
            // Increase the max length for all tech levels by 3*
            @lengthMax *= 10
            // Corresponding volume increase
            @volumeMax *= 10

            // Increase the max diameter by double
            @diameterMax *= 10
            // Since volume goes up on diameter^2, need to use increase^2
            @volumeMax *= 100

            // Allow different shape curves
            @allowCurveTweaking = True
        }
    }
}

[cipherpunks]

Maybe this was asked before, but anyhow, I'd pretty much like:

- Mk2 profile procedural things, and maybe other shapes/profiles, like square, octagon, eight sides

- another, more distinguishable default procedural decoupler texture (using Soyuz Green mostly, but made from actual real interstages would be better I guess)

- procedural variation of proc.SRB nozzless (not just 2 variants - surface and vacuum)

- ability to vary proc.SRB thrust over burning time by either adding nozzle-less segments of different burning properties, or - better - varying that programmaticaly, with some UI to set burning curves.

[Svm420]

I am getting the old bug of parts tweakscaled that are attached to procedural parts are spaced out upon craft loading. I thought this bug was fixed since 1.0? Is this not true?

Edited May 16, 2015 by Svm420

[Dermeister]

IS this compatible with Far?

[Svm420]

IS this compatible with Far?

IDK I didnt read the first post either

[Dermeister]

Totally did read the first post,Did not see anything mentioned about FAr so I asked so there was no need for you to troll.

[Svm420]

Totally did read the first post,Did not see anything mentioned about FAr so I asked so there was no need for you to troll.

Look closer No need for you to spam

[futrtrubl]

IS this compatible with Far?

From the first post;

All part's drag models will automatically update if using Ferram Aerospace Research.

[Dermeister]

From the first post;

Thank you I read that first post but I never saw that in the features!

[FennexFox]

Trying to weld these parts, I found that it`s not actually part, but a active module, which is why I unable to weld them.

So, a small suggestion: Could there be any chance to "export" the shaped one into part, or maybe model? Or can I make the model with texture with my hand-editing something? these are primitive shapes so not seems hard to work, though I don`t know anything about it actually.

+ Oh, I found that Blender is freeware(didn`t know), so using it would be a efficient way either, but still "export" thing would be good.

Edited May 19, 2015 by FennexFox

[acc]

1.) guess there is something wrong with the heatshield part. please see here and here.

2.) I can't scale the RCS tank down to small sizes. playing in career and have already unlocked all stock rcs tanks.

[TomTheHand]

There is some discussion in the FAR thread about a possible problem with Procedural Parts. It starts here:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/20451-1-0-2-Ferram-Aerospace-Research-v0-15-1-Fanno-5-10-15?p=1951896&viewfull=1#post1951896

And in the following post, it is speculated that the fuel tank has a hole in the bottom and so when FAR sweeps back and forth it sees a discontinuity:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/20451-1-0-2-Ferram-Aerospace-Research-v0-15-1-Fanno-5-10-15?p=1952247&viewfull=1#post1952247

I'm posting it here so that it can be looked at by the Procedural Parts team.

[Dermeister]

1.) guess there is something wrong with the heatshield part. please see here and here.

2.) I can't scale the RCS tank down to small sizes. playing in career and have already unlocked all stock rcs tanks.

Same here about the RCS tank in career

[Glorious Dear Leader]

Hi, sorry to bother. I have the missing tweaks bug in ProcParts. Going through the thread I can see it's a KSPAPI issue. I downloaded the latest 1.7.4 kspapiextensions.dll and dropped that in hoping it would solve this issue, but no joy. Is there anything else I can do?

[Thorbane]

I've found a mild graphical bug with small SRB sizes

I think the FX should scale with the thrust setting.