[1.9-1.10] Hangar

[Vince_K]

happy to see this tread alive again! just keep the box for now...

[Demon Wolf]

yes jest do the mane 3-4 hangers 1st other parts in this mode was nice but the mane hangers was jest flat out the bomb. got way too many ships in LKO

[RealGecko]

On 14.06.2016 at 0:13 AM, allista said:

So, what do you say: should I drop all the engines, electrical generators, air-brakes and the like?

I'd love to try this mod (never tried it before) cause delivering rovers to the surface is always a pain. And we have so many engines, generators and air-brakes alreayd so IMO having just hangar will be more than enough to have this module reborn

[allista]

It's settled then!

I hope I will be able release the beta for 1.1.3 before my vacation in July.

[Demon Wolf]

swet cant what 

[allista]

Looking at Squad's part configs I start to wonder: what is less painful -- to use stock modules and live in fear of them changing one day and face the need to rewrite tones of the config "code" for which there's no IDE, autocompletion, error checking and all; or to invent a bicycle each time I need some near-stock functionality and fear the same thing, except that for a Module I do have all the benefits of IDE. Keep in mind that neither part configs nor KSP API have any kind of reference manual, so for both, in order to understand which option does what, I have to decompile KSP assemblies, decode internal strings and clean things up for the code to become more-or-less readable.

Writing configs is a "content creation" as opposed to Module programming which is... programming. Generally, good programming leads to fast and easy content creation which thus becomes preferable (that's exactly what Unity had done). But in Squad's case they, apparently, had no intention of making KSP truly plugin friendly. All the plugins and part mods without exception resulted, to some extent, from KSP reverse-engineering.

In my case I'm talking about Asteroid Hangars -- a part of this mod that was reaaaaally hard to make and of which I privately was proud; not in the small part because my Animator(s) and Generator(s) modules were at the time superior to the stock ones in many aspects. But now the API has changed and they no longer work properly/at all; and I see new, much more sophisticated stock modules. But these new modules are even harder to use (in terms of configuration) and they still have all the drawbacks (which were the prime reason to start my bicycle-making).

So I really don't know what it is best to do.

Dropping auxiliary parts was one thing, but to drop half the functionality because Squad exercises extreme programming (they don't even bother with class inheritance, copying the same code from one module to another)... well, I doubt I'm ready for that.

Edited June 30, 2016 by allista

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

Part of me is wondering if it is possible to step away from the conventional hangar build.

While nice, one caveat about using HANGAR is that in order to utilize the functionality, we have to utilize strictly your parts.  I'm wondering if it is possible to create a small 'marker' part that you can snap into cargo bays that can ID them as valid 'hangar' parts, identify their working volume, if any matching bays are attached, and so on.  No a module or module manager patch.  But an actual 'snap on' part you grab from the inventory and plug in.  Maybe just a small box with handles and hazard stripes that seems innocuous.  But from a function standpoint, it would have the invisible 'hangar node' above/in front of it where you have to move your vehicle to dock and where the center of mass for the combined part ends up.

This way, any enclosed space can be a 'hangar', which opens up the use of all the varied cargo bays, including modded ones.  As USPS says: 'If it fits, it ships'.

 

[0111narwhalz]

7 hours ago, AdmiralTigerclaw said:

an actual 'snap on' part you grab from the inventory and plug in.

As amazing as this sounds, it also sounds like a formidable task. How would it determine "enclosed space?" How would it connect that "enclosed space" to hangar parts other than its parent? What about if the situation changes, thanks to explosions or decouplers?

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

Just now, 0111narwhalz said:

As amazing as this sounds, it also sounds like a formidable task. How would it determine "enclosed space?" How would it connect that "enclosed space" to hangar parts other than its parent? What about if the situation changes, thanks to explosions or decouplers?

 

Yeah, I know.  Lots of things to figure out.  But I had to head out this morning and didn't have time for more than a cursory thought.

[Jasseji]

14 hours ago, AdmiralTigerclaw said:

 

Yeah, I know.  Lots of things to figure out.  But I had to head out this morning and didn't have time for more than a cursory thought.

There could be another approach - maybe some mechanism with the snap-on part as suggested above but with pre-defined hangar sizes with a switch like Fuelswitches are now

The size of the hangar could be shown as an outline in VAB/SPH with some way to disallow choosing a hangar size when the design-outline touches a collider ?

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

@Jasseji

That's a thought.  Maybe have it ID the stack nodes of the part it's snapped to.  Most parts generally stick to a general size range fitting their stack node sizes.  Using that method, anything makes for a hangar part with a limited size range.  Community work already supports essentially invisible reengineering of all kinds of parts internally.  Maybe combine the stack node with a cross-reference with whatever physically identifies the size of a part model. 

 

The interesting part would be identifying consecutive components like chained cargo bays.  I know KJR can search up and down stream from a part for stiffening.  Maybe apply some of that for sorting out cargo-capable sizes.  (Like say, recognize the same part repeated multiple times in a stack chain.)

[RedParadize]

I am very glad you are resurrecting the Hangar mod! Kerbal x64 didn't remove the needs for something like this.

I don't want to be annoying but I have a suggestion. What If instand of storing ship/stuff within a hangar, it was the other way around. Like Mothballing the ship if I can say. The Idea I have would be something like this: You have something like stock fairing plate, a ship 'dock' to its top. Its volume is calculated and a fairing is built around it. Then the ship get stored.

It would be extremely flexible to use.

 

[allista]

31 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

I am very glad you are resurrecting the Hangar mod! Kerbal x64 didn't remove the needs for something like this.

I don't want to be annoying but I have a suggestion. What If instand of storing ship/stuff within a hangar, it was the other way around. Like Mothballing the ship if I can say. The Idea I have would be something like this: You have something like stock fairing plate, a ship 'dock' to its top. Its volume is calculated and a fairing is built around it. Then the ship get stored.

It would be extremely flexible to use.

 

This would definitely be cool for the hangar-fairings usecase which is currently implemented as a special resizable hangar. And I will try to get to it using the stock dynamic fairings one day. But to use such mechanism in space is, IMHO, against the KSP concept which, as I perseive it, is "realism and challange".

I mean, each time I hear such proposition (this forum contains several of them), I try to imagine, how it could be implemented in reality: "Should several dozens of kerbals swarm out of the station and crawl around the docked ships like ants, covering it with the plating? Should there be some huge automated factory that hastly produces the fairings of appropriate size? And what with the previous plates, how to recycle them?" You see 

[swjr-swis]

1 minute ago, allista said:

I mean, each time I hear such proposition (this forum contains several of them), I try to imagine, how it could be implemented in reality: "Should several dozens of kerbals swarm out of the station and crawl around the docked ships like ants, covering it with the plating? Should there be some huge automated factory that hastly produces the fairings of appropriate size? And what with the previous plates, how to recycle them?" You see

Why would it have to be plates specifically? If it's a flexible material, it could be folded out and in multiple times, and probably only need a very minimal frame or even just air pressure to maintain the shell - with a bit of slack - around the craft. Like the material used for the inflatable habitation module they just started testing on the ISS.

[allista]

10 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

Why would it have to be plates specifically? If it's a flexible material, it could be folded out and in multiple times, and probably only need a very minimal frame or even just air pressure to maintain the shell - with a bit of slack - around the craft. Like the material used for the inflatable habitation module they just started testing on the ISS.

That's an interesting idea. Like a temporary dry dock for repairs. But I would badly want to have an animation of this (which is not that hard by itself); and I would want to demand the docking. And the fragility of the thing should be somehow implemented; the destruction of the outer shell should not destroy the ship inside...

With the current hangar technology, however, it is not possible, at least in a stright way: the hangar module relies on some specific properties of the part's model. But I'll definitly will think about implementation of that concept. After I manage to make a stable release of the mod as it is now, of course.

Edited July 10, 2016 by allista

[RedParadize]

Saran Wrap and ducktape? 

Seriously, I glad the idea was well recived. If you decide to do it I would be greatfull. but as you said, many have idea, very few can implement them. No presure.

About the realism, It could be made "realistic" trough baseplate having a maximum volume defined before lunch, that volume would translate into mass. In term of assembly, its not different than deployable ground hangar. But if it would require a X number of kerbal in proximity, I am all for it. It might be a bit overkill.

 

Now I am starting to think about another concept. You have a bunch of plate stored trough KIS. You attach them to what You want to store. Open the context menu of the plate, and if you have enough plate attached, you can convert your ship into a container. The container itself could be a premade model like the USI one. Then, using KIS. you need enough kerbal to strap that container to the main ship. That would be wonderfull for cargo ship...

Another Idea that I am asking someone else to work on...

Edited July 10, 2016 by RedParadize

[RedParadize]

Looks like @swjr-swis idea and mine are congerging, its a logical conclusion I guess. I see many possiblilties and fun gameplay in perspective. Kontainer ship everywhere!

[allista]

15 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

Looks like @swjr-swis idea and mine are congerging, its a logical conclusion I guess. I see many possiblilties and fun gameplay in perspective. Kontainer ship everywhere!

Yep. Several man-months of development and the Golden Key is ours! 

[RedParadize]

Yeah, People often think you only need a good idea... Idea are easy, its the doing that is the hard part. Take it for what it is, I am already glad that you just consider it.

Mainwhile, as a simple user, I will wait for your update of the current Hangar mod. I might even do a config that convert USI kontainer to Hangar extention, add Hangar Passages to the truss section and build the cargo ship of my dream. More than good enough.

[allista]

Hangar-2.9.9.1-BETA for KSP-1.1.3

Please, help me to get this mod up and running again!

Test it!

Bugs are abundant, so everyone gets a share

[RealGecko]

6 minutes ago, allista said:

Test it!

I'm in!

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

Let me know if it might be backwards compatible with 1.1.2.  I'm not ready to go to 1.1.3 yet.

[allista]

16 minutes ago, AdmiralTigerclaw said:

Let me know if it might be backwards compatible with 1.1.2.  I'm not ready to go to 1.1.3 yet.

I doubt it. These KSP versions have incompatible API.

[Deimos Rast]

1 hour ago, allista said:

Hangar-2.9.9.1-BETA for KSP-1.1.3

Please, help me to get this mod up and running again!

Test it!

Bugs are abundant, so everyone gets a share

good way to spin it; downloading now.

Download is taking a bit (as I'm in a hammock outside and connectivity depends on how close to the house I swing) so I can't check yet, but did you convert any/many of the modules to stock?

[allista]

1 minute ago, Deimos Rast said:

good way to spin it; downloading now.

Download is taking a bit (as I'm in a hammock outside and connectivity depends on how close to the house I swing) so I can't check yet, but did you convert any/many of the modules to stock?

lol

No, because the reason why I ended up making them is still there: stock modules do not support multiple animations; in particular, multiple animations with the same name.

Also, as time was off the essence here, it was actually quicker to adapt my modules to the new API than to rewrite configs.