AccidentalDisassembly

The SpaceWhale ascends! Well, with the help of a little infinite fuel and something like 20,000-thrust RCS nozzles: Kerbal for scale: The hangar parts seemed a little more durable, but it didn't seem like a night & day fundamental difference. They weigh something like 300 tons each as they are in the pics, versus several thousand tons for fuel-filled parts. EDIT: about 250 tons and 5500 tons respectively.

Going to give it a whirl and see what happens! Wish Biotronic were around to address some of the tweakscale stuff =( Sad times. EDIT: Forgot to mention. The masses of the hangars are about 1/6 or a little less of what an empty solid part is, aren't they? I see it as 12ish tons vs 78ish tons.

I'm using 1.1.1.1, so far as I know - so says the ZIP file, anyway. I tried with both stock wheels and non-stock wheels - really weird stuff. Stock wheels rotate very, very slow and go nowhere, but turning seems possible-ish... or perhaps that's a reaction wheel at work... The FAR thing was an assumption I made that since a FAR error was happening when a craft was eaten by the hangar, it might be related to the hangar - but it's not after all.

Re: the stack connections, the hangar parts *seem* subjectively a little weak when scaled up. However, I am talking 3.5x scale - this may be an issue with the TweakScale node code more than anything. What I notice is that they jiggle around a lot in ways you wouldn't expect them to intuitively - and the jiggling doesn't seem to settle. Hard to express without a video, probably, and it may just be how the game works. I thought that this might be because of the way I arranged parts - maybe a clipping problem - but then I thought I remembered reading somewhere that a craft can't collide with itself, exactly. That's pretty useless, I am guessing, but there's some vague and subjective feedback. EDIT: Just remembered that that was often on hangar pats attached to other hangar parts radially attached to other stuff, so... might just be radial connection madness?

Assuming that this was a problem with Hangar specifically, I searched for Ferram/FAR/etc. and Hangar. That produced precisely nothing useful, sorry.

Not that you need any more questions from me, but... I'm having an issue that makes it difficult to get rovers in and out of hangars. When I manage to get a rover inside one, the wheels almost completely lose traction - as if the surface of the hangar were greased. Momentum can help get the rover in, but getting one out is quite difficult, and impossible if the hangar is at an angle at all. Is this normal? Also, it is impossible to switch vehicles if the rover doesn't get taken by the hangar, because it slides around the hangar surface - motion = no switchy Have to wait for motion to cease. EDIT: Thing I said about FAR not applicable.

Question - I am getting a lot of this: ArgumentException: Value does not fall within the expected range. at ferram4.FARControlSys.OnDestroy () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at ferram4.FARControlSys.OnGUI () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at (wrapper delegate-invoke) Callback:invoke_void__this__ () at (wrapper delegate-invoke) Callback:invoke_void__this__ () at RenderingManager.OnGUI () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 (Filename: Line: -1) ... in the ol' logs, possibly has to do with the Hangar add-on and ships being eaten by it. It happens at the same time as some graphical glitches- rapid flashing of the navball, altimeter, warp meter thing, and staging control in lower left - basically everything that's not the toolbar or belongs to a mod (including the Toolbar plugin & related). Is that problematic enough that you'd like a log? Or is this something that can't possibly have to do with FAR per se?

Actually, yeah, now that you mention it... I have to strut those like crazy too...

I have yet another (hopefully non-stupid) question - what exactly determines how much a part that is radially attached to another part will flop around when stresses are applied to it? Here's why I ask: if I radially attach a HX1-A-SD side adapter thingamajig to something - doesn't matter the scale, I don't think - and then put an engine on the back of it, and turn on said engine, the whole thing flails around as if weakly attached by a series of rubber bands... Is this the case for anyone else?

Yes, but considering TweakScale is (apparently) something that the authors would like to be able to use with this mod, and considering Firespitter's tankswitching does not work at all with TweakScale, and considering that MFT does (kind of, so long as you don't use symmetry) work sometimes with MFT, ... you can see where I'm going with this. That said, it would all be rendered moot if TweakScale were either fixed or not particularly important for the authors, which may be the case!

There's nothing actually wrong with B9 in relation to TweakScale that isn't wrong with TweakScale itself, i.e. it doesn't play well with firespitter tankswitching (other things are fine) and it doesn't do well with modular fuel tanks placed in symmetry, though single tanks seem OK.

I very clearly don't understand much about how the hangar actually works, but I gather there's a way that it calculates the total volume of various ships inside it - could it calculate the total volume of the ship attached to it (minus the hangar) and then add an arbitrary multiple of that volume (say, 1/3 or 1/2) to its own internal storage space? Another option - just throwing things out there - there could be a "hangar extension" part that, when either attached to the hangar itself or to the ship somewhere, increases the volume of that hangar... That would probably make decent sense realism-wise too. A hangar annex, if you will. For immersion's sake, it would probably rely on the hangar looking more like an antechamber or something. Though the calculation of ship volume might be a little more universally useful.... cf. the asteroids. Another alternative might just be to give a fixed number for the volume of a given hangar, then an individual user could decide what's realistic or not, but that definitely would be weird in terms of the potential for a very small ship to have a gargantuan hangar and whatnot. Ah yes - didn't think about that. That does sound ugly... That's the weird thing - it really only does have one node in the middle on each end of it, and the hangar obviously only has the one node on the very end of it too, so the whole thing seemed very bizarre. Maybe it has to do with them being tweakscaled as well? Here's what I wrote in the configs for the ground hangars - seems to work (small gap appears still when scaled very large, but I don't think it's terrible). Not centered on the part, probably could be improved: Habitable ground hangar: node_attach = 0.0, 0.0, 0.888, 0, 0, -1 Other ground hangar: node_attach = 0.0, 0.0, 0.638, 0, 0, -1 Huh, I didn't know node location determined mass distribution of the part, but I suppose it would make sense to have the mass down low. Having a node in the middle is useful for sticking the hangar inside other hollow parts, at least.

I think it was more that one could attach a hangar to an asteroid, and make the asteroid into a hangar... or my own biases are showing.

Thanks for the reply! A bit of clarification on my poor wording: 1. I know about common.cfg, I defined the maximum to be 12.0 - but the part will not scale to 12.0, it only goes to 10.0 no matter what arbitrarily large number I enter into the config. Not a question of tech limits either. Maybe I've done something wrong with my install.. or could be some other of the 9583985938 mods I'm using that's mysteriously interfering. 2. Naturally that would be more realistic, but disappearing ships isn't realistic either Mostly my idea was that it would be cool-ish to imagine that the hangar part is actually the entrance to the ship's hangar (which would really have to be quite large to actually hold a large number of spaceplanes aircraft-carrier style, since you couldn't disassemble all the parts), put a texture that looks like a set of doors at the back, and pretend that what the hangar actually does is grab a spaceplane and send it somewhere in the belly of the absurdly large ship I'm trying to build. Really not a terribly important feature, but it'd be neat if we could fiddle with what the hangar considers its volume to be (if the code changes wouldn't be hard). I guess it would be equally realistic though just to make an absurdly long or large hangar. Would it be possible to change the aspect ratio of the ground hangars like the inline hangars can (I think... right?)? That would also be interesting. 3. Right - Tweakscaled hangar meets tweakscaled part, reloading causes hangar to move around relative to... something. I don't know whether it happens or not with non-tweakscaled stuff, sorry for lame info. The other thing I noticed, which may or may not be related: I can't figure out how to replicate it, but in some cases, when you attach the most rearward node of the hangar to the node of another part (specifically in this case a B9 2x1 hangar part), the node on the part it is attached to does not become "occupied" - other things can still attach to it. You can see this when you attach a hangar to something hollow, then pick the hollow part up - node still visible. This may also boil down to something I don't understand about the parts in play, though. Also - another feature that would be helpful: is there any way to make it so that the hangars could surface attach to something without being sunk halfway into the part they're attaching to? Is it the node_attach or whatever in the cfg that determines how things surface attach? If so, I could try to relocate the attach nodes so it works like this. Finally, this may be intentional, but the smaller ground hangar's attach nodes are off-center vertically, whereas the larger ground hangar's nodes are centered. Result: hard to place the non-habitable ground hangar inside the aforementioned absurdly large ship I'm building. Sorry - I realize as I type this that my suggestions are basically all geared to a very nitpicky, specific case. Not sure if they'd be useful for the rest of the people who use your mod! Ack.

There's no law that says you can't use both - Firespitter for the animations and MFT configs provided as well. Anyway, I take it back, since TweakScale also has annoying problems with MFT when parts are in symmetry. Good times.

Quick question - I fiddled with the hangar configs to achieve ludicrous scaling & space inside one. Things came up: 1. Ground hangars at least (didn't try others) won't scale beyond 10.0 even if the maximum scale is set higher in the config. 2. Would it be possible to make a configurable "volume multiplier," or something to that effect, so that one could place a hangar on a very large ship and simulate the idea that the hangar part is just the entrance to a larger bay? Something that would increase the available volume in a hangar without increasing scale, optionally. 3. This may be purely an issue with TweakScale, but I found it odd - other parts don't do this: When attaching a hangar to another part (both scaled up), the hangar's point of attachment will change upon reloading the vessel. It *seems* like the hangar's node moves to the very center of the part it's attached to; maybe it's moving to where the attached-to node would be had the part not been scaled, and isn't correctly resetting itself on load, or something. Awesome, awesome idea & parts.

Regarding firespitter for switching tanks - MFT might be a better option, at least for the moment, if you're also wanting this to be compatible with TweakScale, which currently can't handle firespitter tank-swaps. Haven't seen Biotronic post in a while, not sure if that will change in the reasonably near future.

Also - this might not happen on a clean install, but I noticed with the original MFT config (not my altered one) that the option to swap between tank types (availableTank or whatever it is in the MFT definitions) didn't seem to do anything... might be my problem though.

via MM, result: I can no longer attach the tank to anything in the VAB, the debug menu throws a NullReferenceException, I have to ALT+F4 the game 2. Tried to insert the MODULE directly into the part.cfg of the tank (without the @PART and the outer brackets), results as above @nebuchadnezzar They're beautiful (aren't they?) and work perfectly for my commsats (before trying TweakScale I rescaled via the rescale factor in the part.cfg). Thanks a bunch and no hurry! Sadly I don't know how to interpret the output_log, but I can tell you that if that is the only code you're using, and if you've installed the newest TweakScale and whatnot, it's not an issue with TweakScale per se - it might be that one of your other mods is out of date, conflicts with TweakScale, doesn't use updated KSPAPIExtensions.dll, etc. I don't know what the problem is, but I suspect if you did a second (clean) install, and only put TweakScale + that part in there, it would work fine.

I fiddled with it. Replaced all tank definitions with simple things like this: It fixed many of the mass problems. However, certain parts (notably HX size 3 / 4x4 universal) can't be modified by MFT - says "This tank cannot hold resources". EDIT: Think the inability to modify tanks was actually a problem with the save, not the config. Maybe. However the mass problems were very much better with just using the Default tank definition. The MM Config for the MFT stuff was unnecessarily complicated, IMO.

Indeed.. the MFT stuff is borked. Still trying to build a successful gargantuan carrier - 170,000 tons of dry mass in the rear! Yikes

It shouldn't. Free should give you lots and lots of increments - major and minor increments, I think - between whatever minimum and maximum are set in the scaletypes config distributed with TS... For those values specifically, use stack (or you can define your own with a greater range etc.)

Solution was a complicated module manager patch that creates 8x sized variants of the parts. If you're interested, I can share what I did - I basically created 8x scale parts, rewrote all the tweakscale code, removed all the tweakscale modules from the actual part CFGs, and the result is that I now can have parts in 0.25x, 0.5x, 1x, 2x, 4x, and 8x sizes. Changing just a few values in the MM config would create 0.25x, 0.5x, 1x, 1.5x, 3x, 6x scales, etc.

I think MrWizerd already did some work on standardizing tanks using MFT - so you'd have only one 2x1 fuel tank part and pick your fuels.

Impossible to say what you did wrong without knowing what you did.