allista

Ah, that's not a problem if they're just remaking the models. It's fairly easy to adapt my model to the new form factor.

1. I believe that people who are "looking at it [Hangar] as a game performance and quality of life improvement" are just not my target group. Simply because I can't do both things (realistic challenging mode and performance and quality of life mod) at the same time, as at some point the two become mutually exclusive. I agree, though, that one-at-a-time hangar may have transfer capabilities and store/launch in flight. As I said, I need to think it through carefully. 2. The problem is not in staging, but in spawning a vessel during throttling and acceleration. I will see what particular problems arise in this situation when I have some free time. Right now hangars do prevent launching when throttled, accelerated, spinning and such. And I thought this behavior to be incompatible with the fairings use-case. As for automatic crew transfer and dynamic crew compartment, technically this is possible. But it would be hard to imitate the right behavior: so that to the users it looked like they actually store a vessel with crew. This whole thing needs thorough investigation before I'm ready to discuss it more. 3. Hm... welding is certainly possible! I confess, I never thought about this But I'm not sure about premade models for standard parts. I mean, I can convert the two stock cargo bays into hangars, but the models made for this could hardly be used anywhere else. So it is still requires a modder to have basic modeling skills and to know Unity-KSP workflow.

Could you be more verbose about it? I heard nothing *I'll answer the rest a little later

OK, lets differentiate the proposed ideas: light hangars with reduced functionality; what could be limited: one ship at a time add ships only in editor no crew/resources transfer By combining all three we may get almost what you want. I'll consider it. But to automatically fix a ship inside a cargo bay with struts, instantly, without any Kerbals involved? No, not without machinery. And do remember: it will remove only ~30% of the weight of the Inline Hangar. [*]fairing hangar, meaning a container that is attached to the head of a rocket and that spits out another ship forward on stage separation. There are two main problems here: vessel switching during acceleration and gravity turn; and inability to store crewed ships in-editor. So as appealing as the idea may seem, I still consider it impractical, if at all doable. [*]convert existing parts to hangars -- in the v2.0-BETA I added Hangar Extensions. They are more-lightweight containers without doors that can have ships inside and pass them to each other, but not store/launch them. This allows to expand storage space while having the same small docking space with doors (inline hangar). The module HangarStorage that turns a part into a Hangar Extension does not require anything particular from the model, so it can be added to any part that seems appropriate. But you still need a hangar attached to that part to store/launch ships. As for the real conversion of a third-party part into a hangar, it's not possible because the Hangar module needs specific model design with several emty transforms and invisible meshes (like ModuleLandingLeg or ModuleWheel). [*]SSTO hangar -- I've already made (but not published yet) the non-resizable Mk3 compatible hangar. It is very light for its volume of almost 90m3, has enough fuel to get to orbit and return, has a door at the back that works as a ramp (like in cargo planes). It is made in the same paradigm and is still big and heavy, but is tuned for space-planes; and I already flew it several times to orbit and back.

I already had this conversation here some pages ago. But I repeat it again, for the last time. The game engine allows almost anything. I may create a tiny black box weighting -10t with infinite space inside to store ships, if I will. But I will not. Because my choice is to play fair and maintain a reasonable in-game balance as close to the real life as possible. Am empty barrel with thin walls cannot be a hangar: you need some machinery to move and fix stored vessels. Otherwise a mothership cannot perform any maneuver without tearing itself from inside with the stored vessels. The space you call "wasted" contains that machinery, and it has mass; very little, by the way, compared to the real-life analogs. If you are not satisfied with this, you are free and welcome to spend your time and money on the development of your own parts and/or plugins. My assets and code are public and fully available, so you don't even have to start from scratch. So THE DISCLAMER Anyone can change my opinion on any matter here, there already are several examples of this. But to do so you need more than just a wish to have "a part tailored to your liking". You need to provide strong logic in support of your version of a design and functioning. I'm not an artist, who just makes fancy models. I spend much effort and perform many additional computations and research to balance things. Dixi

Wait... a cylindrical container with capabilities of a hangar? Sounds pretty familiar! Folks, am I missing something or the inline hangar already matches the description? No, seriously, what would you simplify in it?

Nah, that's my fault! I forgot to remove the excessive ":NEEDS" directives from the GameData/Hangar/Resources.cfg. Here: download the corrected version and replace the old one with it. Thanks a lot for the report! That's what I was counting on ='=

These are not the "original values" These are partials, parts of the 1, meaning specificMass = mass * partials = V mass, S mass, linear mass, const mass. They are there just for reference. So what you've actually done, you set the mass equal to 1t. Which means that the hangar walls now have the density 0.660215982922/(66.444*0.006+18.64*0.005) ~= 1.34 g/cm3. Basically, you've just made it from polyester: http://www.dotmar.com.au/polyester-petp-ertalyte/ertalyte-pet-rod-sheet-tube.html Besides, "back to it's original values" means there was some original configuration of the part. But this IS the original. I'm not modifying anyone's work here, you know. Anyway. While I'm glad to have any feedback, in the previous post I was really asking the people who downloaded the v2.0-BETA to post something about this particular version.

After 8 days and 40 downloads no one had posted anything about the Beta Am I to conclude that all is perfect and the version should be published as Stable?

As if they need my help...

Hangar v2.0.0-BETA is now available for download This is not a stable release and is intended to be used for testing So if you are willing to try it, I'm asking you to post here your opinion and report any bugs you will encounter Needless to say, but still: BACK UP YOUR SAVES! Short description is available under the download link. More thorough and complete documentation of the new features I will write soon.

It will make a difference, as dimensions of a stored vessel are calculated dynamically at the moment of docking by computing either its bounding box or convex hull. So a lander with extended legs or a probe with deployed solar panels or antenna will take more volume inside or may even be considered too bulky to be stored (technically: the mod thoroughly checks if some of the vessel's parts will touch inner walls of the hangar upon launch).

Lowering part count was The reason for me to start the development of this mod, and such motherships I had in mind all along. As for the balance of weight and cost, I've developed a separate python program to automatically calculate these from the volume, surface area and composition of a part. //================================== Spaceport =================================== //hull: 366.046m^3, 39.8956249092t, 136247.876Cr // surface: [960.55m^2 x 0.007m], 1.9t/m^3, 12.775315t, 26895.4Cr // content: 82.146m^3, 0.01t/m^3, 0.82146t, 164.292Cr // machinery room: 46.92m^3, 8.80360990918t, 70305.984Cr // content: 38.8595699993m^3, 0.154402120253t/m^3, 6.0t, 3500.0Cr // batteries: 5.0m^3, 0.2t/m^3 1.0t, 27500.0Cr // energy amount = 20000.0 // reaction wheel: 0.95m^3, 0.952380952381t/m^3 0.904761904762t, 9500.0Cr // torque = 141 // rate = 3.072 // generator: 0.11043000068m^3, 6.5199674t/m^3 0.720000004417t, 29700.0Cr // energy rate = 6.750 // monopropellent tank: 2.0m^3, 0.178848t, 105.984Cr // surface: [11.04m^2 x 0.006m], 2.7t/m^3, 0.178848t, 105.984Cr // side-space: 225.28m^3, 17.4812t, 38870.5Cr // content: 124.4m^3, 0.05t/m^3, 6.22t, 2488.0Cr // cabins: 28.8m^3, 5.932t, 25120.0Cr // surface: [128.0m^2 x 0.01m], 1.9t/m^3, 2.432t, 5120.0Cr // content: 28.8m^3, 0.121527777778t/m^3, 3.5t, 20000.0Cr // coridors: 54.5m^3, 3.62448t, 7547.3Cr // surface: [187.32m^2 x 0.01m], 1.9t/m^3, 3.55908t, 7492.8Cr // content: 54.5m^3, 0.0012t/m^3, 0.0654t, 54.5Cr // doors machinery: 17.58m^3, 1.70472t, 3715.2Cr // surface: [52.88m^2 x 0.01m], 1.9t/m^3, 1.00472t, 2115.2Cr // content: 17.58m^3, 0.0398179749716t/m^3, 0.7t, 1600.0Cr // coridors: 11.7m^3, 0.0012t/m^3 0.01404t, 11.7Cr // //doors: 3.28m^3, 0.802604t, 1627.2Cr // surface: [57.88m^2 x 0.007m], 1.9t/m^3, 0.769804t, 1620.64Cr // content: 3.28m^3, 0.01t/m^3, 0.0328t, 6.56Cr //--------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- //Total volume: 369.326 m^3, 19.978462 t //Total surface: 1397.670 m^2, 20.719767 t //Additional mass: 4.080000 t //Additional cost: 5880.000 Cr //Resources cost: 2400.000 Cr Note, that the hangar space -- the main empty space where vessels are stored -- is not included in the calculations at all. Only surfaces and volumes of closed-surface meshes are. For densities of materials I search the internet, while densities of components such as batteries or generators I calculate from the stock parts. Sometimes these calculations are in conflict with the common sense, though, as Squad take weights for their parts out of thin air, it seems. Some of the stock parts are made from materials no heavier than conventional plastic foams; and asteroids in the game are ~1000 times less dense than the real ones. But I try to find a compromise each time.

And I've learned this the hard way, spending days hunting for different bugs it causes. Until I've finally mapped the Instantiate->Awake->Load->Start pathway of a PartModule through the scenes and when and how many times different evens are fired. And to tell you the truth: the more I read disassembled Squad's code, the more I want to rewrite it from scratch at some places >_<

That was my original intention (at least concerning Ground Hangars), as I wrote in the documentation. But in fact it is pretty much possible to launch Spaceport and enlarged inline hangars from Kerbin. And I've checked the possibility when they were much heavier than now. Today -- what worths a 40-50t payload? Why, I sometimes launch around 200t of cargo and >500t total! Not that it speaks well about my engineering skills ='=

Yep, that's perfectly possible and intended. The only challenge here is deorbiting-landing, but that is always the case. EDIT: It's also possible to store subassemblies. Technically they will still be vessels when launched, but that is even nearer to the idea of supply cargo and storing parts. You will still need KAS to attach these to anything.

Hangars can store only whole ships, they are totally different from the KAS containers. And no, there are no inflatable space hangars, only solid Li-Al resizable ones. Up to ~1500m3 or so =)

Good day, xEvilReeperx. Thanks for the great mod! I want to redirect a bug-report my user made recently, because, as I found, it concerns ScienceAlert. Like ExtraplanetaryLaunchpad my mod uses ShipConstruct.PutShipToGround -> ShipConstruct.AssembleForLaunch routine to spawn vessels. And when it happens, ScienceAlertProfileManager crashes with NullRef. in OnVesselCreate handler: NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at ScienceAlert.ScienceAlertProfileManager.OnVesselCreate (.Vessel newVessel) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at EventData`1[Vessel].Fire (.Vessel data) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Vessel.Initialize (Boolean fromShipAssembly) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at ShipConstruction.AssembleForLaunch (.ShipConstruct ship, System.String landedAt, System.String flagURL, .Game sceneState, .VesselCrewManifest crewManifest) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at AtHangar.HangarStorage+<convert_constructs_to_vessels>c__Iterator0.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 The problem is reproducible only in career mode, of course. In my mod this causes a ship stored in editor to disappear upon launch. And I would guess that the same thing would happen with ships built with ExLaunchpads.

I'll answer to the Woody's bug report here, as it might concern someone else: The problem Woody has described arises from the conflict with the ScienceAlert mod. Its author warns that current release (1.8rc1) of ScienceAlert may be buggy as the new Ship Profiles system is introduced, and it is exactly the place where the error happens: when a ship-construct that was stored in-Editor is spawned upon hangar launch (to be immediately stored again as vessel), the onNewVesselCreated event is automatically fired (by KSP API) and handled by ScienceAlert with the NullReferenceException: NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object ScienceAlert.ScienceAlertProfileManager.OnVesselCreate (.Vessel newVessel) EventData`1[Vessel].Fire (.Vessel data) Vessel.Initialize (Boolean fromShipAssembly) ShipConstruction.AssembleForLaunch (.ShipConstruct ship, System.String landedAt, System.String flagURL, .Game sceneState, .VesselCrewManifest crewManifest) AtHangar.Hangar+<convert_constructs_to_vessels>c__Iterator1.MoveNext () Unfortunately, I cannot do a thing about this: ShipConstruction.AssembleForLaunch is a stock KSP API over which I have no control. I would say that the same error should arise with the ExtraplanetaryLaunchpads which uses the same mechanism to spawn vessels. So this bug report should be redirected to the developer of ScienceAlert. EDIT: The bug only appears in career mod. UPD: I've wrote to xEvilReeperx (Sci.Alert dev) and described the problem.

KSP.log is located in the game installation folder, where KSP.exe is. It is overwritten every time the game starts, so the log is useful only after the glitch happened and before the game is started again. If it's not a problem, please do recreate the glitch, then quit the game and then send me the log. I hope I could find some clues there...

That is even odder! The rover should appear for a fraction of a second somewhere near the launched vessel (mostly just inside, so it is hard to notice) and then disappear as it is docked inside a hangar. But what you describe is totally out of order. Could you post the logs of these tests (KSP.log or Player.log)? I would very much like to study them. Thanks again for the report!

Thanks again for what seems like a great mod that I am looking forward to using. Thank you for your report. That is definitely strange, as Rover Lander is a well tested part and I don't know of any conflicts with the mods you've listed. I've tested it just now again and all is working fine. Try to build a simple test rover with stock parts only. Does the problem still exist? If not, look carefully at the parts you use in your main rover, add them one by one to the test rover and see which part will break things. If even the all-stock rover is not docked inside the Lander on launch, please, paste your KSP.log somewhere (pastebin, dropbox, gdrive...), and post the link to it here.

I'll explore the possibilities when I have time. Right now I'm up to my ears in work and developing of the long asked Asteroid Hangars == That would be great! I make these textures and models as fast (and thus as simple) as I can to dedicate more time to functionality, so they were not thoroughly worked on. As for the default color theme... well, that's purely a matter of taste. Call me perverted, but I do really like the chosen colors '

KerbinSide provides custom STATICs which are not parts and play by different rules. So if KS devs decide to adapt some of my code I'll be glad to help, but otherwise -- I just don't have the expertize and resources to obtain one. I doubt anything could be done here without a complete reimplementation of the stock science framework. So yes, the proposed workaround is the only way. The only addition: there are plenty of mods that provide science containers that could be used instead of a pod for science recovery. Look at the main thread post, at Downloads section: there is the DesaturatedTexturePack just for that

Well, frankly, right now I spend all my efforts on developing and maintaining another mod (see the signature). So while writing Kethane-independent config would be a simple thing to do, I don't want to spend time on remodeling. Besides, many mods now have their own heavy-and-powerfull generators, so I would stick to them instead: KSP Interstellar, Near Future, USI mods (MKS/OKS, Karbonite), etc. Still, if you prefer to use this part, I'll make a config for without any dependencies.