[1.9-1.10] Hangar

[allista]

My apologies because this may already have been posted, but I cannot get this thing to work properly. I'm running kspapiextensions as well as Infernal Robotics and Mulitwheels7. I haven't used module manager yet, and I am terribly clueless on how to use it in this scenario. I have unpacked the folder into my GameData folder like everything else, when I start KSP I can see it loading the files from the Hangar folder, and Module Manager comes up on my loading screen. I then continue to my sandbox mode only to not find any new parts either in SPH or VAB. Any suggestions? Thanks!

ModuleManager is essential and its .dll should be installed into the GameData folder, and not in a subfolder. It works automatically and does not need any user interaction. The Hangar folder should be in the GameData folder too.

If you will still have this problem, please post the file tree of your GameData folder. Also please post KSP.log file.

[Nori]

Just wanted to say thanks for this mod.

I just launched a 4 satellite Remote Tech 2 setup all in one launch using a awesome hanger.

[allista]

Glad to hear! ==

I hope to release the next version this week. Nothing special, but I'm trying to make it more convenient and flexible with respect to ship designing.

[mossman]

You should write configs or provide parts for spaceplane cargo bays to be used as hangars.

Also, will resources stored in parts that are stored in a hangar be accessible to the rest of the ship? I ask because this would be a great method to create completely customized service modules while lowering part count.

Also, single-use hangars in the form of payload shrouds would certainly be useful.

[Nori]

You should write configs or provide parts for spaceplane cargo bays to be used as hangars.

Also, will resources stored in parts that are stored in a hangar be accessible to the rest of the ship? I ask because this would be a great method to create completely customized service modules while lowering part count.

Also, single-use hangars in the form of payload shrouds would certainly be useful.

I believe your second point is possible. If you have a ship in the hanger you can open the hanger controls and transfer resources (at least I think you can, I've always launched full ships so I haven't tried).

[allista]

You should write configs or provide parts for spaceplane cargo bays to be used as hangars.

Also, will resources stored in parts that are stored in a hangar be accessible to the rest of the ship? I ask because this would be a great method to create completely customized service modules while lowering part count.

Also, single-use hangars in the form of payload shrouds would certainly be useful.

1. My apologies, but I believe I should decide for myself what I should and shouldn't do =) Still, the small inline hangar may be easily used in a spaceplane design if scaled down. But I'll consider making dedicated spaceplane-fuselage-type hangars.
   
2. Nori is correct, it's possible to transfer resources to and from stored vessels.
   
3. I can't catch the concept. Any part, hangars included, may be used as a "single-use" device. Just leave it in orbit, on a surface, or destroy it.
   

[Nori]

1. My apologies, but I believe I should decide for myself what I should and shouldn't do =) Still, the small inline hangar may be easily used in a spaceplane design if scaled down. But I'll consider making dedicated spaceplane-fuselage-type hangars.
   
2. Nori is correct, it's possible to transfer resources to and from stored vessels.
   
3. I can't catch the concept. Any part, hangars included, may be used as a "single-use" device. Just leave it in orbit, on a surface, or destroy it.
   

For point 3, I believe he is trying to figure out a way to lower part count, but keep the payload fairing he is used to from other mods. So if I understand correctly. He would create a ship, "hide" it with a payload fairing configured hanger. Then after reaching somewhere the fairing would be ejected.

You could do this with the hanger as is, but the concept is different I suppose.

[allista]

For point 3, I believe he is trying to figure out a way to lower part count, but keep the payload fairing he is used to from other mods. So if I understand correctly. He would create a ship, "hide" it with a payload fairing configured hanger. Then after reaching somewhere the fairing would be ejected.

You could do this with the hanger as is, but the concept is different I suppose.

Thanks for the clarification!

So, essentially a self-disabling hangar that spawns a ship and becomes just a structural frame afterwards. Nice idea, but not so easy to implement starting from the framework I have now. And I can't see the big difference with the present time hangars. Such hangars should be lighter and less expensive, but what other advantages this may give?

[Nori]

Thanks for the clarification!

So, essentially a self-disabling hangar that spawns a ship and becomes just a structural frame afterwards. Nice idea, but not so easy to implement starting from the framework I have now. And I can't see the big difference with the present time hangars. Such hangars should be lighter and less expensive, but what other advantages this may give?

Well, assuming it worked similar to Procedural fairings (the fairings automatically resize around the payload) then you wouldn't have to worry about sizing the hanger around the ship as it would be done automatically. And of course it would be lighter and less expensive.

While it would be interesting, I'm not sure if it would be worth it considering it would probably be a lot of work for you to implement.

[madlemur]

Well, assuming it worked similar to Procedural fairings (the fairings automatically resize around the payload) then you wouldn't have to worry about sizing the hanger around the ship as it would be done automatically. And of course it would be lighter and less expensive.

While it would be interesting, I'm not sure if it would be worth it considering it would probably be a lot of work for you to implement.

It might be easier to take PF, and if the payload does NOT contain the root part, tuck away the payload into a virtualized space via the same mechanism(s) used by hangar. Then deploy the payload when the fairings are decoupled. Of course, I'm assuming the limitation on acceleration, rotation, etc. for the hangar is trying to get the payload to match the various velocities of the hangar when it gets spawned in, and I know I often detach my fairings while under power, or rotating (to be sure the covers clear the rest of the rocket).

It would have to be a hybrid of the two mods, and likely limited to inline payloads... Plus, it takes all the fun out of strutting and securing the payload under the fairing!

[Nori]

It might be easier to take PF, and if the payload does NOT contain the root part, tuck away the payload into a virtualized space via the same mechanism(s) used by hangar. Then deploy the payload when the fairings are decoupled. Of course, I'm assuming the limitation on acceleration, rotation, etc. for the hangar is trying to get the payload to match the various velocities of the hangar when it gets spawned in, and I know I often detach my fairings while under power, or rotating (to be sure the covers clear the rest of the rocket).

It would have to be a hybrid of the two mods, and likely limited to inline payloads... Plus, it takes all the fun out of strutting and securing the payload under the fairing!

I hate strutting under fairings... :/ But yeah your idea sounds the most workable. I think the limitation of a secure orbit would have to be in place otherwise it would probably be squirrely.

[allista]

Well, assuming it worked similar to Procedural fairings (the fairings automatically resize around the payload) then you wouldn't have to worry about sizing the hanger around the ship as it would be done automatically. And of course it would be lighter and less expensive.

While it would be interesting, I'm not sure if it would be worth it considering it would probably be a lot of work for you to implement.

Yea, any kind of procedural meshes are pain in the ass in Unity. I've just implemented simple procedural truncated cone for adapter and it took me several days to clean out all the tiny bugs with normals and tangent space calculations >_<' And if you look inside the ProceduralParts' code, it's tenths of times more complex.

It might be easier to take PF, and if the payload does NOT contain the root part, tuck away the payload into a virtualized space via the same mechanism(s) used by hangar. Then deploy the payload when the fairings are decoupled. Of course, I'm assuming the limitation on acceleration, rotation, etc. for the hangar is trying to get the payload to match the various velocities of the hangar when it gets spawned in, and I know I often detach my fairings while under power, or rotating (to be sure the covers clear the rest of the rocket).

It would have to be a hybrid of the two mods, and likely limited to inline payloads... Plus, it takes all the fun out of strutting and securing the payload under the fairing!

I hate strutting under fairings... :/ But yeah your idea sounds the most workable. I think the limitation of a secure orbit would have to be in place otherwise it would probably be squirrely.

Indeed, hangar requires stable orbit just to prevent collision of the launched vessel with the walls of the hangar. Yet fairings may be decoupled with ejection force applied, so these limitations are not a problem. But unfortunately, PF is not a part, but always several parts (base+fairings), so right now I can't even think of a way to inject hangar functionality there. Thus, it seems, the only way is to reimplement it. Another thing about hangars: they store only complete vessels, the root part is required; you can't hide just some section of a vessel there.

[mossman]

My apologies, but I believe I should decide for myself what I should and shouldn't do =)

no, you actually have to do everything I say

It might be easier to take PF, and if the payload does NOT contain the root part, tuck away the payload into a virtualized space via the same mechanism(s) used by hangar. Then deploy the payload when the fairings are decoupled. Of course, I'm assuming the limitation on acceleration, rotation, etc. for the hangar is trying to get the payload to match the various velocities of the hangar when it gets spawned in, and I know I often detach my fairings while under power, or rotating (to be sure the covers clear the rest of the rocket).

It would have to be a hybrid of the two mods, and likely limited to inline payloads... Plus, it takes all the fun out of strutting and securing the payload under the fairing!

This is what I meant.

[AccidentalDisassembly]

Re: the lack of friction (or the huge amounts of friction, who knows) on the hangar parts, the combination I tried was a clean install of KSP 32-bit 0.24.2 on Windows 8.1 x64, if that helps

[allista]

Re: the lack of friction (or the huge amounts of friction, who knows) on the hangar parts, the combination I tried was a clean install of KSP 32-bit 0.24.2 on Windows 8.1 x64, if that helps

Unfortunately, I still can't reproduce it on my clean install (KSP 0.24.2, Ubuntu 12.04, 32bit). Tried only yesterday for couple of hours with different combinations of rovers and hangars and places. The only thing I've noticed (a long time ago) is that sometimes when you switch to the rover (not necessarily from the hangar) the forward-backward controls do not work. But switching back and forth fixes that in my experience. Could you publish your KSP.log and/or Player.log? Or maybe make a small screencast?

[endl]

i have some "concept" issues with the rover hangar.

first off why is it so god damn heavy there's not enough "safe/free" surface area to attach legs that can support its mass. even more so if your using landing thrusters of which you need 5 poodles just to get lift on kerbin. this is just beyond silly for delivering a 5t payload. if you were to build your own platform for the legs the ramp doesn't touch the ground.

your domed top also makes angle snap problematic especially since it takes a metric butt-load of parachutes to land it using aerobraking, again why is this thing so heavy? its odd shape causes symmetry problems since you cant design a rocket big enough with stock parts that will lift through the center so instead you have to use the outer points which causes parts to rotate off symmetry.

this idea is great because designing and balancing a lander for a rover mission is annoying as hell, but this comes with its own set of problems for whats supposed to be an all in one solution.

the last thing i cant figure out is storage space, i have 3 rovers and loading each up takes some amount of space but when i try to load all of them together they don't fit even though the remaining storage says there's enough room for what the last rover takes up on its own. some clarity would be helpful.

in any case i think you need a model rework perhaps a decagon shaped barrel where some of the sides fold in while others flatten out to form a ramp. or perhaps a elevator that drops out the bottom to let the rover drive out so that you have more surface available for mounting things like legs,parachutes, etc.

Edited September 18, 2014 by endl

[allista]

i have some "concept" issues with the rover hangar.

first off why is it so god damn heavy there's not enough "safe/free" surface area to attach legs that can support its mass. even more so if your using landing thrusters of which you need 5 poodles just to get lift on kerbin. this is just beyond silly for delivering a 5t payload. if you were to build your own platform for the legs the ramp doesn't touch the ground.

your domed top also makes angle snap problematic especially since it takes a metric butt-load of parachutes to land it using aerobraking, again why is this thing so heavy? its odd shape causes symmetry problems since you cant design a rocket big enough with stock parts that will lift through the center so instead you have to use the outer points which causes parts to rotate off symmetry.

this idea is great because designing and balancing a lander for a rover mission is annoying as hell, but this comes with its own set of problems for whats supposed to be an all in one solution.

the last thing i cant figure out is storage space, i have 3 rovers and loading each up takes some amount of space but when i try to load all of them together they don't fit even though the remaining storage says there's enough room for what the last rover takes up on its own. some clarity would be helpful.

in any case i think you need a model rework perhaps a decagon shaped barrel where some of the sides fold in while others flatten out to form a ramp. or perhaps a elevator that drops out the bottom to let the rover drive out so that you have more surface available for mounting things like legs,parachutes, etc.

1. The RoverLander is actually very light. It's mass is calculated like this:

    //Volumes: [ 
(ramp side walls: 0.0552m^3, 2.7t/m^3, 0.14904t, 0.4416Cr) 
(base: 7m^3, 0.15t/m^3, 1.05t, 280Cr) 
(machinery: 5.76m^3, 0.11t/m^3, 0.6336t, 460.8Cr) 
(clamp: 0.045m^3, 0.98t/m^3, 0.0441t, 27.0Cr) 
(doors: 2.18m^3, 0.02t/m^3, 0.0436t, 2.18Cr) 
(batteries: 0.888m^3, 0.112612612613t/m^3, 0.1t, 1760.0Cr) 
(reaction wheel: 0.17m^3, 0.952380952381t/m^3, 0.161904761905t, 1700.0Cr) 
(hinges: 0.016m^3, 2.7t/m^3, 0.0432t, 0.128Cr) ]
    //Total volume: 16.1142 m^3
    //V mass: 2.2254447619 t
    //Shell: [ 
(hull: 92.1m^2, 0.004m, 2.7t/m^3, 0.99468t, 589.44Cr) 
(doors: 55.28m^2, 0.003m, 2.7t/m^3, 0.447768t, 265.344Cr) 
(fuel tanks: 14.34m^2, 0.006m, 2.7t/m^3, 0.232308t, 137.664Cr) 
(inner hydraulic cylinders: 2.172m^2, 0.002m, 8.05t/m^3, 0.0349692t, 13.032Cr) 
(outer hydraulic cylinders: 2.884m^2, 0.002m, 8.05t/m^3, 0.0464324t, 17.304Cr) ]
    //Total surface: 166.776 m^2
    //S mass: 1.7561576 t
    //Additional mass: 0.04 t
    //Additional cost: 680 Cr
    //Resources cost: 653.1 Cr
    entryCost = 23547.8369899
    cost = 6586.4336
    mass = 4.0216023619

Still, I've thought of what you've said and managed to cut ~0.15t from the default-sized lander. It is not much, but it adds a couple of tons of payload it's able to lift using Puddles when resized to size4. But just think about it: the dimensions of the size4 lander are 7.4x7.4x5.8m; it's a room almost 55m2 with nearly 6m high ceiling, compare it with the living area of your home! It is made of thin (4mm) aluminum sheets, contains steel hydraulic cylinders, accumulators and machinery, heavy reaction wheel, fuel tanks and so on. Yet it weights only 24.8t without fuels. It is ~78kg per cubic meter. Less dense then most of plastic foams! So it's a shame we don't have a decent propulsion that would allow us to easily lift a house made from plastic foam =)

*BTW: I haven't have problems with lifting off using 4 Puddles with 5t cargo on board (see the pictures below).

2. I've successfully managed to attach 4 parachutes using radial symmetry right above the doors without any problems. You can't do it in diagonals, but that's a limitation of KSP Editor and the way it computes orientation of symmetrical parts. Even some stock parts have such problems.

http://i.imgur.com/nEEaGU4.png

3. Yes, stock parts are not big enough, they are limited to size3, and you're talking about size4 part. But, as we may guess, it's temporary -- KSP is developing rapidly and the Squad adds new parts. There are also many mods that provide such parts already. And in the next update of the Hangar there will be an adapter that allows to connect S4 to whatever you need.

4 The lander is not meant to be used with landing legs. It is strong enough to land on its own doors at 10m/s without damaging the cargo. I've changed the animation a little, so that the doors lift it enough to fit Puddles underneath. It will be in the next update too.

http://i.imgur.com/yaHR8NY.png

5. About storage space: if you park your car into a garage which will still have some space to the right of the car, to the left, a little above and a little behind... and the summed volume of these spaces will, in theory, be enough to park another car there, will you actually be able to park another one? You see, the hangar volume (and the used percentage) is calculated only for reference. The actual storage algorithm considers geometries of a hangar and stored vessels. I do understand that sometimes it may be confusing, but right now I can't thing of a way to provide a user with a more intuitive way to tell if a vessel should fit into a hangar, except trying to actually fit it and report the result.

There are still some issues with storing something from the Editor, though.

6. Just wanted to ask: what on Kerbin do you need to launch the lander from Kerbin without booster stages for?! =)

[endl]

1. without fuel at size 4 it weighs 27tons, with fuel it comes to 70t, you have an orange cans worth of fuel built into it, which only to land a 8t rover, 2.4t vtol, and it doesnt even fit my 1.4t recon drone. i had a lander design before that im pretty sure i could have gotten working, (just needed mech jeb to cooperate ;p) and it was nowhere near as heavy. i realize you can adjust the fuel but even then this is overkill for a lander, it might make sense if it was a lifter though.

2. if you use drogue chutes you need to create attachment points, there are none by default which means your stuck with radial chutes if your trying to limit part count. these will not orient correctly and many will clip or spin on axis if your using angle snap

3/4. according to the item description it only has a crash tolerance of 15 which is only 3 more then the size 3 legs as you put it. the ramp also has worse clearance from the bottom if your using anything bigger then a 909 since they are raised. thank you for adjusting the angle this is a big help since legs aren't an option.

5. my rover is basically two parallel structural fuselage yet wont fit unless i make the hangar at least 3.6 size, since you did not create inner attachment points but spawn the vehicle instead would you not agree the realism is sort of broken here. so if it fits volumetrically can you not remove the simulated realism of "two parked cars next to each other". im not against realism but if you want to go that route i would rather you just make an actual attachment point inside that i can work with.

6. structural testing, i go up a few hundred feet and let it land to see if everything is reacting accordingly. i dont need poodles but it wont lift unless i use them. also makes sense to have them if im going to be landing on a planet with larger G

Edited September 18, 2014 by endl

[allista]

1. without fuel at size 4 it weighs 27tons, with fuel it comes to 70t, you have an orange cans worth of fuel built into it, which only to land a 8t rover, 2.4t vtol, and it doesnt even fit my 1.4t recon drone. i had a lander design before that im pretty sure i could have gotten working, (just needed mech jeb to cooperate ;p) and it was nowhere near as heavy. i realize you can adjust the fuel but even then this is overkill for a lander, it might make sense if it was a lifter though.

2. if you use drogue chutes you need to create attachment points, there are none by default which means your stuck with radial chutes if your trying to limit part count. these will not orient correctly and many will clip or spin on axis if your using angle snap

3/4. according to the item description it only has a crash tolerance of 15 which is only 3 more then the size 3 legs as you put it. the ramp also has worse clearance from the bottom if your using anything bigger then a 909 since they are raised. thank you for adjusting the angle this is a big help since legs aren't an option.

5. my rover is basically two parallel structural fuselage yet wont fit unless i make the hangar at least 3.6 size, since you did not create inner attachment points but spawn the vehicle instead would you not agree the realism is sort of broken here. so if it fits volumetrically can you not remove the simulated realism of "two parked cars next to each other". im not against realism but if you want to go that route i would rather you just make an actual attachment point inside that i can work with.

6. structural testing, i go up a few hundred feet and let it land to see if everything is reacting accordingly. i dont need poodles but it wont lift unless i use them. also makes sense to have them if im going to be landing on a planet with larger G

1. Well, I've shown you the calculations (they're for the new version from the pictures, that's why the figures differ a little). If you have any idea of where to cut some more fat from the lander, you're welcome to share it. As for your custom lander design -- it's no wonder. If you make something tailored for your particular payload it should be more efficient. What I do is trying to make something more universal, trading efficiency for lower parts count and simpler design. Hence cubic geometry and built-in fuel tanks and other stuff. And yes, the Rover Lander is certainly designed to be a lifter too. But not for heavy worlds -- there's no propulsion system in the stock game for such things.

2. I always use Editor Extensions to overcome this so I sometimes forget that not everyone use them too. I apologize for that. Still I don't know if adding stack nodes to the top of the lander is a good idea: it may be too confusing to have a part with 10 nodes.

5. The whole point of the mod is to spawn vehicles instead of just attaching them. And while this breaks the realism to the point it is well worth it. Also, it is an ill argument to say that if the realism is broken at one point it's not worth trying to keep it wherever possible. So no, this simulated packing of vessels is, in my opinion, what keeps this mod from being a cheat.

A thing to mention: I'm working on the alternative lander part for long rovers to be used in some horizontal VTOL designs. It will hardly be any lighter, but maybe it will fit your needs better and thus wont need to be enlarged to such extents. Then again, VTOL is not something you can do with stock parts and modules.

[endl]

1. Well, I've shown you the calculations (they're for the new version from the pictures, that's why the figures differ a little). If you have any idea of where to cut some more fat from the lander, you're welcome to share it. As for your custom lander design -- it's no wonder. If you make something tailored for your particular payload it should be more efficient. What I do is trying to make something more universal, trading efficiency for lower parts count and simpler design. Hence cubic geometry and built-in fuel tanks and other stuff. And yes, the Rover Lander is certainly designed to be a lifter too. But not for heavy worlds -- there's no propulsion system in the stock game for such things.

2. I always use Editor Extensions to overcome this so I sometimes forget that not everyone use them too. I apologize for that. Still I don't know if adding stack nodes to the top of the lander is a good idea: it may be too confusing to have a part with 10 nodes.

5. The whole point of the mod is to spawn vehicles instead of just attaching them. And while this breaks the realism to the point it is well worth it. Also, it is an ill argument to say that if the realism is broken at one point it's not worth trying to keep it wherever possible. So no, this simulated packing of vessels is, in my opinion, what keeps this mod from being a cheat.

A thing to mention: I'm working on the alternative lander part for long rovers to be used in some horizontal VTOL designs. It will hardly be any lighter, but maybe it will fit your needs better and thus wont need to be enlarged to such extents. Then again, VTOL is not something you can do with stock parts and modules.

1. on this point i think the biggest problem is you are too generous with the fuel, if someone needs a lifter they should make one. what your lander should do is provide a venue where someone can take a none symmetrical design with alot of odd drag etc and deliver it using your system which otherwise would create some really messy rocket design and was the primary reason i was attracted to your mod, it fills a much needed space for "rover missions"

2. this is a simple geometry problem i think angling the dome a bit more sharply would fix this. perhaps a bit more pyramid in shape with a single flat space for a node point is all it would need, i agree on adding multiple node points as being unnessary

5. heres a perfect example of why i think this is flawed. your system can only fit my recon plane which is 1.4 tons in size 4 which brings the mass up to 40t. storage wise it only uses 36% but it cant fit the other two rovers so 65% is basically empty and now i have a massive new payload size.

as for the vtol its a very small system i have a "cart/launch pad" that moves it outside the lander. this was a modification i made since i could not fit my rover with the vtol on top as i originally wanted into your lander. like i was saying the "parked car" paramater you have created is a real headache when you are dealing with odd geometry and is something i wish you would consider.

here are some links to what im dealing with:

download rover

Javascript is disabled. View full album

if you haven't changed your mind after reading all this, then i think you might want to just scrap the whole idea of multiple rover storage and just have it limited to 1 vehicle per hangar, afterwards just cut the weight down dramatically as a compensation.

Edited September 18, 2014 by endl

[allista]

Thanks for the rovers, I'll fiddle with them and think more about the designs of landers.

And I will test the idea of a more pyramid shape of the dome. If it will change the way symmetrical parts are attached, I'll implement it.

But I at last see the core problem. The hangars, all of them, do not have and never will have customizable geometry. They are what they are, as all the other parts in the game. I may remodel them in one way or another, but that wont change their static nature and the fact that they are not fit for every and all imaginable applications. So if you want to get optimal filling and have less mass, you should tailor your payload to them, not vice versa.

I wont remove vessels packing, it is conceptually wrong. I can't make the lander any lighter, otherwise it will have to be made of silk and paper, not aluminum and steel. I will make other lander models, if I see some common use cases.

Edited September 19, 2014 by allista

[endl]

fair enough thank you for the consideration, some alternate lander designs would probably do the trick, at the very least maybe you can add an aspect scale like you did for the cylindrical bay?

most of the mass of your lander is fuel it would be nice if you can customize the fuel level with some presets since not everyone wants to use it as part of the lifting stage

Edited September 19, 2014 by endl

[AccidentalDisassembly]

All right. Finally had a chance to test again. As you can see, this is on a clean install, KSP 32 bit run in Windows 8.1 x64, only Hangar and stock. Hangar 1.1.1.1 (so says the ZIP file and the DLL version):

Here is my procedure.

1. Load game, create this hangar in the SPH so that I can move it off the runway:

Many wheels at the back because the center of mass of the hangar is rather out of whack compared to what the part itself looks like it ought to weigh and where.

2. Launch this vehicle, drive it somewhere off the runway so I can launch a rover later.

3. The hangar vehicle drives correctly (well, poorly, but it will move) the first time it is launched.

4. Switch back to SPH, make rover, switch back out to hangar vehicle because it didn't quite clear the pad.

5. When I switch back out to the hangar vehicle the second time, its wheels will no longer propel it. Output_log up until this occurred is here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59567837/output_logHangarWontMove.txt.

6. At this point, the hangar vehicle will only rotate in place, and only if you press forward and right/left at same time. Won't move forward or backward, really. Worked fine the first time! No, the wheels are not visibly broken (I don't think).

7. Can't move it off runway anymore, so launch rover from VAB instead. Drive over to hangar vehicle thing.

It does actually drive:

8. Open up the hangar, try to get the rover inside. No traction on any wheels inside the hanger, but the ones outside can still grab something. In the following picture, for example, the front wheels don't do anything (can't pull the rover in, can't push it out), but the back ones, if they catch on the outside edge of the hangar, will make it move. It is not a question of the rover itself being stuck on the edge of the hangar, though that obviously doesn't help.

Front wheels (inside hangar) spin very slowly but do nothing:

Gave up at this point. No, the design of the hangar isn't optimal since it's hard to get a rover in there, but the same effect I described before has happened with every rover design/hangar vehicle/whatever i've tried, no matter how easy it is to get a rover in (i.e. less gap between hangar and ground).

Output_log (same one as above, but now including the whole process) here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59567837/output_logHangarSlipComplete.txt

KSP.log (whole process) here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59567837/KSPhangarslip.log

Does not depend on type of wheel, number of wheels, so far as I can tell.

There's a moment in there where I had to respawn because the hanger flung the rover out of it (resulting in explosions) when it tried to back out one time. Another one resulted from me accidentally flipping the rover =(

But you get the idea.

EDIT: Just in case, I tried another hangar that sat directly on the ground and did the same drive-the-rover-over-to-it thing, got the rover inside easily. No traction. Stored it, retrieved it, tried to move it out of hangar. No traction, but the rover would turn and move every so slightly in a given direction if you press forward AND right/left at the same time.

Logs for this: same as above, but more:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59567837/output_logHangarSlip2.txt

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59567837/KSPhangarslip2.log

Edited September 20, 2014 by AccidentalDisassembly

[allista]

All right. Finally had a chance to test again. ...

Thank you so much for such thorough testing! It's a great job!

I still can't understand what exactly is happening, because there are no errors in logs that I can link to the problem. Even the seemingly related "WheelCollider requires an attached Rigidbody to function." is the message I see all the time; have seen it even before I started to develop the mode, while playing.

I'll reproduce your designs, test it all again and report back. If the problem here is still not present, I'll publish a development version with customized log messages and debugging enabled to see what's going on on your system compared to mine.

*BTW: do note, that ground hangars have integrated command module and battery (and the big one also has generator), so there's no need to attach them.

[allista]

AccidentalDisassembly, I've made a demonstration video of how it should work and is working with friction on my end:

Edited September 20, 2014 by allista