[1.9-1.10] Hangar

[AccidentalDisassembly]

That is so weird... how on earth is that not working for me? Sent you more logs, maybe that will tell...

[Nori]

Sweet! New release. Trying it out now. Didn't have any hangers launch yet, but had one built.

Edit~ The heavy recycler has a negative cost if it is devoid of metals...

Edit2~ The hub and radial attachment points seem really heavy. Especially if scaled. The hub scaled up to 2.5 is I believe 8 tons. That's a lot of extra weight for a part like that.

Edit3~ Is the habitable hanger still supposed to be rounded at the top/bottom?

Edited September 20, 2014 by Nori

[allista]

Sweet! New release. Trying it out now. Didn't have any hangers launch yet, but had one built.

Edit~ The heavy recycler has a negative cost if it is devoid of metals...

Edit2~ The hub and radial attachment points seem really heavy. Especially if scaled. The hub scaled up to 2.5 is I believe 8 tons. That's a lot of extra weight for a part like that.

Edit3~ Is the habitable hanger still supposed to be rounded at the top/bottom?

Oh boy, I knew I never could do anything right the first time! So new update => new functionality => new bugs >_<

1. What do you mean by "devoid of metals"? It does not have any metal by default and costs 2980.1: http://i.imgur.com/pSQmkLb.png

2. I honestly don't know what to do with this. I calculate the weight assuming the part is made from real-world materials like aluminum and steel and composites and has reasonable wall thickness and all. And these parts do weight much. It looked strange for me at first too, but than I took the effort and compared their dimensions (hub, scale 2, 6.8x4x6.8m, diameter of a tunnel 2.5m) with some real world examples, like cars and flats and houses... and saw that KSP parts are not as small as they seem, they are actually not small at all! Station Hub of size 2 may easily shelter this baby in each of its radial tunnels!

*btw: UNscaled Hub weights 1.5t, just like the stock hub; and if you scale the stock one with TweakScale up to size2 (2.5m) you'll get 12t!

3. Yep, still supposed to. Otherwise it will have attach nodes of size4 right from the start. And it creates some diversity =)

Edited September 20, 2014 by allista

[allista]

That is so weird... how on earth is that not working for me? Sent you more logs, maybe that will tell...

Yea, I saw them, thanks! I'll get to it tomorrow, when my head gets back the ability to think =)

[Nori]

Oh boy, I knew I never could do anything right the first time! So new update => new functionality => new bugs >_<

1. What do you mean by "devoid of metals"? It does not have any metal by default and costs 2980.1: http://i.imgur.com/pSQmkLb.png

2. I honestly don't know what to do with this. I calculate the weight assuming the part is made from real-world materials like aluminum and steel and composites and has reasonable wall thickness and all. And these parts do weight much. It looked strange for me at first too, but than I took the effort and compared their dimensions (hub, scale 2, 6.8x4x6.8m, diameter of a tunnel 2.5m) with some real world examples, like cars and flats and houses... and saw that KSP parts are not as small as they seem, they are actually not small at all! Station Hub of size 2 may easily shelter this baby in each of its radial tunnels!

*btw: UNscaled Hub weights 1.5t, just like the stock hub; and if you scale the stock one with TweakScale up to size2 (2.5m) you'll get 12t!

3. Yep, still supposed to. Otherwise it will have attach nodes of size4 right from the start. And it creates some diversity =)

1. So KSP calculates cost assuming a part is full. so when you start a part empty it subtracts what the resources would have cost. I saw this issue with the Karbonite/EPL http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/89774-24-2-%28V-16-7%29-ExtraPlanetary-Launchpads%28EPL%29-Karbonite-Adaptation-%289-10-14%29?p=1383527&viewfull=1#post1383527

2. Yeah I get that. I tend to think of them as hollow empty pieces (made of lightweight materials such as a aluminum lithium alloy) and thus end up being rather light. The stock re-balance mod actually changes the 6 point station hub to be 0.75. I've setup my tweakscale to tweak on square instead of cube (for a few structural parts) because I see the part as being hollow.

Ultimately it is up to you of course.

3. Cool, just wanted to make sure.

Thanks for the update.

[Starwaster]

2. I honestly don't know what to do with this. I calculate the weight assuming the part is made from real-world materials like aluminum and steel and composites and has reasonable wall thickness and all. And these parts do weight much. It looked strange for me at first too, but than I took the effort and compared their dimensions (hub, scale 2, 6.8x4x6.8m, diameter of a tunnel 2.5m) with some real world examples, like cars and flats and houses... and saw that KSP parts are not as small as they seem, they are actually not small at all! Station Hub of size 2 may easily shelter this baby in each of its radial tunnels!

*btw: UNscaled Hub weights 1.5t, just like the stock hub; and if you scale the stock one with TweakScale up to size2 (2.5m) you'll get 12t!

12 tons sounds a little excessive for a scaled up hub. If that mass reflected airlocks or equipment bays then I could understand it. (IMO, it shouldn't even weigh that much with docking ports attached)

Some of the ISS modules weigh that much or more but those are larger by dimension and the mass includes airlocks or equipment.

A Saturn V third stage weighed 14 tons minus payload and dry.

[allista]

1. So KSP calculates cost assuming a part is full. so when you start a part empty it subtracts what the resources would have cost. I saw this issue with the Karbonite/EPL http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/89774-24-2-%28V-16-7%29-ExtraPlanetary-Launchpads%28EPL%29-KarboniteO_o-Adaptation-%289-10-14%29?p=1383527&viewfull=1#post1383527

2. Yeah I get that. I tend to think of them as hollow empty pieces (made of lightweight materials such as a aluminum lithium alloy) and thus end up being rather light. The stock re-balance mod actually changes the 6 point station hub to be 0.75. I've setup my tweakscale to tweak on square instead of cube (for a few structural parts) because I see the part as being hollow.

Ultimately it is up to you of course.

3. Cool, just wanted to make sure.

Thanks for the update.

1. But as you can see in the screenshot, the cost is positive and equal to that in the config

I mean, I can't reproduce what you're describing... And in my experience the cost in config is always what the part costs in its default state, whatever you put in it. So something weird is happening both here and in the fork of ExLP you've mentioned.

2. The radial parts are hollow (you may look at configs: 10kg per m3 meaning some struts and coating and 1.2kg of air), 91.4% of their mass is in their hull, meaning ~scale^2 increment. But the hub should have much more inside, like internal airlocks and pipes and wiring, yet it is still only 100kg per m3 and mass is split ~50/50 between the surface and the volume.

Also, Al-Li alloys that are used in aerospace are not so drastically lighter than aluminum itself (~2.6 vs 2.7, see http://alcoa.com/global/en/innovation/papers_patents/pdf/lmt2007_110.pdf for example). And if you increase the mass as the square of the scale it means that the walls of the scaled hollow part will remain to be of the same thickness. Imagine 5m wide hull (size4) still made form the same 3mm aluminum sheet, and what mechanical properties would it have. That's just a thought about the complexity of physical models, even as simple as the one I use to compute parts' masses.

I want you to understand me correctly: I do want to make things lighter, because propulsion systems in KSP, as futuristic as they are, are still too inefficient and weak for such huge parts. But I can't just get the numbers out of thin air. All these computations allow me to balance the mod, to keep the challenge in game. So if you feel a part's weight is unreasonably high (or low), please, look at configs -- there are always complete descriptions of weight distribution -- and propose some changes. I will be glad to have some help in that.

You're welcome =) And there's still so much to do!

[allista]

12 tons sounds a little excessive for a scaled up hub. If that mass reflected airlocks or equipment bays then I could understand it. (IMO, it shouldn't even weigh that much with docking ports attached)

Some of the ISS modules weigh that much or more but those are larger by dimension and the mass includes airlocks or equipment.

A Saturn V third stage weighed 14 tons minus payload and dry.

Good point about S-IVB! Wiki page says it was 10t dry, so even lighter. And I really can't understand how they managed to build it so light!

My radial adapters have comparable mass distribution, but not the hub.

[Starwaster]

Maybe the 14 tons was an earlier version...

anyway it it was heavily optimized, constructed of lightweight aluminum and reinforced with stringers on the outer shell (Basically corrugated)

[Nori]

Good point about S-IVB! Wiki page says it was 10t dry, so even lighter. And I really can't understand how they managed to build it so light!

My radial adapters have comparable mass distribution, but not the hub.

Magic... You know, they say the lunar lander had some parts as thing as tin foil...

As far as the hub goes. If you could find some way to about halve it's mass at 2.5m I fee like it would be at a good spot.

~Edit: Just wanted to add that I feel like the other parts scale pretty well. The Adapter is very similar to procedural part's cones and seems reasonable. Both radials seem fine too. A hair over 1t for a 2.5m attachment point sounds believable to me.

As for the Recycler cost part. I made a new copy of the game. Just installed Hanger, EPL and Kerbal Engineer. Here is a shot of when I add the Recycler:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9BM0_a9_sitc0k3TG5lbm84RXM/edit?usp=sharing

Doesn't seem to be any helpful info in the log either.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Nori

[Starwaster]

Magic... You know, they say the lunar lander had some parts as thing as tin foil...

Well, it was a little sturdier than THAT

But if you look at some of the pictures of it sitting on the moon it's hard to see anything but tin foil.

Here's something else I never knew until this past month:

There's a lunar rover. Look at its fender. They broke the fender

Fenders are pretty useful things to have so your wheels don't kick up mud all over the place. Probably even more useful when the 'mud' is actually dry abrasive dust. So they fixed it with some laminated maps and duct tape. That's what you're looking at there. I hope they memorized those maps!!!

Edited September 21, 2014 by Starwaster

[Nori]

Getting a odd bug.

When I create a ship that has procedural parts (like a battery) and try to load it into a hanger I get this:

(Filename:  Line: -1)

NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at ProceduralParts.ProceduralPart.AddPartAttachment (Vector3 position, ProceduralParts.Transformable target, Boolean normalized) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at ProceduralParts.ProceduralPart.PartChildAttached (.Part child) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at (wrapper managed-to-native) System.Reflection.MonoMethod:InternalInvoke (object,object[],System.Exception&)

  at System.Reflection.MonoMethod.Invoke (System.Object obj, BindingFlags invokeAttr, System.Reflection.Binder binder, System.Object[] parameters, System.Globalization.CultureInfo culture) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
Rethrow as TargetInvocationException: Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation.
  at System.Reflection.MonoMethod.Invoke (System.Object obj, BindingFlags invokeAttr, System.Reflection.Binder binder, System.Object[] parameters, System.Globalization.CultureInfo culture) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at System.Reflection.MethodBase.Invoke (System.Object obj, System.Object[] parameters) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.ServiceImpl.Send (KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.CurrentEventInfoImpl message) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.ServiceImpl.Update () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
UnityEngine.Debug:Internal_LogException(Exception, Object)
UnityEngine.Debug:LogException(Exception)
KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.ServiceImpl:Update()

It doesn't crash the game or seem to effect anything from what i can tell and it might not even be your bug. Just wondering if you can make any sense of it.

[Starwaster]

Getting a odd bug.

When I create a ship that has procedural parts (like a battery) and try to load it into a hanger I get this:

NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
at ProceduralParts.ProceduralPart.AddPartAttachment (Vector3 position, ProceduralParts.Transformable target, Boolean normalized) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at ProceduralParts.ProceduralPart.PartChildAttached (.Part child) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at (wrapper managed-to-native) System.Reflection.MonoMethod:InternalInvoke (object,object[],System.Exception&)

at System.Reflection.MonoMethod.Invoke (System.Object obj, BindingFlags invokeAttr, System.Reflection.Binder binder, System.Object[] parameters, System.Globalization.CultureInfo culture) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
Rethrow as TargetInvocationException: Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation.
at System.Reflection.MonoMethod.Invoke (System.Object obj, BindingFlags invokeAttr, System.Reflection.Binder binder, System.Object[] parameters, System.Globalization.CultureInfo culture) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at System.Reflection.MethodBase.Invoke (System.Object obj, System.Object[] parameters) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.ServiceImpl.Send (KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.CurrentEventInfoImpl message) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.ServiceImpl.Update () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
UnityEngine.Debug:Internal_LogException(Exception, Object)
UnityEngine.Debug:LogException(Exception)
KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.ServiceImpl:Update()

(Filename:  Line: -1)

It doesn't crash the game or seem to effect anything from what i can tell and it might not even be your bug. Just wondering if you can make any sense of it.

It's linked to KSPAPIExtensions which Hangar does use. Just a guess on my part but my observation has been that if even one mod has a different version of KSPAPIExtensions then you might see problems in any one of those mods that use it. I ran into this when I hadn't updated some of my mods in awhile and I downloaded TweakScale which had a newer version of KSPAPIExtensions. After that I started having problems with Procedural Fairings. So I had to update everything else that used it. (Real Fuels, Procedural Fairings and one other that I dont remember)

[Nori]

It's linked to KSPAPIExtensions which Hangar does use. Just a guess on my part but my observation has been that if even one mod has a different version of KSPAPIExtensions then you might see problems in any one of those mods that use it. I ran into this when I hadn't updated some of my mods in awhile and I downloaded TweakScale which had a newer version of KSPAPIExtensions. After that I started having problems with Procedural Fairings. So I had to update everything else that used it. (Real Fuels, Procedural Fairings and one other that I dont remember)

Hmm, good idea. Just checked them all and they all claim to be the same version. the Extraplanetary one has a different checksum though (despite being the same version)... Might try replacing that and see what happens.

[Shalashalska]

You should add a parts pack that fits with B9's HL and HX parts.

[allista]

There's a lunar rover. Look at its fender. They broke the fender

Fenders are pretty useful things to have so your wheels don't kick up mud all over the place. Probably even more useful when the 'mud' is actually dry abrasive dust. So they fixed it with some laminated maps and duct tape. That's what you're looking at there. I hope they memorized those maps!!!

Oh hell! =) They actually did it! Maps and tape! Humanity is unstoppable >_<'

[allista]

You should add a parts pack that fits with B9's HL and HX parts.

I'm focusing on functionality and bug-hunting. Part packs we'll leave for the crafty 3D-modellers in the community, if there are some who feel the same way as you do =)

[allista]

Getting a odd bug.

When I create a ship that has procedural parts (like a battery) and try to load it into a hanger I get this:

NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
at ProceduralParts.ProceduralPart.AddPartAttachment (Vector3 position, ProceduralParts.Transformable target, Boolean normalized) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at ProceduralParts.ProceduralPart.PartChildAttached (.Part child) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at (wrapper managed-to-native) System.Reflection.MonoMethod:InternalInvoke (object,object[],System.Exception&)

at System.Reflection.MonoMethod.Invoke (System.Object obj, BindingFlags invokeAttr, System.Reflection.Binder binder, System.Object[] parameters, System.Globalization.CultureInfo culture) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
Rethrow as TargetInvocationException: Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation.
at System.Reflection.MonoMethod.Invoke (System.Object obj, BindingFlags invokeAttr, System.Reflection.Binder binder, System.Object[] parameters, System.Globalization.CultureInfo culture) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at System.Reflection.MethodBase.Invoke (System.Object obj, System.Object[] parameters) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.ServiceImpl.Send (KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.CurrentEventInfoImpl message) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

at KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.ServiceImpl.Update () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
UnityEngine.Debug:Internal_LogException(Exception, Object)
UnityEngine.Debug:LogException(Exception)
KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.ServiceImpl:Update()

(Filename:  Line: -1)

It doesn't crash the game or seem to effect anything from what i can tell and it might not even be your bug. Just wondering if you can make any sense of it.

There already were some reports here that Hangar and ProceduralParts are not playing along well, but all my tests of the matter were inconclusive. It seems that the PP (as complex as it is) is still a little buggy. These messages may indicate that PP parts of your ship are not properly initialized when you load it into the hangar. The thing is: in editor the hangar stores not the ship itself but its .craft file to load the ship properly upon launch; so the ship is loaded only to measure its dimensions and then it is instantly destroyed; it all happens within a single frame. Some complex modules may not respond well to such rude handling '

I will check their compatibility again and in a more thorough way.

It's linked to KSPAPIExtensions which Hangar does use. Just a guess on my part but my observation has been that if even one mod has a different version of KSPAPIExtensions then you might see problems in any one of those mods that use it. I ran into this when I hadn't updated some of my mods in awhile and I downloaded TweakScale which had a newer version of KSPAPIExtensions. After that I started having problems with Procedural Fairings. So I had to update everything else that used it. (Real Fuels, Procedural Fairings and one other that I dont remember)

Taniwa managed to get rid of the problem with competing versions of KAE from different mods, and since 1.7.0 update (if I remember correctly) the game chooses the single .dll with the latest version number and uses only it.

[allista]

As far as the hub goes. If you could find some way to about halve it's mass at 2.5m I fee like it would be at a good spot.

I'll try to make it more hollow with more thick walls. Maybe that'll help...

As for the Recycler cost part. I made a new copy of the game. Just installed Hanger, EPL and Kerbal Engineer. Here is a shot of when I add the Recycler:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9BM0_a9_sitc0k3TG5lbm84RXM/edit?usp=sharing

Doesn't seem to be any helpful info in the log either.

Unbelievable! The second bug in a row that is definitely there, but I cannot reproduce it on my install.

I'll check if I'm using the latest ExLP and MM. Are you, by the way?

[Nori]

I am indeed using the most recent versions. That screenshot is from a clean KSP install with the latest versions of EPL and Hanger.

[marce]

There already were some reports here that Hangar and ProceduralParts are not playing along well, but all my tests of the matter were inconclusive. It seems that the PP (as complex as it is) is still a little buggy. These messages may indicate that PP parts of your ship are not properly initialized when you load it into the hangar. The thing is: in editor the hangar stores not the ship itself but its .craft file to load the ship properly upon launch; so the ship is loaded only to measure its dimensions and then it is instantly destroyed; it all happens within a single frame. Some complex modules may not respond well to such rude handling '

I will check their compatibility again and in a more thorough way.

Two ideas:

• My first intention would be to start a coroutine and wait for 0.1sec or so. However, I have no idea how you are loading crafts in the editor, so that may break terrible things if not everything is properly reset in one frame
  
• What I actually would prefer (immersion wise): add the requirement of having launched a vessel at least once before being able to store it in a hangar. Like add a tiny gui for in-flight were the active vessel can be "activated/saved" for hangars. You can measure its size then and avoid loading it in the editor. However, you'd have to copy the craft file and safe it together with the size data, no idea how big those are.
  

Anyway, you'll figure it out

[allista]

Two ideas:

• My first intention would be to start a coroutine and wait for 0.1sec or so. However, I have no idea how you are loading crafts in the editor, so that may break terrible things if not everything is properly reset in one frame
  
• What I actually would prefer (immersion wise): add the requirement of having launched a vessel at least once before being able to store it in a hangar. Like add a tiny gui for in-flight were the active vessel can be "activated/saved" for hangars. You can measure its size then and avoid loading it in the editor. However, you'd have to copy the craft file and safe it together with the size data, no idea how big those are.
  

Anyway, you'll figure it out

1. If I'm not destroying a loaded ShipConstruct part by part, it remains rendered, which breaks the Editor in some ways. And a delay cannot help, because most of initialization of any module is done within OnStart method, and this method is not called on ShipConstruct.LoadShip. Only OnInitialize is.

2. I think it's too counterintuitive and inconvenient. But storing ships in editor is still buggy (see known issues) and I will have to reimplement it, at least partially, at some point. So then I'll consider this too.

[allista]

Magic... You know, they say the lunar lander had some parts as thing as tin foil...

As far as the hub goes. If you could find some way to about halve it's mass at 2.5m I fee like it would be at a good spot.

~Edit: Just wanted to add that I feel like the other parts scale pretty well. The Adapter is very similar to procedural part's cones and seems reasonable. Both radials seem fine too. A hair over 1t for a 2.5m attachment point sounds believable to me.

As for the Recycler cost part. I made a new copy of the game. Just installed Hanger, EPL and Kerbal Engineer. Here is a shot of when I add the Recycler:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9BM0_a9_sitc0k3TG5lbm84RXM/edit?usp=sharing

Doesn't seem to be any helpful info in the log either.

I do confirm this. It had not appeared on my install because of the old ExLP with the 0 cost of metal.

But I do not know with which part of their bodies the Squad devs are thinking!

Indeed, the cost parameter in part.cfg is the cost including maxAmount of all resouces it contains. And that's terrible, because it forces anyone who whants to add something to other mods to carefully watch all updates and check if the cost of resources defined in these mods has changed. And if it has, one needs to recalculate and rewrite all the configs again!

Anyway, thanks for pointing this out to me! In addition to the corrected config of the Recycler it lead me to fix some calculations in PartResizer. They are not break anything in the current version, so I wont make another hot-fix update, but it'll help to balance parts more easily in the future.

[Nori]

I do confirm this. It had not appeared on my install because of the old ExLP with the 0 cost of metal.

But I do not know with which part of their bodies the Squad devs are thinking!

Indeed, the cost parameter in part.cfg is the cost including maxAmount of all resouces it contains. And that's terrible, because it forces anyone who whants to add something to other mods to carefully watch all updates and check if the cost of resources defined in these mods has changed. And if it has, one needs to recalculate and rewrite all the configs again!

Anyway, thanks for pointing this out to me! In addition to the corrected config of the Recycler it lead me to fix some calculations in PartResizer. They are not break anything in the current version, so I wont make another hot-fix update, but it'll help to balance parts more easily in the future.

Yes, I seem to recall some modders lamenting how Squad calculates cost (mass too I believe) with regards to resources. You'd think it would be as simple as adding a resource and bam! cost goes up. Hopefully they fix that.

[allista]

Yes, I seem to recall some modders lamenting how Squad calculates cost (mass too I believe) with regards to resources. You'd think it would be as simple as adding a resource and bam! cost goes up. Hopefully they fix that.

Strangely enough, the mass is calculated as you would expected: total = part mass + resources mass.

So I can't imagine how with the cost they managed to produce THIS >_<