[1.9-1.10] Hangar

[Starwaster]

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.

This is actually a problem that is more common than a lot of modders seem to realize.

The problem being that events often fire more than one time (as many as 3-4 times) and only one of those events is legitimate. The others often (but not always) contain invalid data (i.e. null references to objects). Apparently this is not always a problem, but when it is, it halts execution of remaining event notification for plugins or stock code that needed that event. Other times it can do worse things like halting vessel loading or entire scene loading. (sometimes manifests itself as not all of the vessel loading in or not all of it being physicalized and/or parts of the vesssel being left behind in orbit only to reappear when going on rails)

[FreeThinker]

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 =)

I guess I have to create Huge Hangars in space (with extraplanitairy launchpads)

- - - Updated - - -

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 =)

I guess I have to create Huge Hangars in space (with extraplanitairy launchpads)

[allista]

I guess I have to create Huge Hangars in space (with extraplanitairy launchpads)

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 ='=

[allista]

This is actually a problem that is more common than a lot of modders seem to realize.

The problem being that events often fire more than one time (as many as 3-4 times) and only one of those events is legitimate. The others often (but not always) contain invalid data (i.e. null references to objects). Apparently this is not always a problem, but when it is, it halts execution of remaining event notification for plugins or stock code that needed that event. Other times it can do worse things like halting vessel loading or entire scene loading. (sometimes manifests itself as not all of the vessel loading in or not all of it being physicalized and/or parts of the vesssel being left behind in orbit only to reappear when going on rails)

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 >_<

[FreeThinker]

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 ='=

Yes I see now. I hope the weight of an empty space carrier is balanced (for the most part it is empty space) and it won't be too heavy. I'm trying to create a multi mission mothership, capable of traveling to multiple planets/moons, explore, build colonies, mine resources, refuel and repeat. My biggest challang is keeping my part count as low as possible. I was hoping a big space hanger is going to help me to achieve that.

One, Question. Will folding make any difference when attempting to store crafts in a Hanger. For example Landers with folded extended lander lags or SSTO's with folded wings ....

Edited November 21, 2014 by FreeThinker

[allista]

Yes I see now. I hope the weight of an empty space carrier is balanced (for the most part it is empty space) and it won't be too heavy. I'm trying to create a multi mission mothership, capable of traveling to multiple planets/moons, explore, build colonies, mine resources, refuel and repeat. My biggest challang is keeping my part count as low as possible. I was hoping a big space hanger is going to help me to achieve that.

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.

[allista]

One, Question. Will folding make any difference when attempting to store crafts in a Hanger. For example Landers with folded extended lander lags or SSTO's with folded wings ....

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).

[allista]

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.

[Joshwoo70]

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 >_<

If so might as well join SQUAD

(Sorry)

[Joshwoo70]

-snip!-

Woo fancy!

[allista]

If so might as well join SQUAD

(Sorry)

As if they need my help...

[allista]

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?

[FreeThinker]

In my opinion the maximum size Inline hanger is too small and too heavy for it function (it's just a parking garage), fortunately this mod allows me to customize, I modified the Inline hanger specific mass back to it's orifinal values (0.339784017078, 0.660215982922) and modified the common cfg to allow bigger sizes

HANGAR_MAX_SCALE

{

advConstruction = 1

specializedConstruction = 3

advMetalworks = 5

metaMaterials = 7

sandbox = 7

}

[code]

This way, they are actualy usefull

Edited November 29, 2014 by FreeThinker

[allista]

In my opinion the maximum size Inline hanger is too small and too heavy for it function (it's just a parking garage),

fortunately this mod allows me to customize, I modified the Inline hanger specific mass back to it's orifinal values

(0.339784017078, 0.660215982922) and modified the common cfg to allow bigger sizes

This way, they are actualy usefull

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.

[tajampi]

I have a small issue, it keeps spamming that it can't find the resource "soil" (From Extraplanetary Launchpads).

I dont have Extraplanetary Launchpads installed, so i suppose thats the problem

I think i will install it, it seems light on RAM.

Cheers!

[allista]

I have a small issue, it keeps spamming that it can't find the resource "soil" (From Extraplanetary Launchpads).

I dont have Extraplanetary Launchpads installed, so i suppose thats the problem

I think i will install it, it seems light on RAM.

Cheers!

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 ='=

[tajampi]

Thanks!

[FreeThinker]

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.

Well Polyester can be very strong if it's made in a strong shape like a cylinder. It might not be as heat resistand as steel but for it's intended purpose (a shell for space ship in orbit) it more than adequate. Which made be think, could you add a part that is nothing more than a container (like http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/77505-Cargo-Transportation-Solutions-%28WIP%29?highlight=Cargo+Transportation) but functions like your inline hanger?

[allista]

Well Polyester can be very strong if it's made in a strong shape like a cylinder. It might not be as heat resistand as steel but for it's intended purpose (a shell for space ship in orbit) it more than adequate. Which made be think, could you add a part that is nothing more than a container (like http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/77505-Cargo-Transportation-Solutions-%28WIP%29?highlight=Cargo+Transportation) but functions like your inline hanger?

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?

[FreeThinker]

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?

Well for starters, the door is smaller than the full hanger. There is a part at the top that might be usefull when housing Kerbals, but for people that are only intrested in the Hanger space, it's a waste of lateral space (and weight). Also when I open the doors, I noticed they are very thick. I would like them to be thin, allowing my hanger to be lighter and have more effective room.

[allista]

Well for starters, the door is smaller than the full hanger. There is a part at the top that might be usefull when housing Kerbals, but for people that are only intrested in the Hanger space, it's a waste of lateral space (and weight). Also when I open the doors, I noticed they are very thick. I would like them to be thin, allowing my hanger to be lighter and have more effective room.

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

[FreeThinker]

Ok, I understand your desire to keep as realistic as possible. I'm only looking for a way to reduce part count on my space station without too High weight cost. I Imagined it would be similar to putting it in a cargo bay and fix it with struts similar how cargo in a airplane or ship is fixed. I don't think much heavy machinery is required, a single wringe would be enough. It would require some time to fix everything tight, but it would only add a very small fraction of weight (less than 1%).

Perhaps you can help me and others in another way. Let's say we want to use another cargo bay part and make it behave like your inline hanger bay. For example the stock Mk2 Cargo Bay CRG-08. What do we need to do to accomplish this?

Edited December 2, 2014 by FreeThinker

[passinglurker]

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

Just a balance thought what if light weight hangars had some sort of limitation for example they have just as much volume as a full blown hangar with all the machinery, but without all that heavy machinery they can only store one craft at a time no matter how small it is? this would also fit for the "fairing hangar" Idea I saw suggested before where the hangar takes the form of a real life disposable payload fairing (complete with built in probe core and sas cause the payload can't use its own while stored) this would do wonders for reducing part count at launch because you can spawn in your part count heavy abominations after your part count heavy launcher monstrosity has been decoupled.

[FreeThinker]

Exactly, a limited use hanger would be perfect for storing large landing ships. They would consist only of an strong internal skeleton, and thin cover with a door in it. Perhaps a single use hanger would also be usefull, which can store parts in the VAB. They would be perfect for SSTO Cargo Delivery or Planet/Mun Colonisation. We are not asking for magical boxes with infinite space without mass. We simply want a way to reduce part count without high amounts of added dead weight.

Edited December 3, 2014 by FreeThinker

[allista]

Ok, I understand your desire to keep as realistic as possible. I'm only looking for a way to reduce part count on my space station without too High weight cost. I Imagined it would be similar to putting it in a cargo bay and fix it with struts similar how cargo in a airplane or ship is fixed. I don't think much heavy machinery is required, a single wringe would be enough. It would require some time to fix everything tight, but it would only add a very small fraction of weight (less than 1%).

Perhaps you can help me and others in another way. Let's say we want to use another cargo bay part and make it behave like your inline hanger bay. For example the stock Mk2 Cargo Bay CRG-08. What do we need to do to accomplish this?

Just a balance thought what if light weight hangars had some sort of limitation for example they have just as much volume as a full blown hangar with all the machinery, but without all that heavy machinery they can only store one craft at a time no matter how small it is? this would also fit for the "fairing hangar" Idea I saw suggested before where the hangar takes the form of a real life disposable payload fairing (complete with built in probe core and sas cause the payload can't use its own while stored) this would do wonders for reducing part count at launch because you can spawn in your part count heavy abominations after your part count heavy launcher monstrosity has been decoupled.

Exactly, a limited use hanger would be perfect for storing large landing ships. They would consist only of an strong internal skeleton, and thin cover with a door in it. Perhaps a single use hanger would also be usefull, which can store parts in the VAB. They would be perfect for SSTO Cargo Delivery or Planet/Mun Colonisation. We are not asking for magical boxes with infinite space without mass. We simply want a way to reduce part count without high amounts of added dead weight.

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.