[1.9-1.10] Hangar

[smjjames]

Oh I see. Anyways, the crash seems to be fixed now.

I've also seen the camera jitter sometimes with large and/or complex ships, I thought that was something with the physics, so it's actually just the camera there?

Also, I've noticed a change between the older version I used and the newer github version. In the older one, I could resize it down to 2.5 from 3 or so (which is required to get the rover in there, the same rover I linked the craft file for) without the rover popping out, but now I can't resize it down from 3.000 without it ejecting the craft from the cargo editor. Is this change intentional?

[allista]

Oh I see. Anyways, the crash seems to be fixed now.

I've also seen the camera jitter sometimes with large and/or complex ships, I thought that was something with the physics, so it's actually just the camera there?

Also, I've noticed a change between the older version I used and the newer github version. In the older one, I could resize it down to 2.5 from 3 or so (which is required to get the rover in there, the same rover I linked the craft file for) without the rover popping out, but now I can't resize it down from 3.000 without it ejecting the craft from the cargo editor. Is this change intentional?

I meant github version of BetterBouyancy

About resizing: See the ChangeLog. In v2.0.2 I've fixed in-editor check of a stored vessel's dimensions on hangar resize. Hangars again remove stored vessels if they don't fit anymore.

[smjjames]

I'm talking about the github version of hangar mod, heh.

I thought the way that it was working before with the cargo was supposed to be how it works, but ok. Seemed a little exploity anyway.

Also, possible idea, maybe be able to change the height of the rover lander (and possibly any other hangar) which could shave some of the weight off of it.

[allista]

I'm talking about the github version of hangar mod, heh.

1) I thought the way that it was working before with the cargo was supposed to be how it works, but ok. Seemed a little exploity anyway.

2) Also, possible idea, maybe be able to change the height of the rover lander (and possibly any other hangar) which could shave some of the weight off of it.

1) It was not only exploity, but also dangerous, as upon launch the rover could intersect with the lander and the whole thing would explode. The check in editor is a precaution.

2) This was discussed already (a long time ago). There is a problem with making anisotropic resize of model space: it makes transformations from submodel spaces into world space also anisotropic. This means that if you have an animated model where parts of it move non-perpendicular to the direction of anisotropy, these parts become distorted as they move. Too see this for yourself, you may open the RoverLander.cfg and in HangarPartResizer module node set the SizeOnly flag to false. Try then to increase the aspect (say, to 2) of the lander and open the doors, looking at the doors and hydraulic cylinders.

[AccidentalDisassembly]

1) It was not only exploity, but also dangerous, as upon launch the rover could intersect with the lander and the whole thing would explode. The check in editor is a precaution.

2) This was discussed already (a long time ago). There is a problem with making anisotropic resize of model space: it makes transformations from submodel spaces into world space also anisotropic. This means that if you have an animated model where parts of it move non-perpendicular to the direction of anisotropy, these parts become distorted as they move. Too see this for yourself, you may open the RoverLander.cfg and in HangarPartResizer module node set the SizeOnly flag to false. Try then to increase the aspect (say, to 2) of the lander and open the doors, looking at the doors and hydraulic cylinders.

With regard to the funky mashing of model shapes, which does indeed look very weird, would it be possible to create a model in two sections, where the door section doesn't resize and is simply repositioned while the "box" section behind it DOES resize? To avoid squashing/stretching the door and whatnot?

[allista]

With regard to the funky mashing of model shapes, which does indeed look very weird, would it be possible to create a model in two sections, where the door section doesn't resize and is simply repositioned while the "box" section behind it DOES resize? To avoid squashing/stretching the door and whatnot?

With model wielding through MODEL nodes it does seem possible (yet I'm not totally sure). But it is sooo much easier to just make two separate parts for that scenario Especially now with the HangarStorage-HangarPassage framework.

[smjjames]

Idea, how about being able to determine which way the bottom and forward of a vessel is without fiddling with the root part?

[allista]

Idea, how about being able to determine which way the bottom and forward of a vessel is without fiddling with the root part?

Do propose a way to determine this in general (rockets, many-pod ships, rovers, etc.), and I would gladly implement it

But honestly, I don't see a problem: turn on the Show Directions in Vessel Info window in editor and use re-root if necessary. Also don't forget the 'Spacebar' shortcut to set default part orientation. And use appropriate editor: rovers should be built in SPH, rockets in VAB and so on.

[veryinky]

For asteroid mining and hangars, do larger asteroids have more rock to mine and more volume to store fuel & ships in?

[allista]

For asteroid mining and hangars, do larger asteroids have more rock to mine and more volume to store fuel & ships in?

They do; in fact, all conversions are mass-conserving. So, taking into account that asteroid density is constant in KSP (0.03t/m3), larger mass => more resources, more volume.

[veryinky]

They do; in fact, all conversions are mass-conserving. So, taking into account that asteroid density is constant in KSP (0.03t/m3), larger mass => more resources, more volume.

Ok, was wondering what would happen if the asteroid density was changed. Mod is balanced for 0.03t/m3, so increasing the density to 0.3 would make for disproportionaly large hangars.

[allista]

Ok, was wondering what would happen if the asteroid density was changed. Mod is balanced for 0.03t/m3, so increasing the density to 0.3 would make for disproportionaly large hangars.

Nope, Hangar is not balanced for any particular density. It reads the density from ModuleAsteroid after asteroid creation (when it is first loaded, not when you start tracking it), so if a mod modifies ModuleAsteroid.density value before this, the asteroid becomes heavier, which means more Rock, but the same volume. But if a mod tries to modify density afterwards, there will be conflict with my AsteroidInfo module, and, probably, the density will not be changed at all.

[smjjames]

How do I get a rover back into the rover lander? I've tried driving it back in, but theres no friction on the doors, at all. I read in the wiki info for this mod that any vehicle within a certain distance is supposed to automatically go into the hangar.

The hangar floor is also frictionless I believe.

Edit: I actually got it in there (the ship is on a slope, which isn't helping) twice, but was going too fast for it to accept the rover. Maybe add a menu button for when you're controlling the rover, you can click on the rover lander and have it add that to the cargo?

Edit2: I just noticed that the doors aren't even touching the ground, which would go a ways towards explaining why I can't get it in.

Edited January 16, 2015 by smjjames

[AccidentalDisassembly]

How do I get a rover back into the rover lander? I've tried driving it back in, but theres no friction on the doors, at all. I read in the wiki info for this mod that any vehicle within a certain distance is supposed to automatically go into the hangar.

The hangar floor is also frictionless I believe.

Edit: I actually got it in there (the ship is on a slope, which isn't helping) twice, but was going too fast for it to accept the rover. Maybe add a menu button for when you're controlling the rover, you can click on the rover lander and have it add that to the cargo?

Edit2: I just noticed that the doors aren't even touching the ground, which would go a ways towards explaining why I can't get it in.

Huh, I used to have a similar problem with hangar (at least I think it's similar based on your description) - I could sort of drive partway into one at low speeds, but wheels wouldn't grip the floor. Had to go full throttle and hurl my vehicles inside. Haven't had a chance to use hangar in my career recently, I wonder if that issue is still around...

[allista]

Huh, I used to have a similar problem with hangar (at least I think it's similar based on your description) - I could sort of drive partway into one at low speeds, but wheels wouldn't grip the floor. Had to go full throttle and hurl my vehicles inside. Haven't had a chance to use hangar in my career recently, I wonder if that issue is still around...

This issue is a mystery. I've implemented a workaround long time ago and never touched it since, but from version to version and from setup to setup it appears again spontaneously. And I cannot figure why: wheels' friction is increased on contact with the hangar, I've checked many times, it is. But sometimes for some unknown reason it gives absolutely no effect. Unity docs state that the way I manage wheels is the only correct way, so I guess it's something that squad does under the hood. But what exactly I also cannot find out, and believe me, I tried long and hard

[BelgarionNL]

very cool idea, I just dont like the ugly textures maybe someone can help ya with it

[allista]

very cool idea, I just dont like the ugly textures maybe someone can help ya with it

Maybe. But presently only the bonesbro took the effort to make the first desaturated textures which I then used to support the Desaturated Pack. I'm no modeler and have no proper knowledge or skill in texturing.

BTW, as the poll goes, it seems I have no choice but to make the grey textures default.

[smjjames]

Allista, what about my idea for a menu option (whether right clicking the hangar or the hangar menu itself) when you're driving the rover and are reasonably close to it to have it automatically pack the vehicle. That would help with not being able to drive the rover into the hangar itself.

[Errol]

How much "extra clearance" is required for a craft to load into a hangar? I'm trying to push the limits with a larger lander, and I've engineered my needs/what it got on it to fit the dimensions dictated in the right click menu in VAB, no matter what orientation I save my vessel in it always says craft will not load, need more clearance, with no number.

(right click and open image in a new tab, I don't know why....)

I guess a more useful question is, is it possible to change the orientation of the "direction" arrows? I feel like it's just a matter of I built my craft in the wrong direction...

I managed to get my vessel loaded in once, but can't reproduce that now. I've managed to get the orientation of the forward/down arrows correct, I think, using a dockingport-on-a-stick and tried a hangar that was clearly larger then required. I even made sure that when I saved the craft before attempted to edit contents into the hanger that the craft was alone in the workspace, not even the disconnected hangar there while saving. I am clearly doing something wrong....

.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/c6g31s2kp2zr63d/Screenshot%202015-01-16%2022.30.56.png?dl=0

Edited January 17, 2015 by Errol

[allista]

How much "extra clearance" is required for a craft to load into a hangar? I'm trying to push the limits with a larger lander, and I've engineered my needs/what it got on it to fit the dimensions dictated in the right click menu in VAB, no matter what orientation I save my vessel in it always says craft will not load, need more clearance, with no number.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rcw61q9iia4jh9x/Screenshot%202015-01-16%2019.30.56.png?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tyxx5uvpcciukvv/Screenshot%202015-01-16%2019.32.56.png?dl=0

(right click and open image in a new tab, I don't know why....)

I guess a more useful question is, is it possible to change the orientation of the "direction" arrows? I feel like it's just a matter of I built my craft in the wrong direction...

I managed to get my vessel loaded in once, but can't reproduce that now. I've managed to get the orientation of the forward/down arrows correct, I think, using a dockingport-on-a-stick and tried a hangar that was clearly larger then required. I even made sure that when I saved the craft before attempted to edit contents into the hanger that the craft was alone in the workspace, not even the disconnected hangar there while saving. I am clearly doing something wrong....

.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/c6g31s2kp2zr63d/Screenshot%202015-01-16%2022.30.56.png?dl=0

With the smaller hangar the problem is indeed orientation of the root part. It is a problem with such designs that I don't know how to deal with yet. I mean it's not clear how to automatically determine the best orientation of a launched vessel. So for now I just use the Vessel.transform which is equal to the rootPart.transform.

But with the bigger hangar it does look like a bug to me. I'll try to reproduce your design as closely as possible and check.

Meanwhile do note, that dimensions indicated in the part menu describe the bounding box of the hangar space. They may be used only for approximate reference. With inline hangar you have hexagonal space which is much smaller than its bounding box. So maybe, just maybe, your lander touches one of the side walls of the hangar space when it is positioned at the launch point inside the hangar. That's the normal reason of rejection.

- - - Updated - - -

Allista, what about my idea for a menu option (whether right clicking the hangar or the hangar menu itself) when you're driving the rover and are reasonably close to it to have it automatically pack the vehicle. That would help with not being able to drive the rover into the hangar itself.

I'm considering it, but the problem with friction is bigger than that, so I would rather solve it.

[Errol]

Hmmm.....Thank you for your response.

I did a bunch of experimenting last night to try to find repro steps....and I think I've got something here:

So firstly, my I was able to change my direction arrows to the direction they should go with a docking port on a girder on the side of the craft as the root part, that didn't help.

So here's the weird thing, using the large habitable hangar, I can make a small craft that is a single Mk1 Lander Can, with a materials bay on the side, and a docking port on it's side, as the root part, and it will load into the hangar. Then if you add another materials bay to the other side of the lander can, you know, for symmetry or what ever, and no dice, wont load. Like having two stacks is fine, but three is a no-go? Just so you know, I tried this with the aspect of the hangar cranked to max, all I did was make the craft a little longer. When the craft only has the one matrials bay I think it would fit inside sideways, with the mk1 can as root part, and I think it's still trying to load the vessel in like that for some reason.

So I decided to try building a craft starting from the docking port on the side, and I can't seem to surface attach the lander can to the materials bay. Maybe the lander can is the culprit? Somehow re-orienting the directions and stuff when it is part of a vessel but not the root part.

I would be more then ok with having to include a docking port to show hangar the orientation I want to store a craft in for all vessel I store, I can just rip it off with KAS later if it really bugs me that much.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Errol

[allista]

Hmmm.....Thank you for your response.

I did a bunch of experimenting last night to try to find repro steps....and I think I've got something here:

So firstly, my I was able to change my direction arrows to the direction they should go with a docking port on a girder on the side of the craft as the root part, that didn't help.

So here's the weird thing, using the large habitable hangar, I can make a small craft that is a single Mk1 Lander Can, with a materials bay on the side, and a docking port on it's side, as the root part, and it will load into the hangar. Then if you add another materials bay to the other side of the lander can, you know, for symmetry or what ever, and no dice, wont load. Like having two stacks is fine, but three is a no-go? Just so you know, I tried this with the aspect of the hangar cranked to max, all I did was make the craft a little longer. When the craft only has the one matrials bay I think it would fit inside sideways, with the mk1 can as root part, and I think it's still trying to load the vessel in like that for some reason.

So I decided to try building a craft starting from the docking port on the side, and I can't seem to surface attach the lander can to the materials bay. Maybe the lander can is the culprit? Somehow re-orienting the directions and stuff when it is part of a vessel but not the root part.

I would be more then ok with having to include a docking port to show hangar the orientation I want to store a craft in for all vessel I store, I can just rip it off with KAS later if it really bugs me that much.

I've tried your design and this is definitely a bug in the Hangar. I'll investigate it thoroughly. Thank you for the report and your tests!

[Errol]

No problem, glad to help. If there's anything else I can do, let me know.

EDIT: I found something else, not sure if this is a bug or intended functionality. I built a comm sat (for remote tech) with procedural fairings and a heat shield to put into an eccentric polar orbit of eve, to be released from my mother ship as soon as we enter eve's SOI. It will fall into an aero brake manoeuvre and enter orbit while the mother ship changes course. I can't seem to load any other craft along with this craft. It will load in fine on it's own, but no matter how much extra space is available, no additional ships will load. Thinking about just building a ship with two hangars... One for the aero braking kerbin-relay, the other for the equatorial relay net of three 3 smaller sats.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Errol

[allista]

No problem, glad to help. If there's anything else I can do, let me know.

I've found the problem. It was a hidden incompatibility with the 0.90 API. I'll publish the fix ASAP.

But that still leaves the problem of using such ships as your lander with inline hangars. Currently you'll still need correctly oriented root part. I'm trying to solve this problem as well, but that'll take time.

EDIT: I found something else, not sure if this is a bug or intended functionality. I built a comm sat (for remote tech) with procedural fairings and a heat shield to put into an eccentric polar orbit of eve, to be released from my mother ship as soon as we enter eve's SOI. It will fall into an aero brake manoeuvre and enter orbit while the mother ship changes course. I can't seem to load any other craft along with this craft. It will load in fine on it's own, but no matter how much extra space is available, no additional ships will load. Thinking about just building a ship with two hangars... One for the aero braking kerbin-relay, the other for the equatorial relay net of three 3 smaller sats.

Can't say much without seeing the designs you use here. This may be the same problem as with the lander, for all I know.

[Errol]

I've found the problem. It was a hidden incompatibility with the 0.90 API. I'll publish the fix ASAP.

But that still leaves the problem of using such ships as your lander with inline hangars. Currently you'll still need correctly oriented root part. I'm trying to solve this problem as well, but that'll take time.

Can't say much without seeing the designs you use here. This may be the same problem as with the lander, for all I know.

I don't think that having to have a correctly oriented root part is a big limitation. I can always just side mount a clamp-o-mini or something, and then clean up with KAS after launching it. I actually like that, because I can use it to force orientation the way I want it.

As for the other thing, I was wondering if perhaps it had to do with the fact that the vessel has only heat shields and fairings showing, no docking ports or anything else. Also procedural parts. No a big deal though, I'm working around by just stacking hangars. Would you like the .craft file to take a look anyway? (I warn you it's loaded with mod parts though...scansat, remote tech, procedural fairings, deadly re-entry that I can think of off the top of my head....)