[1.9-1.10] Hangar

[DStaal]

On 1/14/2017 at 1:22 PM, DStaal said:

Odd.  I'll have to track down what's going on with my system, since I didn't have anything more than that myself on that rocket.

I finally tracked it down: I had two problems going on.  One, I'd copied over my folder of personal MM patches from my 1.1.3 install - and forgotten to remove the patch that was downgrading 1.2 parts on the fly.  Secondly, Omnicron had a patch with ':FOR[RemoteTech]' which was activating another patch someplace else (I didn't actually check where...) which was changing all antennas of a certain type to RemoteTech - and that type was what I was downgrading the 1.2 antenna module to.

So, two mods and my own file, and the problem sprung up here - which wasn't actually any of them.

[etmoonshade]

Random feature request:

Is it possible to allow us to stuff subassemblies into hangars? I built out a number of modules for a space station and copied them into subassemblies, but I'm having to turn them into individual ships to actually get them into the hangars.

[allista]

3 hours ago, etmoonshade said:

Random feature request:

Is it possible to allow us to stuff subassemblies into hangars? I built out a number of modules for a space station and copied them into subassemblies, but I'm having to turn them into individual ships to actually get them into the hangars.

Good idea, thanks!

I'll try to implement this.

[etmoonshade]

Another random maybe-bug-report. When I have a vessel in a hangar and add crew, I can't seem to hit the "close" button to turn off the window. It goes away just fine once I actually launch the vessel.

 

Side note: That inline hangar doesn't seem to like stuff too close to its edges. The previous incarnation of the service tug (with 3.75m parts, measured diameter by KSP was 3.8m,) got attacked by the kraken as soon as I launched it, despite fitting inside the hangar. I'm not sure if it's because of the radial mount hangars tacked onto the side or something weird with the colliders on the hangar bay.

[allista]

33 minutes ago, etmoonshade said:

Another random maybe-bug-report. When I have a vessel in a hangar and add crew, I can't seem to hit the "close" button to turn off the window. It goes away just fine once I actually launch the vessel.

 

Side note: That inline hangar doesn't seem to like stuff too close to its edges. The previous incarnation of the service tug (with 3.75m parts, measured diameter by KSP was 3.8m,) got attacked by the kraken as soon as I launched it, despite fitting inside the hangar. I'm not sure if it's because of the radial mount hangars tacked onto the side or something weird with the colliders on the hangar bay.

I'll check that, thanks!

As for the kraken, could you reproduce it with the stock-only stored vessel? If so, share the craft file of the payload so that I could check that as well.

[etmoonshade]

2 minutes ago, allista said:

As for the kraken, could you reproduce it with the stock-only stored vessel? If so, share the craft file of the payload so that I could check that as well.

You mean storing a vessel with only stock parts? Or are you thinking of a specific vessel?

[allista]

2 hours ago, etmoonshade said:

You mean storing a vessel with only stock parts? Or are you thinking of a specific vessel?

Yep, storing a vessel with only stock parts that will cause the kraken. So that I could reproduce the bug.

[etmoonshade]

49 minutes ago, allista said:

Yep, storing a vessel with only stock parts that will cause the kraken. So that I could reproduce the bug.

Huh. Nope, good call. Did a really basic 3.75m craft, and no booms. Of course, it took me an hour to build 5 parts, because I don't remember what's stock anymore.

I'll keep an eye out and get you some reproduction steps if I run into it again.

[stali79]

On 11/07/2016 at 9:15 AM, allista said:

No, part names are intact. Radial SABRE is one of the parts i removed to accelerate the development. This MM patch is just a leftover.

As for the temperature (and other part characteristics), I haven't got to this yet, so if you feel like it, you can correct what you deem necessary and send me the changes later.

I haven't wrote it in this thread yet, but I'm on vacation starting today till 24th, so you have plenty of time 

Can I get a copy of the radial sabre if possible  I loved that engine.

[allista]

5 hours ago, stali79 said:

Can I get a copy of the radial sabre if possible  I loved that engine.

OK, I'll make a package with both SABER and the smaller counterpart. SABER needs new config, though, witch will take some time. Also, I can provide resize capability through either AT_Utils or TweakScale; the former is faster config-wise.

[stali79]

3 hours ago, allista said:

OK, I'll make a package with both SABER and the smaller counterpart. SABER needs new config, though, witch will take some time. Also, I can provide resize capability through either AT_Utils or TweakScale; the former is faster config-wise.

sounds awesome man you rock!

[flywlyx]

Is it possible to make KSP admit I obtain and recover the craft by storing it into the hangar and recover it within the hangar?

[allista]

4 hours ago, flywlyx said:

Is it possible to make KSP admit I obtain and recover the craft by storing it into the hangar and recover it within the hangar?

To a point. The cost, resources and stored science will be recovered; if kerbals were onboard, they will be inside the carrier ship, so they also will be recovered. Mods like Stage Recovery should work.

But if you're using something like KCT, which keeps track of individual parts, it won't recognize the parts inside the Hangar.

And I'm not sure about contacts. Most likely, if you have a contract to recover specific vessel, you need to do it literally, so you have to launch it from the Hangar after landing.

[flywlyx]

8 hours ago, allista said:

To a point. The cost, resources and stored science will be recovered; if kerbals were onboard, they will be inside the carrier ship, so they also will be recovered. Mods like Stage Recovery should work.

But if you're using something like KCT, which keeps track of individual parts, it won't recognize the parts inside the Hangar.

And I'm not sure about contacts. Most likely, if you have a contract to recover specific vessel, you need to do it literally, so you have to launch it from the Hangar after landing.

Understand, it is time to show the power of tow truck. Thanks for reply!

[Haifi]

Hi allista

With some config file modifications I was finally able to get the hatch surface attached directly to an asteroid. I then modified the hatch to fixed in a savefile, and... Bugger it! It works 

The drill works, and the hatch gets storage space as the drill digs out ore.

Which leads to my next question, why do the hatches have seperate space calculations? It would be far better to have them adding up the available space, so you could dig at one hatch and use the space on another for hangar or tank purposes...

Regards Haifi

Edited January 27, 2017 by Haifi
Wrong phrasing...

[0111narwhalz]

3 minutes ago, Haifi said:

Alas it works

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[DarkOwl57]

Inconceivable!

[Haifi]

Umm, Im not a native speaker, but its an interjection, and meaning wise its something like Oh! 

 

[0111narwhalz]

From "the Google:"

Quote

an expression of grief, pity, or concern.

 

[DStaal]

2 minutes ago, Haifi said:

Umm, Im not a native speaker, but its an interjection, and meaning wise its something like Oh!

It's similar, but it's closer to 'regrettably'.

[Haifi]

Ok, maybe I did get it wrong. But I thought it had a humorous touch very often. If it's that bad to use it  I'll change it to something with more understandable meaning.

 

[etmoonshade]

13 minutes ago, Haifi said:

Umm, Im not a native speaker, but its an interjection, and meaning wise its something like Oh!

I admit, I love the turns of phrase that non-native speakers come up with when using English. It's a terribly silly and confusing language at times, even to those who speak it well.

Just for the record (and to actually be helpful,) a better choice there probably would have been "Hey, it works!" or "Amazing, it works!"

[DarkOwl57]

2 minutes ago, etmoonshade said:

I admit, I love the turns of phrase that non-native speakers come up with when using English. It's a terribly silly and confusing language at times, even to those who speak it well.

Just for the record (and to actually be helpful,) a better choice there probably would have been "Hey, it works!" or "Amazing, it works!"

Not "Oh no... It works "

[allista]

29 minutes ago, Haifi said:

Hi allista

With some config file modifications I was finally able to get the hatch surface attached directly to an asteroid. I then modified the hatch to fixed in a savefile, and... Alas it works 

The drill works, and the hatch gets storage space as the drill digs out ore.

Which leads to my next question, why do the hatches have seperate space calculations? It would be far better to have them adding up the available space, so you could dig at one hatch and use the space on another for hangar or tank purposes...

Regards Haifi

Imagine two hatches attached to the far sides of an asteroid. One of it has space 5x5x5 meters. But the asteroid is, say, 50m in diameter. Should the other hatch get access to that space? Obviously not. And yes, that is a trivial case. But how would you approach handling a non-trivial one? How big should be the space to allow access from another hatch? His close it should be? At what angle to the first? And what would happen should a hatch be destroyed?

I'm not touching technical matters like how to implement persistent shared space. Just the principles.

[Haifi]

Ok, thats understandable. But that's exactly the point, because of the partdrift I lost a hatch. And therefore all the space the drill had dug out. I guess stored vessels and tanks would also be lost if a hatch got destroyed?