[1.9-1.10] Hangar

[yannickm]

I've got a problem with a simple ship with an inline hangar and some small probes within:

When i launch a vessel, they spawn outside the hangar.

Any idea what could be causing this ?

[Errol]

There is a box you can tick that says "push vessel out" or something to that effect which does that I think. I like it because my solar panels sometimes get auto deployed by mech jeb and this stops them from all get destroyed by the mothership.

[allista]

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....)

Maybe just a couple of screenshots like last time?

The problem is definitely not in the absence of docking port, as orientation is defined by the root part, whatever it is... Well, until I publish the fix, it is defined not by the root part, but by the first part (which prior 0.90 was always the root one), but it's still doesn't matter what that part is.

Resizable parts should not be a problem either.

I've got a problem with a simple ship with an inline hangar and some small probes within:

When i launch a vessel, they spawn outside the hangar.

Any idea what could be causing this ?

There's probably a mod conflict like the one with BetterBouyancy or that was with ScienceAlert. Send me the output_log.txt (Player.log on Linux) and I'll see what is happening.

- - - Updated - - -

There is a box you can tick that says "push vessel out" or something to that effect which does that I think. I like it because my solar panels sometimes get auto deployed by mech jeb and this stops them from all get destroyed by the mothership.

No, this option adds a start velocity to a vessel that is launched from a hangar. It is for the probes without RCS mainly.

[yannickm]

There is a box you can tick that says "push vessel out" or something to that effect which does that I think. I like it because my solar panels sometimes get auto deployed by mech jeb and this stops them from all get destroyed by the mothership.

No, that's not the problem. They don't move out of the hangar, they literally spawn quite some distance away (if i turn on push vessel out then they slowly move from that point)

[yannickm]

Hi,

Looks like better buoyancy (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/105094-0-90-Better-Buoyancy-v1-0-Simple-Water-Fixes-12-27-14) conflicts with hangar (vessels are launched far from hangar and it doesn't switch to the launched vehicle)

[Errol]

Hi,

Looks like better buoyancy (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/105094-0-90-Better-Buoyancy-v1-0-Simple-Water-Fixes-12-27-14) conflicts with hangar (vessels are launched far from hangar and it doesn't switch to the launched vehicle)

I can report I've had this behaviour as well, with better buoyancy installed. I've removed better buoyancy, next time I build something with a hangar we'll see where things spawn. I had originally thought that this was the intended behaviour.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Errol

[allista]

Hi,

Looks like better buoyancy (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/105094-0-90-Better-Buoyancy-v1-0-Simple-Water-Fixes-12-27-14) conflicts with hangar (vessels are launched far from hangar and it doesn't switch to the launched vehicle)

I can report I've had this behaviour as well, with better buoyancy installed. I've removed better buoyancy, next time I build something with a hangar we'll see where things spawn. I had originally thought that this was the intended behaviour.

Yea, and ferram has already fixed this in the code, but there was no release with the fix yet. I've wrote to him, asking to release the fix. But until then you have to remove BB for the Hangar to work properly.

[smjjames]

I'm just warning that the flat top of the rover hangar is susceptible to a mild variant of the 'hell kraken', namely the bug where if a kerbal impacts a surface and the game freaks out or otherwise crashes. Luckily however, it simply crashes and reverts to before EVA.

To reproduce:

1. Stick the Mk1 pod on the top.

2. Launch the ship (you don't have to go anywhere I don't think)

3. Go on EVA

4. Jump off, it may or may not crash.

http://sta.sh/02eu1vp01btg

The slopes seem to be fine, even if prone to making kerbals ragdoll and fall off.

Edited January 20, 2015 by smjjames
'kerballs' lol....

[allista]

I'm just warning that the flat top of the rover hangar is susceptible to a mild variant of the 'hell kraken', namely the bug where if a kerbal impacts a surface and the game freaks out or otherwise crashes. Luckily however, it simply crashes and reverts to before EVA.

To reproduce:

1. Stick the Mk1 pod on the top.

2. Launch the ship (you don't have to go anywhere I don't think)

3. Go on EVA

4. Jump off, it may or may not crash.

http://sta.sh/02eu1vp01btg

The slopes seem to be fine, even if prone to making kerbals ragdoll and fall off.

I'm still unable to reproduce this, but there definitely is some strange problem between mesh colliders, EVAs and wheels. To my belief this problem causes both the no-friction bug and kerbals that appear as free-falling while standing on mesh colliders like the one at the top (slopes belong to the same collider, btw). It appears as if collision is only sporadically detected while there's not enough relative speed between two colliders.

[smjjames]

Yeah, it may require specific circumstances such as the doors being down, the vessel launched, or the size of the hangar, or even my design, but was just warning that it could happen.

i should note that I was using the largest or a notch below the largest rover lander hangar size possible, which may have something to do with it.

I've also noticed that they have a hard time walking on the top surface and appear like they are trying to ragdoll or perhaps go into free fall.

Edited January 21, 2015 by smjjames

[dak180]

Any chance of getting a Rover Lander big enough to fit the PackRat?

[smjjames]

Uh, I thought the PackRat was pretty small?

[dak180]

Uh, I thought the PackRat was pretty small?

Apparently just big enough that it does not fit (I assume size 2 is as big as the lander gets) at least when assembled.

[allista]

Any chance of getting a Rover Lander big enough to fit the PackRat?

Apparently just big enough that it does not fit (I assume size 2 is as big as the lander gets) at least when assembled.

RoverLander may be resized up to the size4, but in career mode this option should be unlocked in the TechTree (see the picture).

Does it fit by dimensions displayed in Vessel Info window and in part menu of the Lander?

[smjjames]

Yeah, I needed to use size four (although it still fit with 3.9) to carry a rather large rover which I was using to traverse Kerbins mountains while going after an anomaly spot.

Larger hangars than that would be great, but size 4 is already so big and heavy that I had to put lots of parachutes on it to slow it down to a safe speed, plus balancing RCS on a box is not easy when you can't put them on the side faces as I've found that things there will block rovers from exiting.

If you need a rover bigger than that, you probably should use extraplanetary launch pads instead or something.

[dak180]

RoverLander may be resized up to the size4, but in career mode this option should be unlocked in the TechTree (see the picture).

Does it fit by dimensions displayed in Vessel Info window and in part menu of the Lander?

Ah; I have not gotten to that point on the tech tree yet, this should teach me to make assumptions based on reading part files.

[Errol]

Any word on the wide vessel storage bug?

[allista]

Any word on the wide vessel storage bug?

I've found a way to store such vessels regardless of the root (or any other part) orientation. Unfortunately, while testing it before release I've encountered several unrelated but nasty bugs which I'm trying to overcome. But right now I have only 1-2 hours a day for this, at best.

[smjjames]

Any word on the wide vessel storage bug?

Which one is that? That where the vehicles get stored in a direction that is not how it's supposed to be? I've noticed that when I use the rovemax structural body, it always wants to have it be vertical, might be because the part is spawned vertical. VAB or SPH makes no difference since you still have to use a probe core to get it facing the right direction.

[Errol]

I've been trying to store landers in the hangar that have two 1.25m outriggers on either side of a mk1 lander can. Due to the orientation bug I've been un-able to get anything in this configuration, regardless of orientation hacking via docking port root part placement.

Allista, glad to hear you got it fixed, sad to hear other things broke in the process. Couldn't be happier that you have any time at all to devote to de-bugging this, looking forward to increased launch frame rates, but can survive at around 5 - 8 fps for now.

[Sigma88]

Sorry if this was already asked, I searched the thread without finding anything so I'll ask.

Can I add the "Hangar" module to a fairing base in order to keep the payload unloaded untill Orbit is achieved?

thanks for the help

the mod looks very interesting, I'll try it as soon as I get some free time!

[allista]

Sorry if this was already asked, I searched the thread without finding anything so I'll ask.

Can I add the "Hangar" module to a fairing base in order to keep the payload unloaded untill Orbit is achieved?

thanks for the help

the mod looks very interesting, I'll try it as soon as I get some free time!

I'm afraid it's not so simple: the module relies on a particular model design and will do nothing without it. I'm struggling with the "howto for modders" and with the new release, but currently have little time for anything but my main work

[Sigma88]

I'm afraid it's not so simple: the module relies on a particular model design and will do nothing without it. I'm struggling with the "howto for modders" and with the new release, but currently have little time for anything but my main work

now I see how this works... I guess for the fairings the only solution is putting inside a single block as placeholder and then switch it with cfg editing... feels a bit cheaty but my pc cant hold onto that many parts.... thanks anyway. I'll definitely use hangars whenever possible

[allista]

now I see how this works... I guess for the fairings the only solution is putting inside a single block as placeholder and then switch it with cfg editing... feels a bit cheaty but my pc cant hold onto that many parts.... thanks anyway. I'll definitely use hangars whenever possible

I'm working on the full-featured fairings with hangar functionality, but it's still in alpha state...

[smjjames]

Which fairings? procedural fairings or the KW rocketry ones?