[1.9-1.10] Hangar

[allista]

Would it be possible to make a fairing hangar that works like the structural fairings in the Procedural Fairings mod?

And how does it work?

[AccidentalDisassembly]

Did you scaled the Mk2 bay with the TweakScale? If so, no wonder: Hangar currently does not support TweakScale (and provides its own scaler, for a reason). There are two possible solutions: either to add the HangarPartResizer module to Mk2 bays (this is simple, I haven't done it because they are match only to the stock Mk2 parts); or implement TweakScale support, which is not so easy and, again, I use my own scaler for a reason. Don't know what's best, honestly.

--

It's because the storage space of the Inline Hangar is a hexagon, but the storage space of the extension is an octagon; these are real meshes and they are scaled with the parts. So yes, the extension has a little more room.

Here, I've just written a short explanation about hangr dimensions and vessel storage.

Hmmm. I wonder if TweakScale could work with this. I'm not sure, but I'm looking at this:

MODULE

{

name = HangarStorage

HangarSpace = hangar_space

SpawnTransform = launch_position

}

If the hangar_space variable were simply defined in the config (if it looked like "hangar_space = 3.83449" or whatever), then TweakScale could definitely change that variable with part size.

If HangarSpace = hangar_space produces a number, then TweakScale might also be able to change HangarSpace with the size of the part:

TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS {

name = HangarStorage

HangarSpace = 3

}

^^^^ That might actually work right now. Beats me.

EDIT: Also, if I may make a request: very few of your textures are shared. It would be helpful to people like me who like to delete parts if you were to place all parts that have no shared textures in their own directories with their associated textures. That way I don't have to go fishing in the textures/models directory to figure out what goes with what.

[smjjames]

And how does it work?

I mean like instead of covering the whole stage in a cone, instead, it doesn't have a nosecone and is structural. Like http://imgur.com/a/xCF0q#z2VWw6S

[allista]

Hmmm. I wonder if TweakScale could work with this. I'm not sure, but I'm looking at this:

If the hangar_space variable were simply defined in the config (if it looked like "hangar_space = 3.83449" or whatever), then TweakScale could definitely change that variable with part size.

If HangarSpace = hangar_space produces a number, then TweakScale might also be able to change HangarSpace with the size of the part:

TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS {

name = HangarStorage

HangarSpace = 3

}

^^^^ That might actually work right now. Beats me.

EDIT: Also, if I may make a request: very few of your textures are shared. It would be helpful to people like me who like to delete parts if you were to place all parts that have no shared textures in their own directories with their associated textures. That way I don't have to go fishing in the textures/models directory to figure out what goes with what.

I doubt it could work. The HangarSpace parameter is a string, a name of a mesh inside a model which determines everything: volume, dimensions, walls. It can't be scaled. It would work only if the TweakScale could call the Setup methods of the HangarMachinery and HangarPassage classes. And this is only possible if I write a TweakScale updater and link it against TweakScale redistributable.

I'll consider your request about models-textures. It will make my workflow a little more complex and error prone, though. A little.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean like instead of covering the whole stage in a cone, instead, it doesn't have a nosecone and is structural. Like http://imgur.com/a/xCF0q#z2VWw6S

But to what end?

There's nothing inside the Fairing Hangar until you launch the payload. It's empty, and that's the whole point of it.

And Proc.Fairings are much better for that anyway.

[smjjames]

I doubt it could work. The HangarSpace parameter is a string, a name of a mesh inside a model which determines everything: volume, dimensions, walls. It can't be scaled. It would work only if the TweakScale could call the Setup methods of the HangarMachinery and HangarPassage classes. And this is only possible if I write a TweakScale updater and link it against TweakScale redistributable.

I'll consider your request about models-textures. It will make my workflow a little more complex and error prone, though. A little.

- - - Updated - - -

But to what end?

There's nothing inside the Fairing Hangar until you launch the payload. It's empty, and that's the whole point of it.

And Proc.Fairings are much better for that anyway.

I guess I was misunderstanding how it would work a little.

[AccidentalDisassembly]

I doubt it could work. The HangarSpace parameter is a string, a name of a mesh inside a model which determines everything: volume, dimensions, walls. It can't be scaled. It would work only if the TweakScale could call the Setup methods of the HangarMachinery and HangarPassage classes. And this is only possible if I write a TweakScale updater and link it against TweakScale redistributable.

I'll consider your request about models-textures. It will make my workflow a little more complex and error prone, though. A little.

- - - Updated - - -

But to what end?

There's nothing inside the Fairing Hangar until you launch the payload. It's empty, and that's the whole point of it.

And Proc.Fairings are much better for that anyway.

Okie doke. I mean, I think the shared texture route is the way to go, if possible - so what I'm saying is just in reference to how thing are now, if you don't intend on really optimizing the textures in the near term. There are certainly many opportunities for this: for example, asteroid-hatch.png and asteroid-hatch-port.png use essentially identical textures, just laid out differently in the file.

By way of comparison, Hangar uses the equivalent of roughly 44 textures of 1024x1024 size.

EDIT: I take that back. Actually, all told, Hangar uses about 49 1024x1024 textures (equivalent). Meaning about 1/4 of what all of stock uses.

All of stock uses ~ 208 (equivalent) or so.

Edited March 15, 2015 by AccidentalDisassembly

[allista]

Okie doke. I mean, I think the shared texture route is the way to go, if possible - so what I'm saying is just in reference to how thing are now, if you don't intend on really optimizing the textures in the near term. There are certainly many opportunities for this: for example, asteroid-hatch.png and asteroid-hatch-port.png use essentially identical textures, just laid out differently in the file.

By way of comparison, Hangar uses the equivalent of roughly 44 textures of 1024x1024 size.

EDIT: I take that back. Actually, all told, Hangar uses about 49 1024x1024 textures (equivalent). Meaning about 1/4 of what all of stock uses.

All of stock uses ~ 208 (equivalent) or so.

While I'm not questioning your figures, I want to ask: does it really so cripple your game experience, or are you just playing purist out of principle?

I've spend a good measure of time optimizing the textures lately and have lowered their number considerably. And I'm not a 3D modeler, mind you, I'm a programmer (well, to be honest, I'm a microbiologist, but no matter ). If you want to help, you are welcome to reunwrap and retexture any models you like. If not, I don't see the point: be assured that I'm concerned with the number and the size of textures as it is and try my best to keep it low. But still, this is not my priority until it is a real problem.

Oh, and to be completely fair, I've also counted the number of parts in the Hangar and Squad: 44 and 218 respectively. So the number of textures per part in this mod is close to that of the stock game.

*and I do remember your original request.

[smjjames]

I've got some sort of problem going on with hangar, well, I don't know what the problem is exactly. When I started up the game, I saw the message in orange text: Hangar: configuration of "components" tank type is invalid. What's going on here?

[allista]

I've got some sort of problem going on with hangar, well, I don't know what the problem is exactly. When I started up the game, I saw the message in orange text: Hangar: configuration of "components" tank type is invalid. What's going on here?

Oh boy...

This means that I've screwed up the configuration of the Components tank type.

You have ExLP and/or MKS/OKS installed, but some of the resources that they should be providing are missing. Or maybe I've misspelled them.

You may look at the config for yourself: https://github.com/allista/hangar/blob/master/GameData/Hangar/TankTypes.cfg

Unfortunately, as it is now, this also means that until the configuration is totally valid, you will not have this tank type in the game.

I'll look into it when I will have time for the development again...

[smjjames]

Oh boy...

This means that I've screwed up the configuration of the Components tank type.

You have ExLP and/or MKS/OKS installed, but some of the resources that they should be providing are missing. Or maybe I've misspelled them.

You may look at the config for yourself: https://github.com/allista/hangar/blob/master/GameData/Hangar/TankTypes.cfg

Unfortunately, as it is now, this also means that until the configuration is totally valid, you will not have this tank type in the game.

I'll look into it when I will have time for the development again...

I can take a quick look at it myself, it's possible that there is just a mispelling.

Edit: Not seeing any obvious mispellings, other than maybe aluminium since theres the American spelling and the British spelling.

Edit2: I thought I had found it with the spelling of recyleables being 'recyclables' but nope.

Edited March 16, 2015 by smjjames

[AccidentalDisassembly]

While I'm not questioning your figures, I want to ask: does it really so cripple your game experience, or are you just playing purist out of principle?

I've spend a good measure of time optimizing the textures lately and have lowered their number considerably. And I'm not a 3D modeler, mind you, I'm a programmer (well, to be honest, I'm a microbiologist, but no matter ). If you want to help, you are welcome to reunwrap and retexture any models you like. If not, I don't see the point: be assured that I'm concerned with the number and the size of textures as it is and try my best to keep it low. But still, this is not my priority until it is a real problem.

Oh, and to be completely fair, I've also counted the number of parts in the Hangar and Squad: 44 and 218 respectively. So the number of textures per part in this mod is close to that of the stock game.

*and I do remember your original request.

Unfortunately, it can actually cripple the game experience. This is not because of your mod alone, and not because your mod is any more inefficient than Squad (though the takeaway is that Squad is also very inefficient with its textures) but because I play with more than just a couple mods. Two things happen: either the combination of those mods without alteration sends me directly to the RAM limit (even with ATM and/or DDSloader and/or reducing texture sizes to 1/4 their original value, which is insane), or I manage to keep everything under the RAM cap (by deleting parts), but KSP's memory leaks (present in stock too, just take longer) bring me up there anyway. A very secondary concern is that, in general, it is preferable to be able to take what one wants from a mod and ditch the rest - for less parts in the part list, faster load times, faster scene switching, whatever.

This is obviously mostly Squad's problem, since they haven't deigned to bugfix in a long time, nor to release patches before 1.0, but I'm responding to how the game is right now, since that's what I can play. Who knows, maybe this will all be a moot point for 1.0.

Starting out at lower RAM usage allows me to play longer without the inevitable memory leak crash, and/or lower RAM usage allows me to enjoy more mods. It really does make a difference. ~50 textures at 1024x1024 is maybe (says Google, but I don't know for sure) 200MB of RAM - when you consider the RAM cap is realistically about 3100 MB, and Squad's parts & the game make it start at maybe 1700 MB, a 200MB mod represents a very significant chunk of the "actual" RAM you have to play with, which is in reality only about 1300-1400 MB. Add just ONE mod like B9, and you can imagine what happens.

I would love to help with the texturing, but unfortunately know nothing about 3D modeling. I've started learning the basics of Blender, but it's slow going!

In the meantime, I can try to rearrange some parts/.mus/textures into separate folders at least, and send you a ZIP of it, if you'd like.

Edited March 16, 2015 by AccidentalDisassembly

[allista]

I can take a quick look at it myself, it's possible that there is just a mispelling.

Edit: Not seeing any obvious mispellings, other than maybe aluminium since theres the American spelling and the British spelling.

Edit2: I thought I had found it with the spelling of recyleables being 'recyclables' but nope.

I would just try to remove the resources one by one and see which is the problem.

- - - Updated - - -

As I said earlier (much earlier), I can't argue with all that. It's just that my time and abilities are limited; and it is much more tiresome (and produces more bugs) to remade something, than to make new from scratch.

In the meantime, I can try to rearrange some parts/.mus/textures into separate folders at least, and send you a ZIP of it, if you'd like.

Yea, that would help, thank you.

But you may find that textures (or, to be more precise, whole submodels) are more often shared than not:

* all round-orange-rimmed-windows share the same texture (in any of the models)

* orange-rmmed-doors (in any of the models)

* all radial adapters and station-hub

* all hangr-extensions and resource tanks

* inline hangars

* ground hangars

UPD:

* radial engines

Maybe others too, I don't remember it all.

Edited March 16, 2015 by allista

[Badsector]

How usefull is this mod and how hard is to add it to a ship design !!!

For that i have start to model one hangar for interplanetary ship hable to carry spaceplanes, landers and some probes

if you are interested i continue to model and texture it otherwise i don't have knowlenge and time for implement it in the game

Thanks a lot for this great mod and sorry for my bad english

Regards Luca

[Enceos]

In the meantime, I can try to rearrange some parts/.mus/textures into separate folders at least, and send you a ZIP of it, if you'd like.

@AccidentalDisassembly, I strongly discourage merging textures for this mod for the sake of conserving RAM. These textures are actually very very simple and those in need can resize them without noticing any visual difference. I'm bad at blendering but using the premade UVs in the textures I retextured many parts for myself just replacing the images. Merging textures based on their current looks in the mod gonna make it very hard to retexture parts individually.

- - - Updated - - -

How usefull is this mod and how hard is to add it to a ship design !!!

For that i have start to model one hangar for interplanetary ship hable to carry spaceplanes, landers and some probes

http://uppix.com/f-3550725e200188936.png

if you are interested i continue to model and texture it otherwise i don't have knowlenge and time for implement it in the game

Thanks a lot for this great mod and sorry for my bad english

Regards Luca

Hello Luca,

This mod is super useful I tell you. If you want to make a model of your own hangar, Allista kindly wrote a tutorial here: https://github.com/allista/hangar/wiki/HOWTO-for-Modders

[Thorbane]

Fixed the Component tank, submitted pull request. There wasn't anything placed in it, the MM configs that were supposed to add to it were pointing somewhere else.

[nebuchadnezzar]

Does anyone have any tips for porting existing mods? I've been trying to get the Fustek Payload Bay module to function as a Hangar. I've added the correct modules and I can get the hangar to spawn a stored craft but I can't get it to dock a craft. Here's the cfg if anyone wants to take a look.

		
Modules added to .cfg
MODULE 
	{
		name = Hangar
		EnergyConsumption = 1.6
		AnimatorID = Hangar
	}

	MODULE
	{
		name = HangarStorage
		HangarSpace = hangar_space
		SpawnTransform = launch_position
	}

[AccidentalDisassembly]

@AccidentalDisassembly, I strongly discourage merging textures for this mod for the sake of conserving RAM. These textures are actually very very simple and those in need can resize them without noticing any visual difference. I'm bad at blendering but using the premade UVs in the textures I retextured many parts for myself just replacing the images. Merging textures based on their current looks in the mod gonna make it very hard to retexture parts individually.

- - - Updated - - -

Hello Luca,

This mod is super useful I tell you. If you want to make a model of your own hangar, Allista kindly wrote a tutorial here: https://github.com/allista/hangar/wiki/HOWTO-for-Modders

I can appreciate that, but RAM pressure is real - again, though, maybe it all will be a moot point with 1.0 if they actually fix various memory leaks. That would allow (in actual usage, as opposed to on paper) more textures/mods/whatever... who knows.

It does make it harder to retexture parts individually, yes, but it also makes it easier to replicate a particular "look" across multiple parts at once Pluses and minuses, I guess.

[allista]

How usefull is this mod and how hard is to add it to a ship design !!!

For that i have start to model one hangar for interplanetary ship hable to carry spaceplanes, landers and some probes

http://uppix.com/f-3550725e200188936.png

if you are interested i continue to model and texture it otherwise i don't have knowlenge and time for implement it in the game

Thanks a lot for this great mod and sorry for my bad english

Regards Luca

I would be grateful if you'd explained a little bit about that "hard to add it to a ship design" part.

Aside from that, I could only welcome your modeling, and if you finish it I'll easily add it as another hangar, if that is your wish.

@AccidentalDisassembly, I strongly discourage merging textures for this mod for the sake of conserving RAM. These textures are actually very very simple and those in need can resize them without noticing any visual difference. I'm bad at blendering but using the premade UVs in the textures I retextured many parts for myself just replacing the images. Merging textures based on their current looks in the mod gonna make it very hard to retexture parts individually.

Hmm... that's an interesting point!

Fixed the Component tank, submitted pull request. There wasn't anything placed in it, the MM configs that were supposed to add to it were pointing somewhere else.

Many thanks again!

- - - Updated - - -

Does anyone have any tips for porting existing mods? I've been trying to get the Fustek Payload Bay module to function as a Hangar. I've added the correct modules and I can get the hangar to spawn a stored craft but I can't get it to dock a craft. Here's the cfg if anyone wants to take a look.

		
Modules added to .cfg
MODULE 
	{
		name = Hangar
		EnergyConsumption = 1.6
		AnimatorID = Hangar
	}

	MODULE
	{
		name = HangarStorage
		HangarSpace = hangar_space
		SpawnTransform = launch_position
	}

For that you would need to add two additional meshes and an empty transform to the model; It may be done through part.cfg using separate model and the MODEL node. Look, for example, at the Hangar/MM/Squad.cfg where stock Mk3 cargo bays are converted into hangars using an additional model Hangar/Parts/Models/Mk3CargoBayHangarConversion.

Oh heavens, when will I have the time to finish the Modder's HOWTO?!

- - - Updated - - -

I've released

the hotfix for Components tank type by Thorbane.

[RedPine]

After a good 15 minutes of searching I'm haven't found these suggestions so here you are... I am well aware that I know nothing about programming, and that my ideas are as likely to be an interesting as they are to be impossible or useless.

1. Inline Hangar Inline Hatch. Similar to the Fairing Hangar, except reusable (as opposed to ejectable fairings). Makes it easier to store simple vessels that have a thruster but no RCS (try docking a long rocket without RCS sideways into inline hangars with side doors... possible but tricky). Could also be used to store and launch vessels in an upright position while landed on a high gravity planet.

2. Launchpad Hangar. Similar to the square rover hangars, but the door opens at the top instead of the sides. Uses include storing RCS powered vehicles on low gravity planets (without scraping against the ground to get into a garage door), and loading rockets in an upright position while landed on a high gravity planet.

3. Autodocking vessels on load. Instead of being loaded in a floating position inside the hangar, allow vessels to load in a docked position inside the hangar. This could be accomplished by automatically docking to the root part of the loaded vessel if that root part is a docking port. This would be especially helpful when launching tiny RemoteTech probes that are stored with retracted antennae to save space.

If suggestions 3. and 1. were combined, it would be possible to quickly swap engines by using the "store" and "load" features of an inline hangar with inline hatch. This is already possible in the existing version, but only if the engines being swapped have RCS and a probe core.

[allista]

After a good 15 minutes of searching I'm haven't found these suggestions so here you are... I am well aware that I know nothing about programming, and that my ideas are as likely to be an interesting as they are to be impossible or useless.

1. Inline Hangar Inline Hatch. Similar to the Fairing Hangar, except reusable (as opposed to ejectable fairings). Makes it easier to store simple vessels that have a thruster but no RCS (try docking a long rocket without RCS sideways into inline hangars with side doors... possible but tricky). Could also be used to store and launch vessels in an upright position while landed on a high gravity planet.

2. Launchpad Hangar. Similar to the square rover hangars, but the door opens at the top instead of the sides. Uses include storing RCS powered vehicles on low gravity planets (without scraping against the ground to get into a garage door), and loading rockets in an upright position while landed on a high gravity planet.

3. Autodocking vessels on load. Instead of being loaded in a floating position inside the hangar, allow vessels to load in a docked position inside the hangar. This could be accomplished by automatically docking to the root part of the loaded vessel if that root part is a docking port. This would be especially helpful when launching tiny RemoteTech probes that are stored with retracted antennae to save space.

If suggestions 3. and 1. were combined, it would be possible to quickly swap engines by using the "store" and "load" features of an inline hangar with inline hatch. This is already possible in the existing version, but only if the engines being swapped have RCS and a probe core.

1. In other words, you want a smaller version of the Spaceport. Because if you have a stack-attached hangar with doors at its front, it has to be the top part of a rocket, meaning no cockpit. And there's also the problem of door animation and non-uniform resizing: basically, if you want to change the length, the only animation you could use there is the flat-sliding-doors (like in Asteroid Gateway). So you would have a ship that ends with the flat-topped barrel. Looks strange... Maybe it could be made as a surface-attachable part?

2. This seems reasonable enough. But how large such a thing should be to be usable for rockets? And how would you transport it into place (unless you build it with ExLP on site)?

3. But small MechJeb probes always have a core with short-range transceiver, have they not? This should always allow to send a signal to open the antenna through a mother ship. And this should also be tricky to program.

4. I don't quite understand the concept of "swapping engines", could you explain a little more?

Edited March 17, 2015 by allista

[allista]

By radial hangar I meant something along this line:

[nebuchadnezzar]

For that you would need to add two additional meshes and an empty transform to the model; It may be done through part.cfg using separate model and the MODEL node. Look, for example, at the Hangar/MM/Squad.cfg where stock Mk3 cargo bays are converted into hangars using an additional model Hangar/Parts/Models/Mk3CargoBayHangarConversion.

Thanks for the tips! Got it working perfectly

[Badsector]

I would be grateful if you'd explained a little bit about that "hard to add it to a ship design" part.

For explain is better if i upload some images, but the problem is the 5m diameter limit for inline hangar

And here is the hangar model, i'm not a good modeller and neither in texturing but if you like it

Here the download with sources normal and glow map https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzQ8Mq13E8HJakFkNmdDTXVmaU0/view?usp=sharing

Layer 1 the model 3-4-5 colliders

[allista]

For explain is better if i upload some images, but the problem is the 5m diameter limit for inline hangar

And here is the hangar model, i'm not a good modeller and neither in texturing but if you like it

http://uppix.com/f-3550ae81600188e32.png

Here the download with sources normal and glow map https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzQ8Mq13E8HJakFkNmdDTXVmaU0/view?usp=sharing

Layer 1 the model 3-4-5 colliders

Why, looks good to me! Thanks!

I'll make a hangar part out of it and publish it separately, crediting you.

*btw: 5m diameter limit may be changed in GameData/Hangar/Globals.cfg

[Badsector]

Thanks for waste your time in my hangar model , here some images for explain what i tell with "hard to fit in spaceplane design"

This is my interplanetary explorer

The fairings are for the eve lander and more than half space is empty, the 2 hangar on the sides are only for small probes, for load the bottom lander inside hangars i need at least 5m hangar and after that if i want to fit probes too i need to increase hangar lenght and that make the ship lenght out of design. the SSTO on top fill only in ground hangar but that is too big for add it to a ship design. Now i wait for this sqhared hangar for see if is hable to fit in it all what is need for space exploration.

Thanks again for this great mod

Regards Luca