[Suggestion] Make more than one hangar size possible

[Yankes]

Right now is stashed but still in I have plans to do it. Right now priority get rendering improvements on big maps.

[Biggieboy]

Thank you!

[efrenespartano]

Right now is stashed but still in I have plans to do it. Right now priority get rendering improvements on big maps.

Great! Thanks, Yankes!

[Alex_D]

Any luck with progress on this front?

I posted in another thread asking the same question, like others before me.

[Yankes]

It sill wait for more free time when I can test it and fix all possible bugs and multiple corner cases.

Right now I slowly working on adding script for execution odds of enemy missions.

[Nord]

I think i missed something, but why not make like with prisons ("prisontype")?

[Alex_D]

I think i missed something, but why not make like with prisons ("prisontype")?

I'm not familiar with prison type, but does that allows for a type of prisoner to be at potentially different types?
Like for crafts: One large hangar can fit several smaller crafts or one larger one.

In any case, another approach could be that the craft count is like the base storage number (with fractions). Example:
Craft size:
Tiny = 0.05 size
Small = 0.25 size
Normal = 1 size
Large = 2 size
Huge = 4 size.

Storage provided:
1x1 hangar = 0.25
2x2 hangar = 1
3x3 hangar = 4

The only drawback is an additional check would need to be performed to ensure that a base containing 4 - 1x1 hangars suddenly cannot fit a Normal craft size.

[Solarius Scorch]

Storing multiple craft in one hangar is already possible. But only one is displayed in the base view.

[Alex_D]

Storing multiple craft in one hangar is already possible. But only one is displayed in the base view.

Indeed.
However, one may want to add "realism" by determining craft sizes. This is to avoid large crafts taking slots of what would me smaller crafts. Example: If the code says 4 crafts fit on a 2x2 hangar, then 4 Conquerors (from Piratez) can fit as well as 4 Aircars.

[krautbernd]

It'd be great if this could get bumped up the priority list 

[wcho035]

Best way to get this out one day,

1) Use only 2 size hanger, 1x1 and 2x2.

You can use multiple 1x1 to build a 2x2 with 4 craft and more. 2x2 are reserved for craft extra large.

2) Use a graphic editor to resize your craft sprite to fit the hanger type

3) Craft can only use the services that hanger type provides.

[krautbernd]

2) Use a graphic editor to resize your craft sprite to fit the hanger type

The problems isn't the size of the craft image, it's actually implementing different hangar types and sorting craft into hangars.

3) Craft can only use the services that hanger type provides.

That would probably break vanilla compatibility. As I understand it Yankes doesn't want to go the one craft = one hangar type route, but allow multiple hangar types per craft.

[wcho035]

"The problems isn't the size of the craft image, it's actually implementing different hangar types and sorting craft into hangars."

If this is using my ideas for hangers. 2 hanger type. 1x1 for small and 2x2 for large craft.

Small craft uses services from small and large hangers.

Large craft uses services only from large hangers. Can't use services from small hangers.

Why would this need sorting crafts into hangers?

Similar to the code "requiresBaseFunc" and "provideBaseFunc"

Say the craft is a small flying sub hybrid. Can use 1x1 hanger and subhanger, 2x2 hanger and subhanger.

1x1 hanger provide XYZ service, 2x2 hanger provide ZXS services.
1x1 subhanger provide TXA and 2x2 subhanger provide XAX

Smallsub require XYZ, ZXS, TXA and XAX

Largesub can only use XAX

"That would probably break vanilla compatibility. As I understand it Yankes doesn't want to go the one craft = one hangar type route, but allow multiple hangar types per craft."

My system above answers the problem.

[Meridian]

Please either don't include previous post at all, or put it into proper quote tags.

This is unreadable.

[krautbernd]

My system above answers the problem.

Now if only you get someone to code it we're golden. It's hardly the first time this has ever been suggested. I've also told Yankes that he should simply go the exclusive route, but that's not what he has decided on. IMO not having exclusive sizes is better in the end since it offers more options down the road, like being able to house multiple small craft in one large hangar, making craft transfers easier etc.