[Old Thread] KRE - Kerbal Reusability Expansion

[EmbersArc]

6 hours ago, FrancisDillinger said:

Hey I was thinking of suggesting the addition of rcs pods for the 1st stage to this mod. It's a part I always struggle with and end up using parts from other mods. Do you have any plans for adding these?

Falcon 9 cold gas thrusters

Yes that should be next. I'm not sure yet whether they should use monopropellant or LF/OX. Probably monopropellant though.

[Delta_8930]

25 minutes ago, EmbersArc said:

Yes that should be next. I'm not sure yet whether they should use monopropellant or LF/OX. Probably monopropellant though.

The F9's thrusters use compressed cold nitrogen gas, which means that MP should be the best choice 

[StevieC]

Usually I set up my craft in this mod as follows: First-stage is to get the craft onto a sub-orbital trajectory, and have enough fuel remaining in it after stage-sep to perform boostback, re-entry, and landing burns with a little bit to spare. Second stage is built to circularize the payload's orbit. If said payload is the Mk1-2 capsule with your mod's "Dragon" parts, then that second-stage is ALSO fitted with a docking-port so it can serve to provide extra delta-V for the capsule-and-trunk stack, and any cargo that may be in the trunk, too. Preferably enough to get them onto a free-return trajectory 'round the Mün or Minmus and circularize their orbit 'round either satellite, with enough left over to get the capsule-and-loaded-trunk onto a safe return-trajectory back to Kerbin FROM orbit around either the Mün or Minmus. and I try to make the second-stage autonomous using the stock 2.5 Remote Guidance System so that it can remain active even after it's no longer needed for propulsive use, so I try to fit it with a couple of the smallest size relay-antennae, and some solar panels and electric storage in the form of batteries, sometimes I also fit it with RCS thrusters too. That way, I only need to use the Draco engines for very-late course-correction and landing-burn. I should note that the trunk for the manned SpaceX Dragon v2.0 ship has solar-panels built into it. Any chance of seeing solar panels get built into your Dragon trunk?

[FunkyPixie]

Hey am i doing something wrong im trying to put a fuel tank on the glenn leg mount medium and it wont let me put anything on top of it

 

it will only let me add fuel engines to the sides of the mount or put small fuel tanks in the middle bit

 

i'm using KSP 1,2,1

 

 

[Benji13]

3 minutes ago, funkyrowanpixie said:

Hey am i doing something wrong im trying to put a fuel tank on the glenn leg mount medium and it wont let me put anything on top of it

 

it will only let me add fuel engines to the sides of the mount or put small fuel tanks in the middle bit

 

i'm using KSP 1,2,1

 

 

Those leg mounts have to be radially attached, even though they are circular. Place the tank first, then radially attach the leg mount to that. Make sure you use the right size without any symmetry. 

[FunkyPixie]

24 minutes ago, Benji13 said:

Those leg mounts have to be radially attached, even though they are circular. Place the tank first, then radially attach the leg mount to that. Make sure you use the right size without any symmetry. 

Thank you very much for helping me 

[Captain Planet]

So I'm not getting any LiftingSurface information on the Trunk Fin part, even when I run the mod in an otherwise stock game with nothing but KRE and ModuleManager installed. I've compared the TrunkFin cfg to the stock basicFin cfg and I can't see what Trunk Fin is missing. I can see the ModuleLiftingSurface in the cfg, but when I run the game the Trunk Fin never actually has that module, and is just inert.

 

Can anyone else reproduce this? Easiest way is to either look for the absent Lifting Surface module on the Trunk Fin part in the VAB/SPH parts list, or make a 2 part craft: any fuel tank then add the Trunk Fin, then toggle your CoL overlay and observe how the Trunk Fin has no lifting properties.

[Rodger]

1 hour ago, Captain Planet said:

So I'm not getting any LiftingSurface information on the Trunk Fin part, even when I run the mod in an otherwise stock game with nothing but KRE and ModuleManager installed. I've compared the TrunkFin cfg to the stock basicFin cfg and I can't see what Trunk Fin is missing. I can see the ModuleLiftingSurface in the cfg, but when I run the game the Trunk Fin never actually has that module, and is just inert.

 

Can anyone else reproduce this? Easiest way is to either look for the absent Lifting Surface module on the Trunk Fin part in the VAB/SPH parts list, or make a 2 part craft: any fuel tank then add the Trunk Fin, then toggle your CoL overlay and observe how the Trunk Fin has no lifting properties.

It's something I've noticed too, and like you I checked the cfg and couldn't see why it wouldn't be working...

[EmbersArc]

@Captain Planet, @Rodger thanks for noticing that. It seems that the FAR config is applied even when FAR isn't installed. Will be fixed in the next version.

[etheoma]

Sorry to ask but there isn't any chance you could integrate this for RO because I'm making a Skylon alike in RO and the Super Draco engine RCS would be perfect for an engine that I could use to both translate forwards and backwards with and provide an engine with no re-ignition limits. 

Also just so they don't show up in the Non RO parts.

Yeah I know it's a lot longer than the real thing but its also quite a bit thinner, also I know I should have canards at the fount and I shouldn't have pitch tail fins at the back but it just makes it too unstable. The problem is you can't change the fuel type the engine uses. otherwise your part's are perfectly comparable with RO.

I understand if you want to wait until RO is 1.2 but given the style of your parts it's just a crying shame not to have RO integration. Tbh when RO 1.2 comes around I might just change the damn engine my self and integrate it into RO if you don't want to, if that is the case would you mind if I uploaded that for other people to use, obviously with credits.

Edited November 7, 2016 by etheoma

[EmbersArc]

On 7.11.2016 at 5:12 PM, etheoma said:

Sorry to ask but there isn't any chance you could integrate this for RO because I'm making a Skylon alike in RO and the Super Draco engine RCS would be perfect for an engine that I could use to both translate forwards and backwards with and provide an engine with no re-ignition limits. 

Also just so they don't show up in the Non RO parts.

I'm not too familiar with RO but that should not be a problem. So that would make them NTO/MMH engines right? And the tank as well I guess, or can you change that anyways?

On 7.11.2016 at 5:12 PM, etheoma said:

Yeah I know it's a lot longer than the real thing but its also quite a bit thinner, also I know I should have canards at the fount and I shouldn't have pitch tail fins at the back but it just makes it too unstable. The problem is you can't change the fuel type the engine uses. otherwise your part's are perfectly comparable with RO.

Looks good to me, an exact Skylon is quite hard to do at least in the stock game. Very little lift but dense propellant. RO is most likely quite a bit harder.

[Nansuchao]

@EmbersArc

Hello and congratulations for your mod, it's beautiful. However, there seems to be an issue between this and B9 Aerospace, that cause all the control surfaces from B9 to not work. The issue is due to this patch, found by blowfish: KerbalReusabilityExpansion/Trunk/TrunkFin_FAR.cfg

[EmbersArc]

14 minutes ago, Nansuchao said:

Hello and congratulations for your mod, it's beautiful. However, there seems to be an issue between this and B9 Aerospace, that cause all the control surfaces from B9 to not work. The issue is due to this patch, found by blowfish: KerbalReusabilityExpansion/Trunk/TrunkFin_FAR.cfg

Okay that sounds quite serious, thanks for reporting that.

I think I know why it did that and changed it from this

Spoiler

@PART[TrunkFin]:AFTER[FerramAerospaceResearch]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch] {
    @maximum_drag = 0
    @minimum_drag = 0
    @angularDrag = 0
    !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {}
    %MODULE[FARWingAerodynamicModel] {
        %b_2 = 0.448
        %MAC = 1.26
        %TaperRatio = 0.4375
        %MidChordSweep = 37
    }
}

to this

Spoiler

@PART[TrunkFin]:FOR[FerramAerospaceResearch]
{
    @module = Part
    @maximum_drag = 0
    @minimum_drag = 0
    @angularDrag = 0
    @dragCoeff = 0
    @deflectionLiftCoeff = 0
    !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {}
    MODULE
    {
        name = FARWingAerodynamicModel
        MAC = 1.26
        MidChordSweep = 37
        b_2 = 0.448
        TaperRatio = 0.4375
    }

}

Maybe you can try whether that fixes it.

Will be changed in the next update which should be out soon.

Edited November 10, 2016 by EmbersArc

[Nansuchao]

34 minutes ago, EmbersArc said:

Okay that sounds quite serious, thanks for reporting that.

I think I know why it did that and changed it from this

  Hide contents

@PART[TrunkFin]:AFTER[FerramAerospaceResearch]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch] {
    @maximum_drag = 0
    @minimum_drag = 0
    @angularDrag = 0
    !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {}
    %MODULE[FARWingAerodynamicModel] {
        %b_2 = 0.448
        %MAC = 1.26
        %TaperRatio = 0.4375
        %MidChordSweep = 37
    }
}

to this

  Hide contents

@PART[TrunkFin]:FOR[FerramAerospaceResearch]
{
    @module = Part
    @maximum_drag = 0
    @minimum_drag = 0
    @angularDrag = 0
    @dragCoeff = 0
    @deflectionLiftCoeff = 0
    !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {}
    MODULE
    {
        name = FARWingAerodynamicModel
        MAC = 1.26
        MidChordSweep = 37
        b_2 = 0.448
        TaperRatio = 0.4375
    }

}

Maybe you can try whether that fixes it.

Will be changed in the next update which should be out soon.

Thanks, I'll try it very soon

[Qwarkk]

Wondering if someone would help me with something;

I was comparing the grid fins from this mod with the grid fins from the Launchers pack mod, and I found that the ones from the launchers pack slowed a vessel down a lot more than the fins in this pack (performing identical falcon-style boostbacks, Launchers pack fins would slow the vessel down to around 200m/s by 10km altitude, where as the vessel would be coming in at around 400 m/s with KRE fins)

Im trying to learn ksp config files, so I compared the config files from both mods but couldn't identify why the launchers pack fins would have significantly more drag. Could someone point me in the right direction?

I would link the relevant config files but I'm away from home and on mobile, sorry.

[EmbersArc]

13 hours ago, Qwarkk said:

Wondering if someone would help me with something;

I was comparing the grid fins from this mod with the grid fins from the Launchers pack mod, and I found that the ones from the launchers pack slowed a vessel down a lot more than the fins in this pack (performing identical falcon-style boostbacks, Launchers pack fins would slow the vessel down to around 200m/s by 10km altitude, where as the vessel would be coming in at around 400 m/s with KRE fins)

Im trying to learn ksp config files, so I compared the config files from both mods but couldn't identify why the launchers pack fins would have significantly more drag. Could someone point me in the right direction?

I would link the relevant config files but I'm away from home and on mobile, sorry.

It's because of the drag cube node:

Spoiler

    DRAG_CUBE
    {
        //cube = A, 0.5,1,1.7, 0.5,1,1.8, 0.7,0.7,0.6, 0.7,0.7,0.6, 0.5,0.8,0.7, 0.5,0.8,0.7, 0.8,0,0, 1.7,0.7,1.2
          cube = A, 0.5,1,1.7, 0.5,1,1.8, 10.5,0.7,0.6, 10.5,0.7,0.6, 0.5,0.8,0.7, 0.5,0.8,0.7, 0.8,0,0, 1.7,0.7,1.2
        //cube = B, 0,0,0, 0,0,0, 0,0,0, 0,0,0, 0,0,0, 0,0,0, 0,0,0, 0,0,0
          cube = B, 0.8896,0.7837,0.4575, 0.8817,0.7864,0.4979, 0.3213,0.8672,1.586, 0.3213,0.7643,1.929, 0.4772,0.8256,0.735, 0.4772,0.8259,0.735, 0.2168,0.5705,1.49E-06, 0.4863,1.832,1.276
    }

Cube A is for the deployed and cube B for the retracted position. The first cube A is commented out. That's the "realistic drag" but it's increased to make them act as airbrakes as well.

 

[Qwarkk]

2 hours ago, EmbersArc said:

It's because of the drag cube node:

  Hide contents

    DRAG_CUBE
    {
        //cube = A, 0.5,1,1.7, 0.5,1,1.8, 0.7,0.7,0.6, 0.7,0.7,0.6, 0.5,0.8,0.7, 0.5,0.8,0.7, 0.8,0,0, 1.7,0.7,1.2
          cube = A, 0.5,1,1.7, 0.5,1,1.8, 10.5,0.7,0.6, 10.5,0.7,0.6, 0.5,0.8,0.7, 0.5,0.8,0.7, 0.8,0,0, 1.7,0.7,1.2
        //cube = B, 0,0,0, 0,0,0, 0,0,0, 0,0,0, 0,0,0, 0,0,0, 0,0,0, 0,0,0
          cube = B, 0.8896,0.7837,0.4575, 0.8817,0.7864,0.4979, 0.3213,0.8672,1.586, 0.3213,0.7643,1.929, 0.4772,0.8256,0.735, 0.4772,0.8259,0.735, 0.2168,0.5705,1.49E-06, 0.4863,1.832,1.276
    }

Cube A is for the deployed and cube B for the retracted position. The first cube A is commented out. That's the "realistic drag" but it's increased to make them act as airbrakes as well.

 

Thank you, i understand it now. Out of interest where did you find those drag cube numbers for the Launchers pack? I never saw them in any config file i remember opening.

Thanks again.

Edit: Dw, I found the partdatabase.cfg file (as i said, learning).

Edited November 14, 2016 by Qwarkk

[RandyRawgust]

Forgive me if I didn't look hard enough but does the ITS legs work in 1.1.3? Thanks, stellar mod!

[EmbersArc]

On 15.11.2016 at 10:04 AM, RandyRawgust said:

Forgive me if I didn't look hard enough but does the ITS legs work in 1.1.3? Thanks, stellar mod!

I will never forgive you.

They should be compatible after you make one small but very important change to the config: Change the Category from "Ground" to "Utility" and it should work fine.

Edited November 16, 2016 by EmbersArc
Alright I forgive you

[RandyRawgust]

Thanks soo much for the support. This is easily one of my essential mods. Perfectly Kerbalized parts from our favorite spacecrafts! The replica stuff is great but I love mods like yours. Very stock alike. Also well executed. Thanks again, you rock! This game and its community is just the best!

[EmbersArc]

Update 2.2

• Added new thruster based on F9 cold gas thrusters
• Scaled down some textures that had unnecessarily high resolution
• Fixed a patch that was interfering with control surfaces
• Slight texture changes

I've been busy working on a kOS script that lands stages. So this patch involves a not especially exciting but quite helpful change:

I originally wanted to make the cold gas thrusters use monopropellant but it turned out that to make them powerful enough they would need way too much fuel or be too efficient. So now it's basically a "Vernor" engine with more directions.

[Dethbyobsidian]

I kinda like the idea of Vernier RCS, it can be used like the RCS on the ITS.

 

[Captain Planet]

@EmbersArc Thanks for your continued work on this. My Falcon 9 looks better than ever!

 

Would it be possible to add some suspension to the little landing legs in the heatshield? It would be awesome to have just that little bit of give in those legs on touchdown.

[EmbersArc]

On 11/18/2016 at 9:17 PM, Captain Planet said:

Would it be possible to add some suspension to the little landing legs in the heatshield? It would be awesome to have just that little bit of give in those legs on touchdown.

Definitely not a bad idea. I've tried that when I didn't know how to set up landing legs and then just decided that it's not worth it. I'm still concerned that that would just make the lander bounce because of the short suspension distance. I'll give it another shot eventually.

[EmbersArc]

Alright I got bored...

Interesting how Blue Origin just doesn't bother adding feet to their legs. It just looks wrong somehow... 

I've also noticed that in the latest update the SuperDracoRCS part has the wrong texture. Sorry about that, will be fixed in the next version.

Edited November 21, 2016 by EmbersArc