EmbersArc

[1.6.1] KRE - Kerbal Reusability Expansion

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Interesting.

Were you aware of this:

 

Yes I was, but I've been using @DerpyFirework's plugin for a bit longer and it works great.
Small nitpick: When the control surface is activated they quickly jump to the current angle. But that's something that both plugins seem to do (just looking at the code, correct me if I'm wrong).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EmbersArc said:

Yes I was, but I've been using @DerpyFirework's plugin for a bit longer and it works great.
Small nitpick: When the control surface is activated they quickly jump to the current angle. But that's something that both plugins seem to do (just looking at the code, correct me if I'm wrong).

Define "current angle", please

What would you expect it to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Define "current angle", please

What would you expect it to do?

So when the grid fin (for example) is fully extended the control surface animation kicks in. That means it will immediately jump to the point in the animation where it would be according to the pitch/yaw/roll input.
It would be nice if it could gradually increase the range over 2 seconds or so to have a better transition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2017 at 10:00 AM, PickledTripod said:

That is something I didn't even think was possible. I was already using AB Launchers tanks to make a nice-looking Falcon 9, but now we can make the reusable Zenit boosters...

Also tell me if I'm pestering you with my requests, but there are two things I'd really like to have: Dragon 1 solar panels with a jettisonable cover, to go with your trunk; and a Dragon 2 trunk that's completely round, with maybe integrated solar panels.

Might I suggest you check out Tundra Exploration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EmbersArc said:

So when the grid fin (for example) is fully extended the control surface animation kicks in. That means it will immediately jump to the point in the animation where it would be according to the pitch/yaw/roll input.
It would be nice if it could gradually increase the range over 2 seconds or so to have a better transition.

I might be able to do that with retractable lifting surface, will let you know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who haven't seen it:

@linuxgurugamer has taken it upon himself to revive Flight Manager for Reusable Stages. This is a mod that lets you jump back in time to separated stages and land them. Basically what is needed for KRE to make sense.

The CKAN version of KRE now recommends FMRS by default. If you haven't, go download it and check it out:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, EmbersArc said:

For those who haven't seen it:

@linuxgurugamer has taken it upon himself to revive Flight Manager for Reusable Stages. This is a mod that lets you jump back in time to separated stages and land them. Basically what is needed for KRE to make sense.

The CKAN version of KRE now recommends FMRS by default. If you haven't, go download it and check it out:

 

I've seen some comments about functionality issues with career mode and science recovery. Is it working fine now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, EstebanLB said:

I've seen some comments about functionality issues with career mode and science recovery. Is it working fine now?

He has squashed alot of those bugs, I still haven't tried done any testing since the last update. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eberkain said:

He has squashed alot of those bugs, I still haven't tried done any testing since the last update. 

Cool, and what about comtibility with StageRecovery? I saw the note but not much more info on how will both work at the same time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2017 at 9:38 AM, EmbersArc said:

So when the grid fin (for example) is fully extended the control surface animation kicks in. That means it will immediately jump to the point in the animation where it would be according to the pitch/yaw/roll input.
It would be nice if it could gradually increase the range over 2 seconds or so to have a better transition.

I've just updated the RetractableLiftingSurface to now ease in the control surface over a range of 1 second once the wing animation is done

On 3/30/2017 at 7:58 PM, EstebanLB said:

Cool, and what about comtibility with StageRecovery? I saw the note but not much more info on how will both work at the same time

While I haven't tested, it should work as long as you use either one or the other.  I don't know how they will work together, it's something on the roadmap.

First I'll need to decide what should happen if you happen to want to use both in a single launch, not a trivial question

On 3/30/2017 at 4:38 PM, eberkain said:

He has squashed alot of those bugs, I still haven't tried done any testing since the last update. 

Fixed, check the thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30.3.2017 at 5:32 PM, EmbersArc said:

 This is a mod that lets you jump back in time to separated stages and land them. Basically what is needed for KRE to make sense.
 

 

While I am sure FMRS is nice and handy, the statement is not entirely true. As in you can do it without that mod, if you are quick and know exactly what you are doing.

This is not to bash FMRS or anything, just making a point for the newer players out there looking at this thread.

I play a lot of bone-stock KSP, and when I first got into Falcon 9 style launches and landings I took great pride into achieving RTLS in complete stock installs. Admittedly at first it took some effort and a lot of trial and error too, and the orbits I end up with are sometimes more eccentric than I'd wish for (it helps to overengineer the second stage with a lot of TWR to make that circularisation not take too long)

When 1.2 finally rolled around and there was still no sign of SQUAD ever releasing landing legs or gridfins, I decided to add them myself by using your lovely mod here, KRE. Other than that my install is completely stock, and these days most of my RTLS are successfull (I'd say I land 95% of them if you count the whole KSC peninsula)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2017 at 3:13 AM, MysterySloth said:

Is this compatible with Deadly Reentry?

I've never used Deadly Reentry, it doesn't have any additional configs for it if that's what the mod needs. Might still work otherwise.

5 hours ago, Dafni said:

While I am sure FMRS is nice and handy, the statement is not entirely true. As in you can do it without that mod, if you are quick and know exactly what you are doing.

This is true, even for Falcon Heavy flights (I've seen people crazy enough to do this @MatoroIgnika). But FMRS makes the whole thing less stressful and more efficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So anyone have some tips for dealing with the diminishing returns you get trying to add dV and then larger/more engines to compensate for TWR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SlabGizor117 said:

So anyone have some tips for dealing with the diminishing returns you get trying to add dV and then larger/more engines to compensate for TWR?

Different engine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EstebanLB said:

Different engine?

You're not listening.  How do I most efficiently deal with the diminishing returns you get when you add more dV AND more/bigger engines to compensate for the TWR?

Edited by SlabGizor117

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SlabGizor117 said:

You're not listening.  How do I most efficiently deal with the diminishing returns you get when you add more dV AND more/bigger engines to compensate for the TWR?

 

TWR is a ratio, so either increase your Thrust, or decrease your Weight. 

In the context of KRE, you want to try to land with as little extra weight as possible.

Assuming you don't change your engines, you can keep TWR high by landing no extra fuel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Nightside said:

 

TWR is a ratio, so either increase your Thrust, or decrease your Weight. 

In the context of KRE, you want to try to land with as little extra weight as possible.

Assuming you don't change your engines, you can keep TWR high by landing no extra fuel. 

You're still not listening.  I know how to compensate for a low TWR, what I want to know is how to minimize the diminishing returns you get as you add more fuel and more thrust to lift that fuel.  If I need more dV then I add fuel, I need more power to lift that fuel with, which I need more fuel for, which is more fuel I have to lift, etc.  You get diminishing returns as you dive down that rabbit hole and so I have two vectors on a 2.5m stack for a 5 ton lifter.  My question is what I should do to minimize those diminishing returns and keep from overbuilding rockets too badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SlabGizor117 said:

You're still not listening.  I know how to compensate for a low TWR, what I want to know is how to minimize the diminishing returns you get as you add more fuel and more thrust to lift that fuel.  If I need more dV then I add fuel, I need more power to lift that fuel with, which I need more fuel for, which is more fuel I have to lift, etc.  You get diminishing returns as you dive down that rabbit hole and so I have two vectors on a 2.5m stack for a 5 ton lifter.  My question is what I should do to minimize those diminishing returns and keep from overbuilding rockets too badly.

There is no way to stop these diminishing returns, that's just how rockets science works. This thread is not the place to learn more about how rockets work for that you'll want http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/forum/44-science-spaceflight/ for IRL rockets or http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/forum/16-gameplay-questions-and-tutorials/ for KSP rockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SlabGizor117 said:

You're still not listening.  I know how to compensate for a low TWR, what I want to know is how to minimize the diminishing returns you get as you add more fuel and more thrust to lift that fuel.  If I need more dV then I add fuel, I need more power to lift that fuel with, which I need more fuel for, which is more fuel I have to lift, etc.  You get diminishing returns as you dive down that rabbit hole and so I have two vectors on a 2.5m stack for a 5 ton lifter.  My question is what I should do to minimize those diminishing returns and keep from overbuilding rockets too badly.

Gratz, you discovered rocket science.  Its a delicate balance, take as little payload weight as you truly need, fly efficiently.  I generally go for a 1.4+ on my launch stage, I like for my my other stages to get to orbit to be around 1, less is ok though.  Transfer stages and the like, im good with them being pretty low, 0.25+  It just means longer burn times, also means smaller engine with less weight, so less rocket mass needed to get it into orbit. .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TheRagingIrishman said:

There is no way to stop these diminishing returns, that's just how rockets science works. This thread is not the place to learn more about how rockets work for that you'll want http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/forum/44-science-spaceflight/ for IRL rockets or http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/forum/16-gameplay-questions-and-tutorials/ for KSP rockets.

I didn't say stop, I said minimize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd probably have better luck in a "basic rocketry" thread instead of one about a mod.

That, and maybe not being confrontational...

Edited by RoboRay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, thanks for this neat mod. Couple of comments/questions...

Do the nodes on the fuel tank and heat shield seem oddly placed to anyone else? They work fine with each other, but if any other part is stacked with them, they will clip through or leave large gaps.

I like look of the vernier engines - is there any chance of a five-way version that has the missing top-facing nozzle? I know it starts to get away from the inspiration material, but it would provide an aerodynamic-looking LFO-based RCS port suitable for both upper and lower stages - there aren't many mods that offer that combination of qualities in a part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.