[1.12.*] Deadly Reentry v7.9.0 The Barbie Edition, Aug 5th, 2021

[Daniel Prates]

40 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

And it IS supposed to be harder than stock, otherwise why install it. 

Oh, no questions there. In 1.3 KPS it made the game ever more challenging and I loved it. It is only now that it became, well, close to unusable.

To me it seems that the 600vs6000 change,  being an alteration needed in Corvus alone,  kinda makes me wonder if I wouldn't have to go around changing dozens of configs elsewhere. Your proposal is a good workaround, but for those who use dozens of part packs,  it spells too much work. Prohibitive,  even. So,  for the time being,  I too will be putting this mod aside. 

I sure hope the owner will take a look into this though!

[linuxgurugamer]

58 minutes ago, Daniel Prates said:

Oh, no questions there. In 1.3 KPS it made the game ever more challenging and I loved it. It is only now that it became, well, close to unusable.

To me it seems that the 600vs6000 change,  being an alteration needed in Corvus alone,  kinda makes me wonder if I wouldn't have to go around changing dozens of configs elsewhere. Your proposal is a good workaround, but for those who use dozens of part packs,  it spells too much work. Prohibitive,  even. So,  for the time being,  I too will be putting this mod aside. 

I sure hope the owner will take a look into this though!

You missed the point.  The number should be 6000, but in the Corvus mod, @micha  recently changed it to 600 after the new release of DRE, because he saw that in the new release.  That was a mistake, and he said he will be reverting that.

And it's ONLY the 1.25m, 2.5m and 3.75m stock heatshields which has the bug.  So once you fix the one place in the one file for DRE and the one in Corvus, you will be ok.

I've been testing this, and it is working well with all the parts I've tried so far

[micha]

@Daniel Prates To expand on the above, I've already fixed it in Corvus (v1.3.4) and as @linuxgurugamer said, if you want to fix it for stock heatshields, all you have to do is edit "GameData/DeadlyReentry/DeadlyReentry.cfg" and change line 103 from "@pyrolysisLossFactor = 600" to "@pyrolysisLossFactor = 6000".

For some reason DeadlyReentry has a specific configuration section for the stock heatshields instead of just using the generic override near the top of the file (which also seems to have a bug - it has two entries for 'reentryConductivity'; @Starwaster?)

[Jacke]

19 hours ago, Daniel Prates said:

To me it seems that the 600vs6000 change,  being an alteration needed in Corvus alone,  kinda makes me wonder if I wouldn't have to go around changing dozens of configs elsewhere. Your proposal is a good workaround, but for those who use dozens of part packs,  it spells too much work. Prohibitive,  even. So,  for the time being,  I too will be putting this mod aside.

That's what a single appropriately coded Module Manager script config can do.  Ideally you should never change the original files from the upstream program or mod providers, as that can be wiped out by a KSP or a mod update.  It's why sarbian coded Module Manager, just for situations like this.

The tricky part is getting the right changes, as there are configs in both DRE and the parts files and it would need testing.  The comments above talk about values that were in the end determined not needing changes.   Only pyrolysisLossFactor needed adjusting for some parts to restore difficult but achievable reentries.

To implement those changes as a FINAL MM script, add a file containing the MM script below with DRE 7.7.0 until DRE itself is updated.

From what 4x4cheesecake and linuxgurugamer tested and my quick look at things, this SHOULD work to get by until @Starwaster updates DRE itself from 7.7.0.  From the last 2 posts by linuxgurugamer and @micha above, it may be too much, but it shouldn't break anything.

EDIT: In line with @4x4cheesecake's comment below, I've commented out the script change to the resource.

EDIT2: In line with @linuxgurugamer's comment below, I've reduced the change to only pyrolysisLossFactor.

This is for DRE 7.7.0.  After this is addressed in subsequence DRE versions, it shouldn't be needed.

 

Spoiler

// 20180829 @Jacke's implementation of @4x4cheesecakes & @linuxgurugamer's fixes to DRE 7.7.0
//
// https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/50296-145-deadly-reentry-v770-nov-16-2017-the-ariel-edition/&page=220&tab=comments#comment-3441291
// and later comments
//
// Final so it runs after DRE to add changes
// On Final, Modules should all be renamed to ModuleHeatShield
//
// Put this in a file "DRE-770-fix-20180830a.cfg" and add it with DRE 7.7.0 until a fix is released in later DRE
//
// 20180830a	advised by @linuxgurugamer only change necessary is to pyrolysisLossFactor
// 20180829c	comment out ALL the resource code
// 20180829b	advised by @4x4cheesecake NOT to change resource, commented out resource code
// 20180829a	initial version
//
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleHeatShield]]:Final
{
	@MODULE[ModuleHeatShield]
	{
		@pyrolysisLossFactor = 6000
	}
}

 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Jacke

[Daniel Prates]

28 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

You missed the point.  The number should be 6000, but in the Corvus mod, @micha  recently changed it to 600 after the new release of DRE, because he saw that in the new release.  That was a mistake, and he said he will be reverting that.

And it's ONLY the 1.25m, 2.5m and 3.75m stock heatshields which has the bug.  So once you fix the one place in the one file for DRE and the one in Corvus, you will be ok.

I've been testing this, and it is working well with all the parts I've tried so far

Oh indeed,  I didn't get before. Its clearer now. My bad,  I suck at code. Thanks!

[4x4cheesecake]

@Jacke After the explanation of Starwaster and the tests of linuxgurugamer, I wouldn't change the used resources for the heatshields. Looks like raising the 'pyrolysisLossFactor' to 6000 will solve this issue.

Edited August 30, 2018 by 4x4cheesecake

[Jacke]

5 minutes ago, 4x4cheesecake said:

@Jacke After the explanation of Starwaster and the tests of linuxgurugamer, I wouldn't change the used resources for the heatshields. Looks like raising the 'pyrolysisLossFactor' to 6000 will solve this issue.

Thanks for catching that!  Post updated as suggested.

[linuxgurugamer]

8 hours ago, Jacke said:

Thanks for catching that!  Post updated as suggested.

I still think you are changing too much.  The ONLY thing that needs changing is

@pyrolysisLossFactor = 6000

So the final patch should be just this:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleHeatShield]]:Final
{
	@MODULE[ModuleHeatShield]
	{
		@pyrolysisLossFactor = 6000
	}
}

And only until @Starwaster comes out with an update to fix this

[Jacke]

9 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I still think you are changing too much.  The ONLY thing that needs changing is

@pyrolysisLossFactor = 6000

And only until @Starwaster comes out with an update to fix this

From your previous comment, I should have realised only pyrolysisLossFactor needed adjustment, as well as drawing attention to only needing the patch until DRE is updated from 7.7.0.  I've updated my post to address this.

[Starwaster]

Recently mentioned pyrolysisLossFactor in stock shields has been fixed in DeadlyReentry.cfg file on the repository so download it at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Starwaster/DeadlyReentry/master/DeadlyReentry/DeadlyReentry.cfg and copy it over the existing file in your DeadlyReentry folder.

@micha will remove the duplicate entry but it doesn't affect anything because both lines are set to the same value...

[raxo2222]

No idea what I'm doing wrong, but its too easy to melt gears.

I use RSS, FAR, KSP Interstellar Extended among with other smaller mods.

For example Extra Large Gear has internal/skin max temperature of 1073/1353 K.

 

Maybe I should reinstall DR and scrap current sandbox scenario, that I use for tests.

That is somehow temsp are incorrect..

And temperature limits are unchanged.

 

There could be upgrade tech, that increases max skin temperature, so fat heavy nuclear space planes wouldn't melt too easily their undersides.

 

Changed temp limit to 4400 K (KSP Interstellar likes hot thing) and scale limit to 1

Now max skin temp of gears is 2300 K.

Edited September 7, 2018 by raxo2222

[Starwaster]

14 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

No idea what I'm doing wrong, but its too easy to melt gears.

I use RSS, FAR, KSP Interstellar Extended among with other smaller mods.

For example Extra Large Gear has internal/skin max temperature of 1073/1353 K.

 

Maybe I should reinstall DR and scrap current sandbox scenario, that I use for tests.

That is somehow temsp are incorrect..

And temperature limits are unchanged.

 

There could be upgrade tech, that increases max skin temperature, so fat heavy nuclear space planes wouldn't melt too easily their undersides.

 

Changed temp limit to 4400 K (KSP Interstellar likes hot thing) and scale limit to 1

Now max skin temp of gears is 2300 K.

I don't know what part you're referring to. There's no stock landing gear by the name of 'Extra Large Gear'.  If that's from a mod then I need to know which one it's from. (unless it's from Kerbal Foundry; I can't support it properly because of its extreme proprietary nature)

Edited September 8, 2018 by Starwaster

[raxo2222]

6 hours ago, Starwaster said:

I don't know what part you're referring to. There's no stock landing gear by the name of 'Extra Large Gear'.  If that's from a mod then I need to know which one it's from. (unless it's from Kerbal Foundry; I can't support it properly because of its extreme proprietary nature)

It IS stock gear: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/LY-99_Extra_Large_Landing_Gear

Along with smaller ones.

[Starwaster]

5 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

It IS stock gear: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/LY-99_Extra_Large_Landing_Gear

Along with smaller ones.

Dunno why my search didn't pick it up, maybe I had the case sensitivity box checked or something... but I fixed an underlying problem that was causing the maxTemp to be halved for parts that were otherwise designated as being exempt.

Download the updated DeadlyReentry.cfg and copy it to your DeadlyReentry folder

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Starwaster/DeadlyReentry/master/DeadlyReentry/DeadlyReentry.cfg

Edited September 8, 2018 by Starwaster

[raxo2222]

Weird that no one reported this earlier....

 

Is no one flying spaceplaces with DR and RSS?

 

Thanks on fix.

Edited September 8, 2018 by raxo2222

[Starwaster]

2 hours ago, raxo2222 said:

Weird that no one reported this earlier....

Is no one flying spaceplaces with DR and RSS?

Beats me; it's been like that since May, 2016 at least...

[Starwaster]

Updated DeadlyReentry-OPT.cfg file. Missing part configs by @pr4ger

It can be downloaded directly from https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Starwaster/DeadlyReentry/master/DeadlyReentry/DeadlyReentry-OPT.cfg and copied over the existing file in your DeadlyReentry folder. (operational temps in ModuleAeroReentry may change before the next update)

Also I'm still mulling over the engine and and other parts that were given a max temp of 1500 - I may still reduce that but for now I settled for assigning it a maxOperationalTemp of 698K which is about the point at which steel begins to weaken. (i.e. the part will begin to accumulate damage proportional to the amount by which it is over its operational temp). That SHOULDN'T be a problem as those parts probably won't even reach those temperatures just from being run full power. (just referring to the engines there, not all of those parts were engines)

Edited September 18, 2018 by Starwaster

[Starwaster]

Finally fixed the damned overheating gauge on Kerbals. I was using a very precisely calculated value for the threshold multiplier which was predicated on the gauge threshold being a static value of 0.7 but it is overridden in the Physics Globals to 0.625

So I bumped the threshold multiplier up accordingly.

Download DeadlyReentry-KerbalEVA.cfg and copy it to your DeadlyReentry folder, overwriting the existing file.

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Starwaster/DeadlyReentry/master/DeadlyReentry/DeadlyReentry-KerbalEVA.cfg

This will keep the gauge from showing up until your Kerbal's body temperature exceeds ~314K which is  little below the temperature at which tissue damage begins to occur (317K). (intermediate levels of heating corresponding to fever temperatures are ignored)

 

[Ottomic]

So I've started a new game after a long while, and I've been noticing that DR, on stock parameters, is making reentries way harder than it used to on earlier games. I'm not using any kind of rescaling mod, and I'm not using FAR, and yet anything that I put on a really, REALLY shallow reentry path (70-50 or even less) will burn through its shielding and oftentimes overheat and explode. Here are two examples:

OKTO with a 0.6 shield will burn through all its ablative and eventually explode. Doesn't seem to happen if I put it on top of an adapter with a 1.25 shield below it (it burns about 60% of the ablative away).
MK1 pod with a 1.25 shield will burn through all the ablative in the shield, which will explode, and then about halfway through the capsule's ablative before coming out of the burn.

I'm not complaining, I'm just curious as to whether this is expected on a stock configuration or if something else's at play, or if maybe I'm not applying proper technique and I'm burning through way more ablative than I really should.

[Jacke]

5 hours ago, Ottomic said:

So I've started a new game after a long while, and I've been noticing that DR, on stock parameters, is making reentries way harder than it used to on earlier games.

Hey @Ottomic, make sure you have the latest DR v7.7.0.   And update 3 of its config files with these corrected ones @Starwaster has posted over September since its release, especially the first one.

 

Edited September 22, 2018 by Jacke

[The-Grim-Sleeper]

So I am thinking of adding this mod, in the middle of my career mode save (because YOLO!), and am concerned going forward.

I am not above cheating to get all of my currently in-flight under-designed craft home, so that isn't the problem.

But almost all of my designs rely heavily on the slightly wonky stock re-entry heat physics to survive. Most notability, I use the Mk1 Crew Cabin (external heat tolerance: 2000K, internal 1000K) as a main fuselage section in the rescue craft. These craft also liberally expose fuel-tanks, nose-cones and "landing rockets" to the heat. In the current save (has FAR) their actual weakness was heat transference through a heat shield reaching the weak HECS probe control unit.

Since re-entry is a not the easiest test to do (even in sandbox mode, you first need to get to orbit before you can try a re-entry), having to (re)design with that in mind is a bit of a pain.

Will shallower re-entry angles be sufficient to allow wingless shuttle-like craft to survive? How much redesign will I need to do compared to KSP with only FAR to make decent landing craft? Do you have any tips for quickly testing re-entry on a craft?

Will my suicide-cigar ever fly again?

[Burning Kan]

2 hours ago, The-Grim-Sleeper said:

you first need to get to orbit before you can try a re-entry

just a tip:with alt+F12open the debug menu under cheats uwill find set orbit option-thats how i test my reentrys(but if u do a aerobrake maneuver on other planets u will come in with a much higher speed as only deorbit)

 

[Starwaster]

3 hours ago, The-Grim-Sleeper said:

So I am thinking of adding this mod, in the middle of my career mode save (because YOLO!), and am concerned going forward.

I am not above cheating to get all of my currently in-flight under-designed craft home, so that isn't the problem.

But almost all of my designs rely heavily on the slightly wonky stock re-entry heat physics to survive. Most notability, I use the Mk1 Crew Cabin (external heat tolerance: 2000K, internal 1000K) as a main fuselage section in the rescue craft. These craft also liberally expose fuel-tanks, nose-cones and "landing rockets" to the heat. In the current save (has FAR) their actual weakness was heat transference through a heat shield reaching the weak HECS probe control unit.

Since re-entry is a not the easiest test to do (even in sandbox mode, you first need to get to orbit before you can try a re-entry), having to (re)design with that in mind is a bit of a pain.

Will shallower re-entry angles be sufficient to allow wingless shuttle-like craft to survive? How much redesign will I need to do compared to KSP with only FAR to make decent landing craft? Do you have any tips for quickly testing re-entry on a craft?

Will my suicide-cigar ever fly again?

Shuttles: Depends on what parts they are made of and how much drag they actually have (surface area). Any known spaceplane parts are modeled after the space shuttle TPS (tiles). Thermal mass is scaled down as the skin is basically foamed glass with in a heat resistant coating. They are designed for shallow reentries.

heat shields: conductivity is reduced. They conduct much less heat. When their ablative resource is depleted they become pretty useless unlike the stock shields which have high max temp even after ablator is depleted.

Your cigar: I have no idea. It probably should fly? I guess? If we're talking about a standard rocket design, keep your angle of attack low (you probably need to do this anyway if you're using FAR). high angle of attack at supersonic speeds will cause excessive heating and you will have a bad day. If heating on ascent becomes a problem, consider doing a steeper ascent until after MaxQ. (even though this runs counter to what you've probably been told and runs counter to how a lot of rockets actually launch except for the Falcon 9 which does do a steep ascent with only a small amount of pitch to clear the launch pad and doesn't even start its gravity turn until a minute into flight)

[garwel]

So I see DRE was apparently fixed and I'm considering reinstalling it to my realistic career. But I wanted to ask about Making History parts (the Onion etc.). They are designed to be able to reentry without extra heat shields in stock. Does it work in DRE or do I still need to add heat shields to them to survive?

[Starwaster]

1 hour ago, garwel said:

So I see DRE was apparently fixed and I'm considering reinstalling it to my realistic career. But I wanted to ask about Making History parts (the Onion etc.). They are designed to be able to reentry without extra heat shields in stock. Does it work in DRE or do I still need to add heat shields to them to survive?

I don't have Making History and therefore am unable to give any consideration to its parts. I have no idea what the 'onion' is nor what the justification would be for it withstanding reentry so have no idea how to treat it.