magico13 Posted May 18, 2016 Author Share Posted May 18, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Maxsimal said: @magico13 What settings do you recommend for RO/RP0, if you've tried those at all? Just want your take on what you think might be realistic. Also, is there a way to adjust the cost vs distance curve, and the origin point of that distance? I've been using flat-rate due to Earth being bigger than Kerbin and thus recovery rates being awful even from spent booster stages due to distance, but I'd rather have the çhallenge of trying to land close to my starting launch mean something.. Btw, open to feedback from anyone else on this too. I haven't actually tried it with RO myself, but I'd recommend turning the DR Max Velocity or whatever it's called in the settings up to 4000 or more, to whatever you feel is appropriate. In Stock it's balanced so that there's a chance of burning up when you drop the stage from a suborbital trajectory, but those speeds are much lower than you'd see in RO. Keep in mind that atmospheric drag isn't applied to an unloaded vessel but gravity is, so it'll be moving faster than expected. For comparison, the first stage of the Falcon 9 separates at about 1650m/s and still requires a reentry burn to not burn up. As for the distances, right now all you can change is setting the distance modifier to a constant value. The function it uses is based on the Stock one so that the numbers are in line with if you actually landed the vessel. I've been meaning to add support for KSCSwitcher for a while, although I'm honestly a bit surprised it doesn't already work since KSCSwitcher moves the KSC and SR just uses the position of the KSC as told by KSP. Edited May 18, 2016 by magico13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxsimal Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 17 hours ago, magico13 said: As for the distances, right now all you can change is setting the distance modifier to a constant value. The function it uses is based on the Stock one so that the numbers are in line with if you actually landed the vessel. I've been meaning to add support for KSCSwitcher for a while, although I'm honestly a bit surprised it doesn't already work since KSCSwitcher moves the KSC and SR just uses the position of the KSC as told by KSP. I think it uses the site of the first KSC when their are multiple available, Which I think in RO is Cape Canaveral. And it also just needs a scale factor vs the stock version, since launches take you so much further downrange while you're getting up to 7300 m/s, vs the 2.3k of Kerbin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirroSeranel Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 Bit of an odd bug... I'm using RealChutes and FAR (along with many other mods). Stage Recovery is working fine most of the time, for any normally-constructed ship. But right now I'm launching and assembling a space station. For minimal part count, I designed it all at once, then saved each of the non-central arms as a sub-assembly. I build launch and docking rockets/RCS hubs onto the other end of each arm, which I disconnect and send back to Kerbin after the arm is docked. But KSP stores sub-assemblies with only one attachment node (where you disconnected them from the original ship, and I need the sub-assemblies upside-down); the docking port that was the sub-assembly's root needs to be the top of the rocket instead. So I grab the sub-assembly, plop it onto a probe core, then re-root to a part of the original sub-assembly, remove the probe core, replace it at the other end, re-re-root to the probe core, and then go on happily building the rocket to get it up to my 750km polar orbit. Only when I go to put parachutes on the launch stage and upper stage, SR parses the stages incorrectly, only taking the last sub-assembly added as the top stage sometimes, or other times taking the entire sub-assembly package down to the probe core, but not the upper stage's engines or fuel tanks. The launch stage seems to work fine, it's just whatever stage includes the initial re-rooted probe core that it can't seem to figure out. The parachutes themselves, and all other aspects of the ships, seem to work just fine, as does delta-V estimation and stage parsing from MechJeb and KER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magico13 Posted May 25, 2016 Author Share Posted May 25, 2016 @FirroSeranel The editor estimates define stages as being split by decouplers, and decouplers only. "Stages" only matter for the editor calculation, which is just for player reference and isn't actually used for anything. When you actually launch and drop stages StageRecovery will work fine with it, as it takes the entire set of connected parts as a single entity. Since it's just the editor estimates having issues, I'm not too worried about it. I'd need to totally rewrite the stage splitting code for it to handle that corner case and you can just design the subassemblies to be recoverable in which case the editor estimates aren't needed for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norcalplanner Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 (edited) On 5/18/2016 at 3:05 AM, Maxsimal said: @magico13 What settings do you recommend for RO/RP0, if you've tried those at all? Just want your take on what you think might be realistic. Also, is there a way to adjust the cost vs distance curve, and the origin point of that distance? I've been using flat-rate due to Earth being bigger than Kerbin and thus recovery rates being awful even from spent booster stages due to distance, but I'd rather have the çhallenge of trying to land close to my starting launch mean something.. Btw, open to feedback from anyone else on this too. I'm playing 6.4x scale in my current career, and have cranked the recovery velocity up to 5,000 m/s. Orbital velocity is 6,100 m/s, so this feels right to me compared to stock. That said, any stage going that fast is going to fly a long way around Kerbin before coming back down, and be recovered at 40% or less of value, which means it's only marginally worthwhile to add expensive chutes for what is typically a smallish sustainer stage. Hmmm, now that I think about it, I could probably just reduce it to 4,000 m/s with little to no impact on the finances of my space program... Edited May 25, 2016 by Norcalplanner Stinking autocorrect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirroSeranel Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, magico13 said: @FirroSeranel The editor estimates define stages as being split by decouplers, and decouplers only. "Stages" only matter for the editor calculation, which is just for player reference and isn't actually used for anything. When you actually launch and drop stages StageRecovery will work fine with it, as it takes the entire set of connected parts as a single entity. Since it's just the editor estimates having issues, I'm not too worried about it. I'd need to totally rewrite the stage splitting code for it to handle that corner case and you can just design the subassemblies to be recoverable in which case the editor estimates aren't needed for them. Fair enough. But the subassemblies aren't what I need to recover. They're staying in space forever. It's the delivery vehicle I add on to them that I need to recover. I swear it's worked with other vehicles that use docking ports as decoupling nodes (I have them enabled for staging), but I guess I can just put the root part in the entire vehicle that I'll be dropping, and balance the chutes on that, then reattach the rest. I'm not 100% sure it's working for recovery though. I've only done one vehicle like that (the second I flew back to the ground manually), and the third is falling right now. In the one that I let SR handle, the report was a bit odd. It said it reached a terminal velocity of 3.6 m/s which is fine... but it also said it burned up in the atmosphere, which is odd because the stage had a probe core, antenna, and enough fuel to do about a 1000 m/s retro burn, so the powered landing code should have made it survive. Not enough for me to say for sure it didn't work, as I was dropping it from a 750 km polar orbit, which is some pretty intense reentry, and to be fair, it didn't have a heat shield. It was a bit hairy to get the second, identical delivery stage home myself, so I'm not shocked SR didn't make it. Anyway, good enough. It's not like I build a lot of space stations, probably just two or three, and we're only talking about a √20,000 fund recovery, give or take. Thanks for the reply! Edited May 25, 2016 by FirroSeranel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxsimal Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 2 hours ago, Norcalplanner said: I'm playing 6.4x scale in my current career, and have cranked the recovery velocity up to 5,000 m/s. Orbital velocity is 6,100 m/s, so this feels right to me compared to stock. That said, any stage going that fast is going to fly a long way around Kerbin before coming back down, and be recovered at 40% or less of value, which means it's only marginally worthwhile to add expensive chutes for what is typically a smallish sustainer stage. Hmmm, now that I think about it, I could probably just reduce it to 4,000 m/s with little to no impact on the finances of my space program... yeah I started playing RO with it up at 5000 as well (orbital velocity 7300) but that's obviously not at all realistic, which defeats the purpose of RO, hence asking for what more reasonable numbers might be. Just found out the SS SRB's were dropped when it was going around 1300 m/s, might use something around there or a little higher. One fun thing I came up doing in those RO flights though, was to recover even my orbital engine by having a seperate decoupler to cut the engine off the fuel tank, and some small SRB's that would apply enough reverse thrust to capture the stage - this also cut the cost of the parachutes since engine weights are realistically low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loren Pechtel Posted May 25, 2016 Share Posted May 25, 2016 9 hours ago, FirroSeranel said: I'm not 100% sure it's working for recovery though. I've only done one vehicle like that (the second I flew back to the ground manually), and the third is falling right now. In the one that I let SR handle, the report was a bit odd. It said it reached a terminal velocity of 3.6 m/s which is fine... but it also said it burned up in the atmosphere, which is odd because the stage had a probe core, antenna, and enough fuel to do about a 1000 m/s retro burn, so the powered landing code should have made it survive. Unfortunately, the way Stage Recovery works this is possible--it won't use that fuel to retroburn to save it from the fire. It doesn't actually land your stage at all, when it goes out of physics range SR decides what the stage is capable of and simulates that. Thus it could have been going too fast to survive the fire but SR didn't realize it could be saved by a retroburn. Discarded stages normally do not have the fuel for substantial retroburns! 9 hours ago, Norcalplanner said: I'm playing 6.4x scale in my current career, and have cranked the recovery velocity up to 5,000 m/s. Orbital velocity is 6,100 m/s, so this feels right to me compared to stock. That said, any stage going that fast is going to fly a long way around Kerbin before coming back down, and be recovered at 40% or less of value, which means it's only marginally worthwhile to add expensive chutes for what is typically a smallish sustainer stage. Hmmm, now that I think about it, I could probably just reduce it to 4,000 m/s with little to no impact on the finances of my space program... Yeah, the downrange penalties are insane. I slapped chutes on a booster that had gone to the Mun, I had enough fuel left to nurse it down to a safe velocity before staging. It landed fine--for 10% recovery! Although the one that really bugs me: I built a jet rover (from the SPH, jets but no wings) to gather science. I recovered it while it was nosed up against the SPH--for 98%. I get 100% if I'm farther away, out there on the runway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KocLobster Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Just curious what is going on with the versioning of this mod. Clearly the most current release of StageRecovery is for 1.1.2. However, for some time now, when the game is loading, KSP-AVC shows that this mod is outdated and not meant for 1.1.2. Is there an explanation for why this happens? Does anyone else experience this oddity? Is this potentially a problem with SR, or with AVC? This does not seem to cause any problems or impact anything, it's just a bit annoying that it seems to think this version of SR is not updated for 1.1.2 when it is. P.S. @magico13 Love your mod and have always enjoyed it since learning of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magico13 Posted May 27, 2016 Author Share Posted May 27, 2016 27 minutes ago, KocLobster said: Just curious what is going on with the versioning of this mod. Clearly the most current release of StageRecovery is for 1.1.2. However, for some time now, when the game is loading, KSP-AVC shows that this mod is outdated and not meant for 1.1.2. Is there an explanation for why this happens? Does anyone else experience this oddity? Is this potentially a problem with SR, or with AVC? This does not seem to cause any problems or impact anything, it's just a bit annoying that it seems to think this version of SR is not updated for 1.1.2 when it is. P.S. @magico13 Love your mod and have always enjoyed it since learning of it. Check to see that the version file is up to date. The remote one is set to KSP 1.1.2 and the one in the GitHub download (and the SpaceDock one) says the same. To be safe you might consider reinstalling the mod just to be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KocLobster Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, magico13 said: Check to see that the version file is up to date. The remote one is set to KSP 1.1.2 and the one in the GitHub download (and the SpaceDock one) says the same. To be safe you might consider reinstalling the mod just to be sure. Those were first two things I did; I checked the version to ensure it was correct (it is: v1.6.4.1), and then I reinstalled the mod and checked to make sure that version was correct too (it was). What do you mean by the 'remote' one? I believe the last time I reinstalled, I got my copy from SD. I don't know for sure, and I don't remember which avenue I used to download before this last time. Still kind of stumped on this. Why does it think that SR 1.6.4.1 is for KSP 1.1, not 1.1.2? Edited May 28, 2016 by KocLobster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magico13 Posted May 28, 2016 Author Share Posted May 28, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, KocLobster said: Those were first two things I did; I checked the version to ensure it was correct (it is: v1.6.4.1), and then I reinstalled the mod and checked to make sure that version was correct too (it was). What do you mean by the 'remote' one? I believe the last time I reinstalled, I got my copy from SD. I don't know for sure, and I don't remember which avenue I used to download before this last time. Still kind of stumped on this. Why does it think that SR 1.6.4.1 is for KSP 1.1, not 1.1.2? Sounds like you've got one of the pre-releases for 1.1 instead of the latest release. Where did you download from? The version file should say 1.6.4.0 (sort of weird versioning with it going backward, sorry about that). The "remote" file is the one it downloads and compares against to see if there's an update. Also, if the one you have is working fine for you, just change it from saying 1.1.0 to 1.1.2 and it'll be fine. Edited May 28, 2016 by magico13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KocLobster Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 On 5/28/2016 at 7:56 PM, magico13 said: Sounds like you've got one of the pre-releases for 1.1 instead of the latest release. Where did you download from? The version file should say 1.6.4.0 (sort of weird versioning with it going backward, sorry about that). The "remote" file is the one it downloads and compares against to see if there's an update. Also, if the one you have is working fine for you, just change it from saying 1.1.0 to 1.1.2 and it'll be fine. Thanks for letting me know. I didn't realize that your version numbers were going backwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loren Pechtel Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 1 minute ago, KocLobster said: Thanks for letting me know. I didn't realize that your version numbers were going backwards. Of course they go backwards--his mod is for rocket bits that are going backwards, what else would you expect the version number to do? :):) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foruxar Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 I find bug (or future) If click "revent flyght" after receive message about recover then message is remains Spoiler click "revent flyght" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KocLobster Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 @Foruxar I think that is intended. Either way, it doesn't really matter and you can close the message just as easily after reverting a flight than before. Why is the background of the first picture utterly black? That doesn't look like KSP space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeTang Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Hey there, I've got a kinda specific bug. I've been building a ship so that I can bring a large amount of tourists into orbit in career mode and in order to have that many kerbals be able to return to kerbin I've made a ship that separates each capsule by themselves and automatically deploys each pods parachutes. My issue is that after all the pods landed correctly their contracts show a check mark as they should but do not get cleared. If I turn the mod off the contract completes as it should which seems to mean the mod is the issue causing the contracts not to complete properly. I can't even redo the mission because the tourists disappear after I've recovered the pods. Thanks.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autumnalequinox Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 I just built my first launcher with powered recovery in mind. And it worked perfectly! I just committed a small fuel tank to it (and made the fuel unchecked) and got back oodles of money. Even though I lose a bit of launch weight this is saving me so much money for routine launches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gryphon Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, OrangeTang said: Hey there, I've got a kinda specific bug. I've been building a ship so that I can bring a large amount of tourists into orbit in career mode and in order to have that many kerbals be able to return to kerbin I've made a ship that separates each capsule by themselves and automatically deploys each pods parachutes. My issue is that after all the pods landed correctly their contracts show a check mark as they should but do not get cleared. If I turn the mod off the contract completes as it should which seems to mean the mod is the issue causing the contracts not to complete properly. I can't even redo the mission because the tourists disappear after I've recovered the pods. Thanks.. @OrangeTang Last I checked, you should generally avoid recovering Kerbals through Stage Recovery. You can go into the Debug menu and complete this mission, though. Edited June 16, 2016 by Gryphon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoolBreeze420 Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 Is there any way to protect parachutes from ejected stages? I just started playing again after a few months and had to load all mods again, but I don't recall having to worry about the chutes burning up the stage I just ejected must have been just before leaving the atmosphere and it was destroyed. Can anyone give me some tips? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loren Pechtel Posted June 27, 2016 Share Posted June 27, 2016 4 minutes ago, KoolBreeze420 said: Is there any way to protect parachutes from ejected stages? I just started playing again after a few months and had to load all mods again, but I don't recall having to worry about the chutes burning up the stage I just ejected must have been just before leaving the atmosphere and it was destroyed. Can anyone give me some tips? You have to ensure things operate properly until the stage either lands or goes outside physics range. For stages dropped early in boost that means the chutes must actually operate properly. I normally use a RealChute and set it to pop at 1000m. If it's still in physics range at that point this is enough to land it as there's nothing close enough to the space center that's tall. Once the landing is outside physics range your chutes don't need to be properly deployed, I simply put such chutes into the group with my payload. Beware that if you're trying to recover your booster on re-entry it might be inside physics range and thus require correctly configured chutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconomial Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Checked CKAN and wondered if SR was working with 1.1.3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eberkain Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 I switched over to 1.1.3, it seems to be working so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umaxtu Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 So what does the lack of the "attempted propulsive landing" message in the stage status screen after it been registered as destroyed? I get that message on the staged SRBs that don't have a probe core attached? Could it be because I've got remote tech installed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loren Pechtel Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 10 minutes ago, umaxtu said: So what does the lack of the "attempted propulsive landing" message in the stage status screen after it been registered as destroyed? I get that message on the staged SRBs that don't have a probe core attached? Could it be because I've got remote tech installed? It will attempt to land on rockets (simply simulated, it doesn't actually do a physics simulation) if it's got an engine with a TWR > 1, fuel and a probe core. If that doesn't work it will try to use chutes. If neither approach works the stage crashes and you get the attempted propulsive landing message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts