Starwaster

Why are you losing bits of lander? Are the bits burning up? There needs to be a shield between those bits and and the shockwave. Look at the part and trace a line along its flight path. If there's a shield in the way then it should be ok as long as the shield itself doesn't burn up. Parts inside cargo holds or fairings should be ok as well. (with the caveat that parts right in the middle or underneath a seam in the fairing may burn up. Having FAR/NEAR installed increases the probability that the part will be detected as shielded) Not sure I'm understanding your second point. Ok, so you need an engine. Make sure that you have a shield under the engine until you actually need to fire the engine up. Make sure the shield either has a decoupler builtin or that you put a decoupler between the engine and the shield.

Looking like this?

Starwasher, please let me know if im off on something, but I think I have learned a bit experimenting myself at this wonderfull beast of a mod The various multipliers don't add to any exponents. shockwave temperature = velocity (m/s) ^ shockwave exponent * shockwave multiplier part temperature increase (every second) = ((shockwave temp - part temp)^temperature exponent) * (density ^ density exponent) * heat multiplier Parentheses added for clarity. Final result is powers multiplied by multipliers. Things get a little more complex when the heat shields are involved but the beta simplifies things a bit by making them behave more like non-heatshield parts in that you will actually see them increase in temperature. (previously ablation was just based on the shockwave which confused people because they would see ablation rates increase even though part temperature was decreasing) The alternate heating model in the beta Ok I need to see your log file. You need to have had the Kerbal on the screen overheating. I need the entire file. Either output_log.txt (Windows) or player.log (Linux / Mac). Zip it up and put it somewhere for download. Use Dropbox preferably, you should have a Dropbox account anyway. You'll thank me later.

That's an old bug, you need to update Deadly Reentry.

I probably should have just asked for periapsis prior to reentry. That's usually all I go by myself when planning my reentry. (for stock Kerbin, a Pe of 20km is usually good enough and 60-80 for RSS sized, i.e. 10x Kerbin or Earth)

Yeah, must be. Unless... UNLESS.... Unless there were exceptions being thrown somewhere, in which case log files would really be helpful. Nothing says lag like the log file being spammed full of errors.

You don't need the mental health care if the rest/relaxation is a dirt nap. (aka "I'll rest when I'm dead!")

Landing slower than (almost) terminal velocity is an extreme hassle???

Ven, the following thread has useful information on creating docking ports. Edit: Ooops I forgot the link, sorry. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/106557

Sorry for not mentioning this earlier (I forgot that I had this same problem and had to hack my save file) That issue with ships not properly undocking can be caused by a certain known issue with docking port data being corrupted. Including the part where you time warp and the ship drifts apart but then snaps back together when you stop warping.

Not so. He actually remodels the parts. I know from experience that MechJeb is easily confused if you don't set up the docking port transforms correctly. There are 2 transforms that control how the port works and they don't use the same axis. The result is that one can appear to point perpendicular to the part's up axis. The fault is definitely with Ven's part. He needs to go back and fix that.

That's not Deadly Reentry that's doing that. The only time DRE displays any feedback about 'shielded' is if the debug menu is open and even then it's in the place of the shockwave temperature, where if the part is not exposed to the shockwave at all then it displays 'Shielded' Sounds like you're a FAR user. That's probably where that's coming from.

Yes. Historically, the comma was used to chain multiple conditionals together. The '&' was added more recently (comparatively speaking) a few months back. Only that one file ever used it.

What docking port is that? It was probably not done properly by its creator. There's something wrong with its transforms most likely.

There is a definite bug with the FX in the RCS module that is visual only. The bug is that RCS thruster effects don't always appear when they should. So make sure that the problem that you are seeing is not just a graphical issue. Instead of a ground test, put it in orbit and turn off reaction wheels. Then use RCS to translate. Make sure that RCS is properly balanced so as not to invalidate the test. If RCS really doesn't fire properly then you'll rotate instead of translate. (which is why the test requires balanced RCS) If you run into a situation where RCS isn't firing then verify your propellant names are correct and properly spelled. I've had no problems setting up multiport RCS with multiple bi-propellant configurations.

Either post a link to the thread for MM stating that it is required or distribute it with your mod. It belongs in the root GameData folder

This post explains how to find your log. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92229-How-To-Get-Support-%28READ-FIRST%29

Except that spring/damper depend on the part's mesh(es) being arranged a certain way in a particular hierarchy. Without that arrangement, it's just another animated mesh no matter what you do with ModuleLandingLeg.

with stock KSP (or stock KSP + SDF as a drag solution) I calibrated its maximum_drag values very precisely to provide exactly the right amount of drag. However, there's not much I can do with FAR/NEAR except to ensure that stock drag values are not tampered with when FAR/NEAR are installed. (previously, inflating the shield would change maximum_drag, which FAR typically zeroes out and AFAIK depends on it staying zero.) So when either of those two are installed, a MM config removes any modules associated with inflation which affect drag related values. I don't know what else I can do besides that.

I think the OP should fork DRE, strip the parts and hack the crap out of it until he's happy. Slap a new name on it and put it up for download. Call it 'Mean Reentry' or 'Scolding Reentry' or something.

Given that adding the landing leg module doesn't improve it any I'd have to say that it's not harmed by its absence.

The Base Mount is just an animated part. I'm pretty sure that it was not designed to be used with ModuleLandingLeg and cannot take advantage of that module's features.

This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

Wait wait wait... so rockets AREN'T transported with hundreds of thousands of liters worth of propellants to the launch pad????

I'm sorry, Gunso. I'm afraid we can't do that.