How to fix those heatshields! (get rid of command pod flipping into the heat!)

[Kaezan]

Trying to find every part with physicsSignificance i found out that the 3 ladder parts have duplicate PhysicsSignificance

\GameData\Squad\Parts\Utility\ladderRadial\ladderRadial.cfg (2 hits)

Line 7: PhysicsSignificance = 1

Line 25: PhysicsSignificance = 1

\GameData\Squad\Parts\Utility\ladderTelescopic\ladderTelescopic.cfg (2 hits)

Line 8: PhysicsSignificance = 1

Line 26: PhysicsSignificance = 1

\GameData\Squad\Parts\Utility\ladderTelescopicBay\ladderTelescopicBay.cfg (2 hits)

Line 8: PhysicsSignificance = 1

Line 26: PhysicsSignificance = 1

[Frybert]

Damn pesky hetashields!

[klesh]

Trying to find every part with physicsSignificance i found out that the 3 ladder parts have duplicate PhysicsSignificance

\GameData\Squad\Parts\Utility\ladderRadial\ladderRadial.cfg (2 hits)

Line 7: PhysicsSignificance = 1

Line 25: PhysicsSignificance = 1

\GameData\Squad\Parts\Utility\ladderTelescopic\ladderTelescopic.cfg (2 hits)

Line 8: PhysicsSignificance = 1

Line 26: PhysicsSignificance = 1

\GameData\Squad\Parts\Utility\ladderTelescopicBay\ladderTelescopicBay.cfg (2 hits)

Line 8: PhysicsSignificance = 1

Line 26: PhysicsSignificance = 1

I'd like to know if we should manually remove one of them?

[AgincourtDB]

Anyone who's already using Module Manager can also make a heatshield_fix.cfg that contains this:

@PART[HeatShield*]

{

@PhysicsSignificance = 0

}

Where does this .cfg file go? I'm sure the answer is self-evident to people who are used to using Mod Manager but I've only just installed it...

[eddiew]

Thank you both, much appreciated.

...but really, how did that get through testing? Did nobody actually start a new career and try to re-enter with a bare capsule and not enough electricity to keep it pointed straight?

[FlowerChild]

You will need ModuleManager installed for this to work, which can be found here:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55219

Install MM, drop the above into a .cfg file in your GameData directory, and you should be good to go.

Edited April 28, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Commissioner Tadpole]

Sweet. And I have yet to reenter too, so congrats guys, you just saved the lives of several Kerbals. Unfortunately, I'm not on my main computer right now, so I'll probably forget about this when I get back home.

[Kaezan]

I'd like to know if we should manually remove one of them?

I Removed the first in each cfg. you dont have to worry much because it is just variable definition.

[Endersmens]

You will need ModuleManager installed for this to work, which can be found here:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55219

Install MM, drop the above into a .cfg file in your GameData directory, and you should be good to go.

You only need module manager for the module manager fix, you don't need module manager to go in and do it manually. Some people (like myself) would rather go in and change the 3 cfgs manually than download a mod for it.

(Also, I know your first solution was the manual changing, and then you suggested module manager.)

- - - Updated - - -

Damn pesky hetashields!

Dang, it took me a long time after reading this to figure that out. Thought you made the typo, not me!

[Kaezan]

You only need module manager for the module manager fix, you don't need module manager to go in and do it manually. Some people (like myself) would rather go in and change the 3 cfgs manually than download a mod for it.

(Also, I know your first solution was the manual changing, and then you suggested module manager.)

If it was only 3 cfg files.

There are 39 parts with PhysicsSignificance from which two are commented and one is set to "0"

I made a cfg file to work with moduleManager, it patches all but the strutConector and fuelLines

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0b5epr9ou6ui899/KaezanPhys.cfg?dl=0

(Tell me if its not working)

Edited April 28, 2015 by Kaezan

[CaptRobau]

Which is a good idea; it just shows more attention needed to be given to deciding which parts deserve to be physicsless.

Generally speaking, small radial parts likely to be placed asymmetrically: yes. All other parts, almost always no.

[Endersmens]

Generally speaking, small radial parts likely to be placed asymmetrically: yes. All other parts, almost always no.

This.

[FlowerChild]

Yeah...I would not set fuel lines and strut connectors in particular to have physics on them. I know I've tried that in the past and the best way to describe the results would probably be "amusing, but not at all practical"

Some parts shouldn't have physics assigned. Heat shields apparently need it, but that really doesn't mean you should turn it on for all parts, especially not without individually and extensively testing each one.

You only need module manager for the module manager fix, you don't need module manager to go in and do it manually. Some people (like myself) would rather go in and change the 3 cfgs manually than download a mod for it.

(Also, I know your first solution was the manual changing, and then you suggested module manager.)

Yeah, I was largely just responding to the person above that asked where the .cfg file went.

As for the switch over to the MM method, I largely did that because it's much cleaner than manually editing the files, especially if someone is going to install other mods and such. There's no harm in editing the files directly really for such a small fix, but for a modder like me, that can quickly get messy as I risk having different versions of files installed locally than people playing my mods and such.

Anyways, suffice it to say directly editing the files give me the willies (maybe even some mild heeby-jeebies), which is why I suggested the MM method

Edited April 28, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Matt516]

Yeah...I would not set fuel lines and strut connectors in particular to have physics on them. I know I've tried that in the past and the best way to describe the results would probably be "amusing, but not at all practical"

Some parts shouldn't have physics assigned. Heat shields apparently need it, but that really doesn't mean you should turn it on for all parts, especially not without individually and extensively testing each one.

Of the non-physics parts that I'm aware of, the only ones I can think of that would make sense to re-enable physics are landing gears maybe? Since they're usually either symmetric (on a rocket) or all on the bottom and symmetric (on a plane). Seems odd to me that those don't affect the CoM. Other than those and the heat shields, I'm pretty cool with the non-physics parts. Makes placing small sensors and batteries and such a lot less tedious than it would otherwise be. And struts, ofc.

[FlowerChild]

Of the non-physics parts that I'm aware of, the only ones I can think of that would make sense to re-enable physics are landing gears maybe? Since they're usually either symmetric (on a rocket) or all on the bottom and symmetric (on a plane). Seems odd to me that those don't affect the CoM. Other than those and the heat shields, I'm pretty cool with the non-physics parts. Makes placing small sensors and batteries and such a lot less tedious than it would otherwise be. And struts, ofc.

I think I also tried turning it on for landing gear back in the day, and once again got the "amusing but not at all practical" thing happening.

I tend to turn on physics for parts wherever I can with my mod, as I find it's much more interesting and consistent in a game that largely revolves around physics

Hence why I knew how to work around this problem so quickly. At some point or another I've probably tried adding physics to every part that has it turned off in KSP. My advice is to use caution and to test heavily, as it can have unexpected consequences if you aren't careful. I'd say just blanket turning it on for all parts is rather unwise.

[Endersmens]

*bump* so more people can find this and fix it

[draeath]

So... apologies if I've missed the explanation - but what does this setting actually do?

From my understanding to far, with one setting parts have their own mass and drag, and with the other they instead add to the mass/drag of the parent part. Is that right?

[Endersmens]

So... apologies if I've missed the explanation - but what does this setting actually do?

From my understanding to far, with one setting parts have their own mass and drag, and with the other they instead add to the mass/drag of the parent part. Is that right?

That is right. With PhysicsSignificance = 1 a part adds its mass to either the CoM or the parent part. With PhysicsSignificance = 0 it adds its mass to its location, therefor shifting the CoM.

[Instresu]

Note: Flowerchild was the first to find this, so he gets the credit. I just decided to make a thread so everyone could find it easier.

Go to your KSP folder and follow this address: GameData/Squad/Parts/Aero/HeatShield

Here you will find HeatShield1.cfg, HeatShield2.cfg, and Heatshield3.cfg. (don't mess with the .mu files)

Open up each CFG using notepad or whatever you use, and hit ctrl+F to open the search function, and type "physics" and hit enter. It will take you to a line that reads "PhysicsSignificance = 1"

Change the 1 to a 0, for each heatshield cfg, and your heatshields will now add their mass to your craft the right way! Meaning that instead of just adding it's mass to the parent part, it will now add its mass right where it is, which means it will shift the CoM when you place it.

Which means a pod with a heatshield on it will now reenter without SAS or any fighting, it will naturally point retrograde now!

Here is another way of fixing it, using ModuleManager.

Again, thanks to Flowerchild for finding this, and ignath for letting me know about the module manager patch. Enjoy reentering!

Thanks. Just wondered how to fix this annoying problem.

[SRV Ron]

That is right. With PhysicsSignificance = 1 a part adds its mass to either the CoM or the parent part. With PhysicsSignificance = 0 it adds its mass to its location, therefor shifting the CoM.

I can confirm that the fix works allowing one to turn off SAS and the pod with the heat shield will stabilize shielded end first. To be sure the fix works, the heat shields were removed and replaced.

The two test orbiters;

One Kerbal pod;

Three Kerbal pod;

Interesting that with the three Kerbal pod, both took similar reentry paths, almost no ablative materials burned off while quite a bit burned off the one Kerbal pod.

[Endersmens]

Yeah, the heat shields confused me too. I had one ablating in space for no reason. :/

[MacroNova]

Yeah, the heat shields confused me too. I had one ablating in space for no reason. :/

It seems the shields don't just ablate due to atmospheric heating. If your spacecraft starts to overheat for any reason, some of that heat will dissipate through the shield, wearing it out.

[Farex]

Thank you very much, this is a bugfix for me Have some rep!

[Mythos]

That is right. With PhysicsSignificance = 1 a part adds its mass to either the CoM or the parent part. With PhysicsSignificance = 0 it adds its mass to its location, therefor shifting the CoM.

No one else here finding that an irritating variable same? So the part is significant as a part itself when PhysicsSignificance = 0 and saying PhysicsSignificance = 1 means just adding mass and drag somewhere else, making this part not that significant? Am I misinterpreting the word "significant" as a non-native speaker?

[Endersmens]

No one else here finding that an irritating variable same? So the part is significant as a part itself when PhysicsSignificance = 0 and saying PhysicsSignificance = 1 means just adding mass and drag somewhere else, making this part not that significant? Am I misinterpreting the word "significant" as a non-native speaker?

The number isn't to be taken literally. It's just a value. They assigned 0 to a part being significant because it is the first integer and in computer coding I'm pretty sure it makes thing easier to start at 0. Like in minecraft, gamemode 0 is survival, gamemode 1 is creative. Took me forever to figure out how to get back to survival.