[1.6-1.9] HGR Community Fixes: Home-Grown Fixes for Home-Grown Rockets v1.7.0 (02019 Nov 12)

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

Are you sure you've got both HGR Community Fixes and the latest version of Module Manager (MM 2.6.24 for KSP 1.1.2 -- 2.6.23 won't work) installed?  HGR-CF includes a patch which adjusts the Ablator amount to 200, and I've just tested the Spud (without taking any particular care as to the re-entry profile) and landed safely.

It does seem to be more marginal than my reentries with a Mk1 pod plus a heat shield have been, though -- I had about 15 units of Ablator left out of 200.  I imagine that the "separation" of being two discrete parts has some implications with the thermal system.  There's a "skinInternalConductionMult" variable that I can adjust, but I don't use the Spud enough to feel like experimenting with it.  I'll take a PR if anyone's got their own adjustments they prefer.

[kadavi1202]

2 hours ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

Are you sure you've got both HGR Community Fixes and the latest version of Module Manager (MM 2.6.24 for KSP 1.1.2 -- 2.6.23 won't work) installed?  HGR-CF includes a patch which adjusts the Ablator amount to 200, and I've just tested the Spud (without taking any particular care as to the re-entry profile) and landed safely.

It does seem to be more marginal than my reentries with a Mk1 pod plus a heat shield have been, though -- I had about 15 units of Ablator left out of 200.  I imagine that the "separation" of being two discrete parts has some implications with the thermal system.  There's a "skinInternalConductionMult" variable that I can adjust, but I don't use the Spud enough to feel like experimenting with it.  I'll take a PR if anyone's got their own adjustments they prefer.

Thanks, got the MM installed correctly but she's still turning red around 64K and POOF! at about 32K  Heat shield was fixed

Edited April 30, 2016 by kadavi1202

[kadavi1202]

OK, I found the issue, I was using a mod called kerbaljoint reinforcement.  Removed the mod and re-entered the Spud with no issues.  Thanks for all your help.

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

Interesting.  I haven't used KJR myself since the 0.2x days, but I understand that it adds connections between parts to stiffen them -- maybe this has some unexpected thermal implications?

[rasta013]

2 hours ago, kadavi1202 said:

OK, I found the issue, I was using a mod called kerbaljoint reinforcement.  Removed the mod and re-entered the Spud with no issues.  Thanks for all your help.

This is rather odd.  If KJR is causing this it would be something that has recently started under 1.1.x. I've used KJR with HGR for almost 2 years now with no problems at all.  KJR is kept current and the only thing it does it actually stiffen the linkages between connections.  It is not like Quantum Struts which actually adds an invisible part to your craft.  If you really thing that KJR caused this I would report that to ferram4 in the KJR thread.  Now...it is possible this was a transitory effect between 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 because KJR updated again today to 1.1.2.  Look into it a little more because you should be able to use these together with no issue at all.

Edited May 1, 2016 by rasta013

[kadavi1202]

I did last night, Ferram4 reports its not his mod that's causing the issue.  I'll use struts for now because I love the Spud!  Might just be a 1.1.2 thing.  Again thanks to you and ferram4 for all your hard work keeping KSP fun and fresh with these mods!  This does not get said enough... 

[John Nowak]

I have also run into a spate of Spuds exploding like taters in a microwave. I do have 200 Ablator in the capsule, but despite that, I haven't been able to ride one all the way down yet. No issues with the stock Mark 1; Shepherd must be laughing at Gagarin. 

I do have a heavily modded game, but do not have Kerbal Joint Reinforcement. 

 

edit: I am aware this isn't a formal bug report, but I'll be more than happy to co-operate with you to track this down. 

The exploding capsules are equipped with a small inline HGR parachute, and no other attached parts.

Edited May 5, 2016 by John Nowak

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

29 minutes ago, John Nowak said:

I have also run into a spate of Spuds exploding like taters in a microwave. I do have 200 Ablator in the capsule, but despite that, I haven't been able to ride one all the way down yet. No issues with the stock Mark 1; Shepherd must be laughing at Gagarin. 

I do have a heavily modded game, but do not have Kerbal Joint Reinforcement. 

 

edit: I am aware this isn't a formal bug report, but I'll be more than happy to co-operate with you to track this down. 

The exploding capsules are equipped with a small inline HGR parachute, and no other attached parts.

You can start by giving me more information -- what sort of descent profile are you using (i.e. apoapsis and periapsis -- then I can reproduce it for testing), and what mods you have (I have a lot, so I can knock out the ones that we don't both use as the culprits).

If I can get enough time one of these days to play KSP instead of managing mods, I might make a descent with the thermal information debug option.  I definitely get the impression when I use it that the Spud seems to take longer to decelerate and burns up more of its Ablator than other pods, but I need data to be sure.

[John Nowak]

8 minutes ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

You can start by giving me more information -- what sort of descent profile are you using (i.e. apoapsis and periapsis -- then I can reproduce it for testing), and what mods you have (I have a lot, so I can knock out the ones that we don't both use as the culprits).

If I can get enough time one of these days to play KSP instead of managing mods, I might make a descent with the thermal information debug option.  I definitely get the impression when I use it that the Spud seems to take longer to decelerate and burns up more of its Ablator than other pods, but I need data to be sure.

Sure; I can make a start on this tonight. 

Thermal information debug option? Is that through F12?

[John Nowak]

14 hours ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

You can start by giving me more information -- what sort of descent profile are you using (i.e. apoapsis and periapsis -- then I can reproduce it for testing), and what mods you have (I have a lot, so I can knock out the ones that we don't both use as the culprits).

If I can get enough time one of these days to play KSP instead of managing mods, I might make a descent with the thermal information debug option.  I definitely get the impression when I use it that the Spud seems to take longer to decelerate and burns up more of its Ablator than other pods, but I need data to be sure.

Apoaps 101, periaps 38. 

I suspect, but I'm not convinced, that the culprit may be Kerbalism. With Kerbalism installed and Kerbal Engineer displaying thermal data, the critical thermal percentage hit 85%. Valentina was killed when her parachute failed to deploy due to damage. 

On a second attempt with Kerbalism pulled, the critical thermal percentage topped out at 50%.

 

And now I've got to reverse myself. I just re-entered successfully with Kerbalism installed, and I pretty much matched the profile I saw without Kerbalism. 

Right now I'm leaning towards "It is difficult to re-enter with the Spud capsule." Much easier with the Mk-1, which doesn't even have ablator. Looking at the config files for the Mk 1 and the Spud, they don't seem to have the same parameters defined, so I'd guess they're using different heating modules.

 

 

Edited May 6, 2016 by John Nowak

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

On 5/6/2016 at 9:00 PM, John Nowak said:

Right now I'm leaning towards "It is difficult to re-enter with the Spud capsule." Much easier with the Mk-1, which doesn't even have ablator. Looking at the config files for the Mk 1 and the Spud, they don't seem to have the same parameters defined, so I'd guess they're using different heating modules.

Don't be too trusting of the config file for the Spud that lives in the HGR folder -- I've got several patches that modify parts of it, since there's quite a bit of cruft from previous versions of KSP and Deadly Reentry mixed up in there.

That said, I've just noticed that the Mk1 pod has some new thermal properties defined, like reducing the thermal conductivity.  I'll whip up some new patches and test things out.

 

[John Nowak]

35 minutes ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

Don't be too trusting of the config file for the Spud that lives in the HGR folder -- I've got several patches that modify parts of it, since there's quite a bit of cruft from previous versions of KSP and Deadly Reentry mixed up in there.

That said, I've just noticed that the Mk1 pod has some new thermal properties defined, like reducing the thermal conductivity.  I'll whip up some new patches and test things out.

 

That makes sense, yes. 

There is something strange going on, and I'm not convinced it's a problem with HGR. kadavi1202 reports his problem stopped after he removed Kerbal Joint Reinforcement; for me it stopped happening after I uninstalled and reinstalled Kerbalism. That all just sounds too weird to make sense, although I'm confident kadavi1202 reported what he saw happen correctly. 

Has anyone reported any camera issues with HGR? Ships zooming off the screen in the atmosphere? 

[drtedastro]

Hello to all.

Ok, here is a strange one, at least for me.

In 1.1.2, when reentering with my SoyJuice, all is fine.  Actually, too fine..

my pod slows down to 50 m/sec with no chutes popped out.

H'mmm, vessel mass showing  3.726 t and all look normal, just is wants to float in the atmosphere.

Any ideas????

I will get logs and other info together for support, but i just wanted to ask ..

Cheers. and thanks.

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

On 5/12/2016 at 3:32 AM, drtedastro said:

Hello to all.

Ok, here is a strange one, at least for me.

In 1.1.2, when reentering with my SoyJuice, all is fine.  Actually, too fine..

my pod slows down to 50 m/sec with no chutes popped out.

H'mmm, vessel mass showing  3.726 t and all look normal, just is wants to float in the atmosphere.

Any ideas????

I will get logs and other info together for support, but i just wanted to ask ..

Cheers. and thanks.

According to some calculations I did some time ago, the HGR pods have somewhat higher ballistic coefficients (i.e. mass/area) than stock pods, and so should have higher terminal velocities.  I just tested a SoyJuice reentry and confirmed empirically that its terminal velocity is quite high (RIP Jeb, Bill, and Bob).  I'm going to need more information to help you (a list of mods would be great).

@John Nowak, I've been trying some of the thermal modules from the Mk1 and Mk1-2 pods (eg. ModuleConductionMultiplier), but the Spud's still marginal.  We're "only" getting down to 60-70 units of Ablator, but it still has a much lower drag coefficient than the Mk1 pod (which can survive orbital entry without heat shield!) -- its drag coefficient (during the main part of reentry) was about 45% that of the Mk 1 pod, per AeroGui (CdS = 0.3 m^2 vs. 0.7 m^2).  I think that's the ultimate source of the issue here -- the pod can thermally survive reentry without ablator (although it needed all 3300 K of its max temperature!), but it doesn't decelerate to a safe opening speed until much lower in the atmosphere (4 vs. 8 km -- which is pretty hairy considering that 500 m can pass in a blink of an eye if you're not right on the space bar and watching the chute icon, plus the chute opening times...).

I'm not sure what to do about this.  Empirically, it's clear that sphere-cones have been the reentry shape of choice, and it's not KSP's fault that spheres have less drag.  Even if KSP has some kind of drag multiplier (or I could copy over the drag cubes from the Mk1 pod), it feels like it would be cheating to use it.  Alternatively, I could knock the mass down even further (a "shrunken Vostok" would mass 400 kg, vs. 700 for the Spud), but that starts to strain game balance in my mind.  What are your thoughts?

[drtedastro]

26 minutes ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

According to some calculations I did some time ago, the HGR pods have somewhat higher ballistic coefficients (i.e. mass/area) than stock pods, and so should have higher terminal velocities.  I just tested a SoyJuice reentry and confirmed empirically that its terminal velocity is quite high (RIP Jeb, Bill, and Bob).  I'm going to need more information to help you (a list of mods would be great).

 

will do.

Let me create a trimmed down version to remove any other 'possibilities' and then will get you all data / info.

It's actually funny.  I can go get snacks and watch tv while waiting for pod to get down to chute level(s)...

Thanks for reply and help.

Cheers.

[drtedastro]

Ok, 

with ksp 1.1.2, latest HGR, HGR_Redux, MechJeb, Interstellar fuel switch, etc...

Green onion descent module slows down to 29 m/s by 6000 m.

That is the green descent module, the heatshield and the inline parachute, with realchute.

Here are some screen shots.

screen shots

 

I am chasing some 'thoughts' as to where this might be coming from. 

I will get back with / if i find anything...

Jeb needs to eat more snacks.  takes way to long to get home... LoL.

Cheers.

Ok, I think this might have something to do with it.

the inline chute part has the following in the .cfg

PART
{
    url = HGR/Parts/Utility/InLineChute/Inline Chute/InLineChute
    DRAG_CUBE
    {
        cube = PACKED, 0.6279,0.6385,0.7139, 0.6279,0.6385,0.7139, 1.108,0.7324,0.6995, 1.108,0.9455,0.1664, 0.6279,0.6396,0.7139, 0.6279,0.6374,0.7139, 0,0.2645,0, 1.233,0.6659,1.233
        cube = SEMIDEPLOYED, 16.39,0.5256,1.823, 16.39,0.5255,1.823, 9.336,0.1339,18.06, 9.336,0.1646,18.5, 16.39,0.5257,1.823, 16.39,0.5254,1.823, 0,9.231,-1.073E-06, 3.459,18.6,3.459
        cube = DEPLOYED, 53.48,18.7,6.153, 53.48,18.7,6.153, 114.9,12.07,18.44, 114.9,11.61,18.73, 53.48,18.72,6.153, 53.48,18.68,6.153, 0,9.235,-9.537E-07, 12.15,18.61,12.15
    }
}
 

After commenting out in .cfg and rebuilding "PartDatabase.cfg"

PART
{
    url = HGR/Parts/Utility/InLineChute/Inline Chute/InLineChute
    DRAG_CUBE
    {
        cube = Default, 0.3398,0.777,0.7222, 0.3391,0.7795,0.7222, 1.232,0.9918,0.2185, 1.233,0.9996,0.1979, 0.3414,0.7687,0.7543, 0.3414,0.7884,0.7253, 0,-0.03807,0.0148, 1.25,0.2761,1.28
    }
 

I am relaunching and will check what numbers are on this re-entry.

The new numbers are more inline with other parts / realchute parts this size.

Back with more info in a bit.

 

That nail'd it.

It's coming down like a 'normal' kerbal descent pod now.

Kerbas, if you could just take a look and see if you agree.

Cheers.

Edited May 14, 2016 by drtedastro
More Info

[John Nowak]

12 hours ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

Empirically, it's clear that sphere-cones have been the reentry shape of choice, and it's not KSP's fault that spheres have less drag.  Even if KSP has some kind of drag multiplier (or I could copy over the drag cubes from the Mk1 pod), it feels like it would be cheating to use it.  Alternatively, I could knock the mass down even further (a "shrunken Vostok" would mass 400 kg, vs. 700 for the Spud), but that starts to strain game balance in my mind.  What are your thoughts?

I think I reported the issue prematurely. The Spud isn't "broken" - I've been able to re-enter with it successfully, as has the other person reporting issues on this thread.

I'm okay with the Spud being a bit trickier to re-enter with. It's still possible, it's just a bit more difficult. Right now, I wouldn't change anything.

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

@drtedastro, I've tried tinkering with the drag cube (no other parachute explicitly declares theirs, so I'll just axe it from the configs), ModuleDragModifier and semiDeployedDrag (the inline chute has some unusually high values there, which I'll have fixed in the next release), but at the end of the day, the LOM-7's just a big parachute, roughly the equivalent of 2-3 Mk16-XLs.

@John Nowak, I'll have the thermal tweaks in the next release, but yeah -- the Spud's just going to be an ornery beast.

[drtedastro]

Sounds good.

The chute's drag is fine.  For some reason, it seems to me, that the problem is in the DRAG_CUBE's packed values.

As before I axed the dragCube from the .cfg and added simple maxmass of about .3 tons or so.  copied values from RC's packed chute mass.

Love the HGR stuff.  Great fun.

Cheers and thanks for help and info.

 

[undercoveryankee]

Bug report - the titles of the FG-47 and FG-90 engines are switched. From HGR_tags_and_tests.cfg:

@PART[HGRG47b]:FIRST
{
	@title = HGR FG-90 "Teddy" Liquid Fuel Engine
	tags = propuls rocket lander orbit hgr (teddy

.
.
.

@PART[HGR_FG90_Engine]:FIRST
{
	@title = HGR FG-47b "Sunbear" Liquid Fuel Engine
	tags = sustain propuls rocket hgr (sunbear
	

You've got the FG-90 designation on the engine that Orionkermin called the G-47 and vice versa. It's confusing.

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

I could have sworn they were swapped in Orionkermin's part descriptions themselves, but now I'm not seeing it.  I'll have it fixed for the next release.

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

Version 1.3.1 is out!  This release rolls up some minor updates I've been tinkering with for a while.

• Updated thermal values of crew pods.
• Fixed a couple of tags.

[Kaa253]

On 15/05/2016 at 5:35 AM, drtedastro said:

Sounds good.

The chute's drag is fine.  For some reason, it seems to me, that the problem is in the DRAG_CUBE's packed values.

As before I axed the dragCube from the .cfg and added simple maxmass of about .3 tons or so.  copied values from RC's packed chute mass.

Love the HGR stuff.  Great fun.

Cheers and thanks for help and info.

I found out the hard way that the Inline Chute Small.cfg has the same problematic DRAG_CUBE packed values as has the Inline Chute.cfg. There is so much drag on that part that with it on top of my stack it required around 7,000 m/s deltav just to escape the atmosphere! Not to mention the stack kept on flipping around to retrograde and the chute was rapidly heating up during re-entry prior to deployment as well. Deleted the DRAG_CUBE section and it all seems to be much better now. I do have Real chutes installed.

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

On 6/4/2016 at 7:59 AM, Kaa253 said:

I found out the hard way that the Inline Chute Small.cfg has the same problematic DRAG_CUBE packed values as has the Inline Chute.cfg. There is so much drag on that part that with it on top of my stack it required around 7,000 m/s deltav just to escape the atmosphere! Not to mention the stack kept on flipping around to retrograde and the chute was rapidly heating up during re-entry prior to deployment as well. Deleted the DRAG_CUBE section and it all seems to be much better now. I do have Real chutes installed.

Are you sure you have the most up-to-date version of HGR Community Fixes (1.3.1)? It has a patch which deletes the DRAG_CUBE from the small inline chute.

[Kaa253]

8 hours ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

Are you sure you have the most up-to-date version of HGR Community Fixes (1.3.1)? It has a patch which deletes the DRAG_CUBE from the small inline chute.

Yes, thanks very much and sorry. I realised I was not up-to-date soon after I submitted the post. I should have retracted it.