[Old Thread] KRE - Kerbal Reusability Expansion

[EmbersArc]

1 hour ago, Lwf said:

Does the aerodynamic docking port only work with the docking port jr?

It should not work with the Jr.. Only with the standard Clamp-O-Tron Docking Port and those that are compatible with that one.

[infinite_monkey]

Hmmm, the new LT (BFR) langing legs don't attach on the surface, but somewhere underneath it...

[EmbersArc]

4 minutes ago, infinite_monkey said:

Hmmm, the new LT (BFR) langing legs don't attach on the surface, but somewhere underneath it...

Thing is that they are made for the 2.5m and 3.75m fuel tanks. You might have to make small adjustments but they should fit pretty well.

[infinite_monkey]

On 5/4/2018 at 12:17 PM, EmbersArc said:

7 hours ago, EmbersArc said:

Thing is that they are made for the 2.5m and 3.75m fuel tanks. You might have to make small adjustments but they should fit pretty well.

Was that different with the old legs? Look at your screenshot: the new LT leg clearly ends underneath the tank's surface. IMHO, you shouldn't be able to see any white part of the tank there on the lower end.

 

 

[EmbersArc]

[Barzon]

ohhh!

[user8248932]

The detail and texturing on that looks amazing @EmbersArc What does your texturing process look like if I may ask? I'm really enjoying the new legs! :-) 

[EmbersArc]

Update 2.8

• Improved New Glenn and Falcon landing legs
• Various texture improvements

The old models are still there but hidden. They will be removed in some future version.

Pretty happy with the new New Glenn legs, they are much more stable than the old ones due to better wheel collider orientation.

[Barzon]

Amazing! 

[Nathanson]

Why did you remove option to scale New Glenn Leg Mount? My 5-meter rockets are broken now. New Glenn is 7 meters in diameter in reality, not 3.7 m.

[EmbersArc]

8 minutes ago, Nathanson said:

Why did you remove option to scale New Glenn Leg Mount? My 5-meter rockets are broken now. New Glenn is 7 meters in diameter in reality, not 3.7 m.

You're right, that was not on purpose. I even forgot to include the old model. Fix coming soon.

@Nathanson Updated. Let me know if it works as expected.

Edited May 22, 2018 by EmbersArc

[Nathanson]

Yes, I can scale mount to 5m now. Thank you very much!

 

[Barzon]

@EmbersArc when we see how Stage 2 of the Falcon 9 lands, will you create parts so we can land the second stage?

[infinite_monkey]

8 hours ago, Barzon Kerman said:

@EmbersArc when we see how Stage 2 of the Falcon 9 lands, will you create parts so we can land the second stage?

Right now I'm trying to achieve landing second stage by adding a Dragon heat shield with integrated legs on top of the booster, as well as KRE's draco engines and small grid fins, landing it upside down.

[jbakes]

Anyway I can modify the tolerance of the falcon landing legs? It says the impact tolerance is 14.0 m/s but mine seem to be breaking at around 6 m/s 

[GoPokes]

On 5/29/2018 at 9:18 PM, jbakes said:

Anyway I can modify the tolerance of the falcon landing legs? It says the impact tolerance is 14.0 m/s but mine seem to be breaking at around 6 m/s 

You can change the tolerance number in the cfg file. I upped mine a little bit since i've been having the same issue with them breaking during landings that had no issues prior. 

[MxCarter]

How do i get the Black variant of the legs because it dosen't seem to work with firespitter nor do i know to work it with firespitter

 

[EmbersArc]

Update 2.8.3

• Adjusted new Falcon legs to match old ones in size and attachment behavior  
• Improved deployment sound  
• Added black variant for cold gas thrusters (@damonvv !!)
• Increased impact tolerance of Falcon legs in attempt to keep them from exploding

[EmbersArc]

8 hours ago, MxCarter said:

How do i get the Black variant of the legs because it dosen't seem to work with firespitter nor do i know to work it with firespitter

Firespitter support has been removed since this feature is stock in KSP 1.4. Only versions of KRE before 2.6.1 have Firespitter support.

[dlrk]

Does the most recent version work with 1.3.1?

[EstebanLB]

Question, why does the grid fins have such a low heat tolerance?

[Starwaster]

3 hours ago, EstebanLB said:

Question, why does the grid fins have such a low heat tolerance?

You're probably thinking about the white ones which represent SpaceX aluminum grid fins?

Honestly, 660 is pretty reasonable given that the shuttle's aluminum airframe had to be kept under 450K. This has to be the first time I've seen a modder assign even remotely realistic heat tolerances to part. The grid fins shouldn't be able to withstand anything but a suborbital and IRL the fins get torn up pretty badly which is why they switched over to titanium. The white ones aren't even reusable. (and this gives me an idea I should have implemented in Deadly Reentry a long time ago.... heat damaged parts are going to be worth less monies once I do a wee bit of coding....)

So, yeah, 660 = good. They're just aluminum.

[EmbersArc]

15 hours ago, dlrk said:

Does the most recent version work with 1.3.1?

It uses some modules that weren't present in 1.3.1. But you can always try

12 hours ago, EstebanLB said:

Question, why does the grid fins have such a low heat tolerance?

What @Starwaster said. If you need grid fins with high heat tolerance use the titanium grid fins. I lowered the heat tolerance of the aluminium grid fins a lot when I added those.

[infinite_monkey]

When landing my boosters far downrange, recovery percentage is pretty low. Can anyone give me a hint on how to keep that to a reasonable level? A mod or some settings? I usually land on a KK barge. I'm not sure what would be a realistic setting, surely bringing back a rocket across the sea isn't for free. And rocket cost in KSP is unrealistic anyway

[DStaal]

1 hour ago, infinite_monkey said:

When landing my boosters far downrange, recovery percentage is pretty low. Can anyone give me a hint on how to keep that to a reasonable level? A mod or some settings? I usually land on a KK barge. I'm not sure what would be a realistic setting, surely bringing back a rocket across the sea isn't for free. And rocket cost in KSP is unrealistic anyway

Recovery percentage is completely dependent on the distance from the launchpad/runway.  I think Kerbal Konstructs can add more launchpads, and allow them to count for that distance calculation - but basically the counter is to land as close to the KSC as possible.