[0.20] Deadly Reentry 2.3 - reentry heat, plus thermal and g-force damage to parts

[CaptainArbitrary]

Because it's easy to get reentry G loads in excess of 15 G's

I wouldn't even know how to begin doing that. In all my play, I don't think I've seen reentry g-forces exceed about four g's, maybe five, and those were incredibly steep.

[ialdabaoth]

I wouldn't even know how to begin doing that. In all my play, I don't think I've seen reentry g-forces exceed about four g's, maybe five, and those were incredibly steep.

I can cap out at 15 G's with a 3-man pod pretty easily, if I come *straight* down from 70 million meters.

[CaptainArbitrary]

I can cap out at 15 G's with a 3-man pod pretty easily, if I come *straight* down from 70 million meters.

Yup. There's yer problem.

[BFGfreak]

Yup. There's yer problem.

Indeed. The only reason I did such entries was because I was a noob who didn't know where to put the PE for munar returns so I just had it so that my orbit intersect the planet. Thanks to these reentry mods I have since grown wiser much to the comfort my my kerbals.

The only reason I suggested 15 G's was that that was how high the G meter goes, I suppose that you could have parts begin taking G damage at about 9 or 10 G's since that's where the red part begins. Ultimately though it does come down to the mod maker himself on whether or not he'll implement such a suggestion, but I figure it's better to share an idea and have it shot down instead of not sharing it.

[Frederf]

Your vehicle may be too heavy. Deceleration due to drag is inversely proportional to mass. I designed my Mk 1-2 pod vehicles to have a reentry mass of about 5 tons, of which nearly a ton burns off from ablation, so by the time it gets through the hot zone it's down to 4 tons of less (depending on consumables).

It's not that kind of discrepancy. It's more like a 2.0T vessel undergoes 3.5G deceleration and a 2.2T vessel undergoes 0.9G deceleration. When you have the "FAR bug" it's obvious.

[rifter]

Your vehicle may be too heavy. Deceleration due to drag is inversely proportional to mass. I designed my Mk 1-2 pod vehicles to have a reentry mass of about 5 tons, of which nearly a ton burns off from ablation, so by the time it gets through the hot zone it's down to 4 tons of less (depending on consumables).

It only weighs 5.46 with the heat shield configuration; even if I replace the weight of the heat shield with monopropellant (or something), the capsule is still going much slower than when it has the heat shield for the same point of re-entry. That is to say, I don't think the extra weight is the cause. Again, this is only when using FAR. Any other ideas?

[SchroedingersHat]

It only weighs 5.46 with the heat shield configuration; even if I replace the weight of the heat shield with monopropellant (or something), the capsule is still going much slower than when it has the heat shield for the same point of re-entry. That is to say, I don't think the extra weight is the cause. Again, this is only when using FAR. Any other ideas?

Did you try changing the node size? When I did that it went from completely unmanagable to possible to do a 3 man pod reentry from munar orbit without rocket assist, although I still took advantage of lift to slow my descent (PE. at approx 20km, point the heatshield about 20-30 degrees towards the ground, my parachutes were offset slightly towards the top of the vessel so they didn't get toasted).

[Tobyz28]

I'm building a large mothership to jool and am currently testing aerobreaking in kerbins atmosphere with this mod (this mods so much fun keep up the good work!). I've worked out how to keep the inflatable heatshield pointed perfectly prograde now, but am having difficulty protecting parts of the mothership further down the body. It seems keeping the ship slightly below prograde in an atmosphere helps cover more of the lower half the ship, however it's still very hit or miss, smaller parts just burn up on re-entry still

I was wondering if there are plans for an even bigger inflatable heat shield, say double or triple the 6.25m size for interplanetary station aerobraking Also i found that the Surface Mounted Air Brakes from the B9 (i think!) package to be EXTREMELY helpful in orienting a larger object to be nose down with the inflatable nose cone! I would love to see these guys (or an equivalent) integrated into your package somehow. The apply 40 drag each when extended and 0 when flat.

You can see the fins at the bottom of my main structure here: http://i.imgur.com/VbqVWDO.jpg

[betaking]

I think I understand how to make it so there are automatic fairings for each heat shield.

It requires that you have a few additional textures, but otherwise it seems pretty simple.

it uses textures:

"model001", "model002", and "model 003"

in order to form the textures of the fairing...

as for how to apply said textures, use the code:

MODULE
    {
           name = ModuleJettison
           jettisonName = node_fairing_collider
           bottomNodeName = bottom
           isFairing = True
           jettisonedObjectMass = 0.1
           jettisonForce = 2
           jettisonDirection = 0 0 1

    }

I got this from the "Rockomax 48-7S" (Kerbal X part mod) though, so some values will need to be adjusted.

edit: nevermind, taniwha is right.

Edited July 14, 2013 by betaking

[taniwha]

betaking: note that the model has to have the fairing already in it. Rocket motors (particularly liquidEngin1) have a sub-part called "fairing" (and the jetisonName is "fairing").

[Guest]

From what I understand this mod strives to add a semi-realistic to accurate reentry aspect to the game, and I think it accomplishes just that. On the other hand the G-Force Implementation seems like a drastic turn in the opposite direction. Even if the mod wants to loosely imitate such events there is no way way such can be done in it's current state. Real humans are more durable than the SPACECRAFT parts that have been modified. I have had spacecraft parts explode at loads of around 12 G's in seconds when a human body can withstand 16 g's for about a minute before death, and we don't even explode. Solid materials especially those in spacecraft will *never* explode due to the changes in velocity possible in ksp. I do however think it would be a good addition if it killed crew and ripped parts off of each other at weaker points; I do not believe g-forces should be able to destroy the parts themselves.

*Never* - "Probably not ever"

Don't get me wrong I am not angry, nor do i believe that my opinion on what is fun applies to everybody. But I do think that the premise of the mod makes the G-Force implementation seem out of place. I am perfectly ok with it existing but I would appreciate a way to turn it off or modify it if possible. Lastly I would like to thank ialdabaoth for this mod and let him know that while this particular part frustrates me, I would not be making this post if I did not use, appreciate, and enjoy the mod I am speaking about.

[MAKC]

anyone else getting single-digit fps or frame freeze when DR starts applying g-forces?

[The Lone Wolfling]

From what I understand this mod strives to add a semi-realistic to accurate reentry aspect to the game, and I think it accomplishes just that. On the other hand the G-Force Implementation seems like a drastic turn in the opposite direction. Even if the mod wants to loosely imitate such events there is no way way such can be done in it's current state. Real humans are more durable than the SPACECRAFT parts that have been modified. I have had spacecraft parts explode at loads of around 12 G's in seconds when a human body can withstand 16 g's for about a minute before death, and we don't even explode. Solid materials especially those in spacecraft will *never* explode due to the changes in velocity possible in ksp. I do however think it would be a good addition if it killed crew and ripped parts off of each other at weaker points; I do not believe g-forces should be able to destroy the parts themselves.

*Never* - "Probably not ever"

Don't get me wrong I am not angry, nor do i believe that my opinion on what is fun applies to everybody. But I do think that the premise of the mod makes the G-Force implementation seem out of place. I am perfectly ok with it existing but I would appreciate a way to turn it off or modify it if possible. Lastly I would like to thank ialdabaoth for this mod and let him know that while this particular part frustrates me, I would not be making this post if I did not use, appreciate, and enjoy the mod I am speaking about.

Agreed. I'm actually running a custom version that removes it entirely. Perhaps an option in the DR config to set a G-force scaling factor? Also, ripping joints apart instead seems like a good idea.

We have fighters that can take more than that - the limitation is the human not the machine.

What about an intermediate level where controls lock? Say 9-16G?

Also, what's the license of DR?

Edited July 15, 2013 by The Lone Wolfling

[erbmur]

I love this mod just the way it is, but joints failing rather then parts exploding just makes is sound like I would love this mod even more!!! It also sounds more realistic too, would fit in with the breaking sound that was implemented in the last update.

Ripping sound followed by bits falling off rather then exploding gets my vote.

[Guest]

Huzzahh I suggested an idea that might make sense! Now to go see my doctor to find out why!

[toril]

From what I understand this mod strives to add a semi-realistic to accurate reentry aspect to the game, and I think it accomplishes just that. On the other hand the G-Force Implementation seems like a drastic turn in the opposite direction. Even if the mod wants to loosely imitate such events there is no way way such can be done in it's current state. Real humans are more durable than the SPACECRAFT parts that have been modified. I have had spacecraft parts explode at loads of around 12 G's in seconds when a human body can withstand 16 g's for about a minute before death, and we don't even explode. Solid materials especially those in spacecraft will *never* explode due to the changes in velocity possible in ksp. I do however think it would be a good addition if it killed crew and ripped parts off of each other at weaker points; I do not believe g-forces should be able to destroy the parts themselves.

*Never* - "Probably not ever"

Don't get me wrong I am not angry, nor do i believe that my opinion on what is fun applies to everybody. But I do think that the premise of the mod makes the G-Force implementation seem out of place. I am perfectly ok with it existing but I would appreciate a way to turn it off or modify it if possible. Lastly I would like to thank ialdabaoth for this mod and let him know that while this particular part frustrates me, I would not be making this post if I did not use, appreciate, and enjoy the mod I am speaking about.

actually this is a limitation of ksp and a design choice by the author. you can't display damage to parts, so no crumpling to show whats happining, and the only way to destroy a part is to explode it. if you watch carefully your craft does withstand the high gforce for some time before the damage is so high it is finaly destroyed but you can't "see" that damage untill you send a kerbal out to inspect it. this is a limitation of the game not a failing of the mod.

Edited July 15, 2013 by toril

[Guest]

actually this is a limitation of ksp and a design choice by the author. you can't display damage to parts, so no crumpling to show whats happining, and the only way to destroy a part is to explode it. if you watch carefully your craft does withstand the high gforce for some time before the damage is so high it is finaly destroyed but you can't "see" that damage untill you send a kerbal out to inspect it. this is a limitation of the game not a failing of the mod.

You misunderstand I mean to break the joints connecting the parts as to damage the entire ship not the parts themselves. See- "ripped parts off of each other at weaker points". Ships do this anyway with forces like thrust, lift, and wind shearing so it should be possible.

[Geckoleon]

I think I may have a bug, which would be fixed by being able to remove the g-force breaking. Don't know what this is a bug with, but I think it's with DR.

I am currently starting a small space station while the wait for .21 lasts. Now, this is currently using a few mods-AIES, Aviation lights, Procedural Fairings, Remotetech, KSPx, Magic smoke industries, etc. Now, the problem here is that whenever I launch this rocket, it will just blow up from "G-force damage" at around 1-2k above the ground. Now, The real problem is that the I watched the g-meter. It never got above 2-3. Yet the log reads that the max g-force felt was 9gs. after checking with the debug log open, No errors. it just happens. Until I manage to get this fixed, by one way or another, I will have to remove DR, as it's very annoying.

[Tobyz28]

I think I may have a bug, which would be fixed by being able to remove the g-force breaking. Don't know what this is a bug with, but I think it's with DR.

I am currently starting a small space station while the wait for .21 lasts. Now, this is currently using a few mods-AIES, Aviation lights, Procedural Fairings, Remotetech, KSPx, Magic smoke industries, etc. Now, the problem here is that whenever I launch this rocket, it will just blow up from "G-force damage" at around 1-2k above the ground. Now, The real problem is that the I watched the g-meter. It never got above 2-3. Yet the log reads that the max g-force felt was 9gs. after checking with the debug log open, No errors. it just happens. Until I manage to get this fixed, by one way or another, I will have to remove DR, as it's very annoying.

Have a pic of the rocket staged?

[NathanKell]

(crossposted to the FAR thread)

Hey, great mod--I love that I actually have to plan my reentries and design well.

I've found and fixed the problem with the heatshields and FAR. FAR applies open-node drag by first raycasting from CoM to node to find where the node is; on the 2.5m heatshield, for example, both top and bottom nodes are above CoM so there's no open bottom node, and thus very little drag (Cd of 0.05 vs 0.6 for unshielded Mk1-2 pod). If you move the node below the CoM (and move the model too, so no visual changes) then all's well--you get a Cd of like .4 or so, which makes sense for a rounder, smoother, more aerodynamic bottom.

Changes:

replace asset params and node defs with this:

// --- asset parameters ---
//mesh = model.mu
MODEL
{
	model=DeadlyReentry/Parts/deadlyReentry_2.5Heatshield/model
	position = 0.0, -0.1, 0.0
	// bnode of shield was at 0.05*1.3=0.065
	// tnode of shield was at 0.145*1.3=.1885
	scale = 1.3, 1.3, 1.3
	rotation = 0, 0, 0
}
scale = 1
rescaleFactor = 1.0

// --- node definitions ---
// definition format is Position X, Position Y, Position Z, Up X, Up Y, Up Z
//node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.05, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
//node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.145, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.035, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.0885, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2

You can do the same thing for the other shields with this issue: replace mesh= with a MODEL{} block, move the model and both nodes down by the same amount. I chose to bake in rescaleFactor because I didn't know how rescaleFactor played with MODEL{} blocks but you might be all right otherwise.

****

On another note, regarding G-limits. Would you mind terribly exporting your coefficients to the CFG so they can be user-tweaked? Even if not all of them used in the calculation, just a linear "gscale" scalar applied to all? I'd really like to be able to pull 7G turns in aircraft that should be able to do so (and, y'know, replicate Mercury reentries, let alone Apollo). I'm planning to go ahead and tweak and recompile from source for personal use when I finally get around to installing VC# or Mono, but having them exposed in CFG would be so much easier.

[birrhan]

(crossposted to the FAR thread)

Hey, great mod--I love that I actually have to plan my reentries and design well.

I've found and fixed the problem with the heatshields and FAR. FAR applies open-node drag by first raycasting from CoM to node to find where the node is; on the 2.5m heatshield, for example, both top and bottom nodes are above CoM so there's no open bottom node, and thus very little drag (Cd of 0.05 vs 0.6 for unshielded Mk1-2 pod). If you move the node below the CoM (and move the model too, so no visual changes) then all's well--you get a Cd of like .4 or so, which makes sense for a rounder, smoother, more aerodynamic bottom.

Changes:

replace asset params and node defs with this:

// --- asset parameters ---
//mesh = model.mu
MODEL
{
	model=DeadlyReentry/Parts/deadlyReentry_2.5Heatshield/model
	position = 0.0, -0.1, 0.0
	// bnode of shield was at 0.05*1.3=0.065
	// tnode of shield was at 0.145*1.3=.1885
	scale = 1.3, 1.3, 1.3
	rotation = 0, 0, 0
}
scale = 1
rescaleFactor = 1.0

// --- node definitions ---
// definition format is Position X, Position Y, Position Z, Up X, Up Y, Up Z
//node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.05, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
//node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.145, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.035, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.0885, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2

You can do the same thing for the other shields with this issue: replace mesh= with a MODEL{} block, move the model and both nodes down by the same amount. I chose to bake in rescaleFactor because I didn't know how rescaleFactor played with MODEL{} blocks but you might be all right otherwise.

****

On another note, regarding G-limits. Would you mind terribly exporting your coefficients to the CFG so they can be user-tweaked? Even if not all of them used in the calculation, just a linear "gscale" scalar applied to all? I'd really like to be able to pull 7G turns in aircraft that should be able to do so (and, y'know, replicate Mercury reentries, let alone Apollo). I'm planning to go ahead and tweak and recompile from source for personal use when I finally get around to installing VC# or Mono, but having them exposed in CFG would be so much easier.

Negative compadre--field tested, still goes boom. Relevant mods are FAR and Deadly Reentry. Apo 85 km, pero 20 km. angle of attack at 32 km 10 degrees (right on the retrograde marker).

See, the problem is that the heat shield, when coupled with FAR, doesn't actually shield anything. It blows up just like any other part. Kind of aggravating.

Also, the forums are very very sparse when it comes to workarounds for FAR and Deadly Reentry--anyone here know what's up? is this the only workaround, and has anyone else had it work for them?

[toril]

You misunderstand I mean to break the joints connecting the parts as to damage the entire ship not the parts themselves. See- "ripped parts off of each other at weaker points". Ships do this anyway with forces like thrust, lift, and wind shearing so it should be possible.

I believe and I may be wrong that this is a limitation of the scale at which ksp does things to get the effect your looking for would have to be done within the game engine itself. if your ship is big enough, it will break apart like you say, if you torque it enough on the way down. All this mod does to my knowledge is simulate damage to the individual parts do to g stress heat etc. The joints in ksp are handled by the game engine/physics simulation itself and i'm not sure if you could artificially weaken them in flight. I would appreciate clarification if i'm wrong.

Edited July 20, 2013 by toril
edited for readability

[Geckoleon]

Have a pic of the rocket staged?

Sorry for the delay, Imgur was being annoying. Here you go: http://i.imgur.com/a7ahXkU.png

Negative compadre--field tested, still goes boom. Relevant mods are FAR and Deadly Reentry. Apo 85 km, pero 20 km. angle of attack at 32 km 10 degrees (right on the retrograde marker).

See, the problem is that the heat shield, when coupled with FAR, doesn't actually shield anything. It blows up just like any other part. Kind of aggravating.

Also, the forums are very very sparse when it comes to workarounds for FAR and Deadly Reentry--anyone here know what's up? is this the only workaround, and has anyone else had it work for them?

Well, other then the g-force thing, I'm running DR and FAR with no heatshield or other problems. Other the the FAR menu not showing up in flight sometimes, but don't think it's DR that's causing that.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Geckoleon

[Lexif]

I guess I found a small bug? My probe in Jool orbit shows a temperature of -432C on all parts. If that's °C as we know it, that would be a bit unphysical.

It was fun to drop a small probe into Jool, though my parachutes burned up at a few hundred meters height. It wasn't the reentry speed, I was only falling at about 15 m/s at that point. (Using FAR.) It was just the atmosphere getting hotter and denser (14 bar) down there. The rest of the probe fell down to -100 m and "collided with cloud", I guess.

[Lexif]

sorry, accidentally posted twice...

Edited July 20, 2013 by Lexif
double posting