[1.12.*] Deadly Reentry v7.9.0 The Barbie Edition, Aug 5th, 2021

[smunisto]

Unfortunately, it still doesn't work. I just tried the repack.

[Starwaster]

EDIT:

Deleted un-needed config due to new release (and there's no Comic Sans!!!)

Edited October 4, 2014 by Starwaster
Used shockwaveExponent instead of shockwaveMultiplier

[Kalista]

I just tried Nathan's fixed version + starwasters CFG edit and can confirm the heat isn't building up at all. Ran a test with DREs debugger up and heres the log and video ( when its up anyways)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwYzqg0314S0QTZqUlEyTXZscDA/view?usp=sharing

Video

One thing to note only diff between this test and my last 3 is the craft needed SAS on the way down since it now wanted to flip nose first ( when its designed to be aerodynamicly stable going HS first).

Edited October 4, 2014 by Kalista

[John FX]

I just tried putting a pod that has no active heatshield on top of a tiny tank of fuel with a huge engine. I cheated infinite fuel and it did not get to 10km before it exploded from overheating. I tried again taking more care with the launch and got an Ap of 130km before I headed straight down. Again it overheated and exploded but in neither case did I see any reentry effects.

I am using nathans recompile and the .cfg

For people not seeing the heat build up at all, make sure you are not using an active heatshield as they don`t heat up much.

I test with the MK 1 Lander can. It burns up real easy...

I miss the reentry effects though.

As you can see on the second image, I am just about to explode yet there is no plasma shockwave.

Edited October 4, 2014 by John FX

[Starwaster]

I just tried Nathan's fixed version + starwasters CFG edit and can confirm the heat isn't building up at all. Ran a test with DREs debugger up and heres the log and video ( when its up anyways)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwYzqg0314S0QTZqUlEyTXZscDA/view?usp=sharing

Video

One thing to note only diff between this test and my last 3 is the craft needed SAS on the way down since it now wanted to flip nose first ( when its designed to be aerodynamicly stable going HS first).

I can't access your google docs thing at all. Permission required. Make sure you make it publicly accessible.

Edit: Looked at your video and as soon as the debugger window came up I immediately knew that you have not correctly installed the cfg that I posted.

You have a temperature multiplier of 20 (5 less than the default), temperature exponent is 1, shock wave exponent is 1 and the density exponent is 1. (not sure it was supposed to be this way but densityExponent gives more heating to your vehicle at values less than 1. Default of 0.5 isn't really enough, that's why I set it to 0.35 in the config I provided)

Edited October 4, 2014 by Starwaster

[Kalista]

Knew I forgot somethin try it now.

[John FX]

Just retried the same experiment with a mk1-2 pod and heatshield and just exploded at 64km+3km/s.

Seems a little high.

retried with a Pe of 35km and an Ap of 800km

Just exploded at 67km

EDIT : How do I bring up the deadly reentry debug window?

EDIT 2 : Realised my experience was not in the ballpark of normal behaviour so rechecked install and found I had 5.2 with the new .cfg. Reinstalled with nathans 5.3 recompile and the new .cfg and things seem a lot better. I have reentry effects and heat.

Edited October 4, 2014 by John FX

[Starwaster]

Just retried the same experiment with a mk1-2 pod and heatshield and just exploded at 64km+3km/s.

Seems a little high.

retried with a Pe of 35km and an Ap of 800km

Just exploded at 67km

http://i.imgur.com/FXxOEJq.png

EDIT : How do I bring up the deadly reentry debug window?

alt+d+r

(10 chars)

[Tidus Klein]

Getting an odd bug...64 bit KSP sucks, so stinking unstable seems like anytime I update anything It sends the game on a crash spree,

So in other words game now crashes when I load up a save. Any suggestions? And yes it's modded out the buns. Did this too with B9 when I updated it...and tweak scale....huu getting a bit old...0.25 your going to be 32 bit

Edited October 4, 2014 by Tidus Klein

[Starwaster]

Getting an odd bug...64 bit KSP sucks, so stinking unstable seems like anytime I update anything It sends the game on a crash spree,

So in other words game now crashes when I load up a save. Any suggestions? And yes it's modded out the buns.

You can post a log file. I'll take a look at it, but I can't disagree with anything in the first part of your first sentence.

64 bit KSP is unstable and it makes it hard to troubleshoot especially with respect to a specific mod. And it's probably not this specific mod. It could be anything in your vast stable of mods.

So no promises whatsoever. (the current issues bubbling up with not enough deadliness in their reentries has to take priority over something that's probably not a DRE issue)

[smunisto]

Starwasher, are the values you post tuned versus stock KSP? I am just wondering, since an absolutely default 5.2 never had the need to be custom tuned for stock KSP. I always assumed stock KSP is the baseline for DRE, and everything else such as tuning is for RSS and the such.

So, how balanced are the values you are offering?

[Starwaster]

Starwasher, are the values you post tuned versus stock KSP? I am just wondering, since an absolutely default 5.2 never had the need to be custom tuned for stock KSP. I always assumed stock KSP is the baseline for DRE, and everything else such as tuning is for RSS and the such.

So, how balanced are the values you are offering?

I didn't see this addressed to anyone I know (what is a 'starwasher'?) so I'll take it

Currently there seems to be an issue where there's just not enough reentry heating to be dangerous at all which is why I'm posting these values. Assuming it's linked to some changes in how heat is calculated or maybe something was inadvertently changed in the default settings or maybe both. We'll get it sorted soon.

Whether or not the settings for 5.2 and earlier had a need to be custom tuned for stock KSP is debatable. Historically the DRE thread is LITTERED with complaints that stock KSP reentry is not deadly enough. The reason why is because in stock KSP you never have orbital velocities that are fast enough to be very hazardous. (lower velocities means less heating) Couple that with the fact that the time spent in reentry to stock Kerbin (or most KSP planets) is shorter and reentry isn't that hard.

When transitioning to RSS, settings don't have to be tuned at all. Greater reentry velocity, thicker atmospheres and longer reentry times will handle that. It's heat shields that required tuning for RSS. (to make them more durable)

As far as tuning, it was done during testing with a stock Kerbin but also taking into account that people seem to want more danger so one of the things I bumped up was the shockwaveExponent. The config is just a WIP patch until things are permanently sorted. (set shockwaveExponent back to 1 for normal shockwave temperatures but densityExponent probably needs to be lowered a bit more as well)

[smunisto]

Oh. My. God. I am so sorry. It turns out that for the past year and a half I never actually read your nick and always thought it's "Starwasher". How should I know what it is, someone who...washes...stars? My sincerest apologies for the mistake

Regarding the WIP patch cfg - I will give it a spin, I figured it could be due to the changes in the heat build up calculations by Nathan. Seems those were pretty serious.

[NathanKell]

Honestly, AFAIK I haven't changed the heat buildup calculations. I'll diff it with prior versions to check, but...unless I goofed badly, it should be the same.

Regarding density exponents: Recall that density is in kg/m^3, and is 1.225 at sea level. In real life it hits 1.0 at 2.5 kilometers, and does so much lower even than that in KSP. This means that 99% of the time it's relevant, density will be <1.0, and therefore lower exponents to it will increase it.

[Starwaster]

Honestly, AFAIK I haven't changed the heat buildup calculations. I'll diff it with prior versions to check, but...unless I goofed badly, it should be the same.

Regarding density exponents: Recall that density is in kg/m^3, and is 1.225 at sea level. In real life it hits 1.0 at 2.5 kilometers, and does so much lower even than that in KSP. This means that 99% of the time it's relevant, density will be <1.0, and therefore lower exponents to it will increase it.

Right that makes sense. I've been looking it over and the part I'm focusing on right now is frameDensity. Where does that equation originate? Seems like it would produce much lower values even at sea level

Edit:

Shouldn't this

[COLOR=#000000][FONT=arial]frameDensity = (float)(FlightGlobals.ActiveVessel.staticPressure / (287.058 * (FlightGlobals.ActiveVessel.flightIntegrator.getExternalTemperature() + 273.15)));
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Edit #2: No scratch that.... I think I get it now. But doesn't this formula assume that pressure is in pascals? staticPressure is in atmospheres

Edited October 4, 2014 by Starwaster

[NathanKell]

No, it's correct, but only if static pressure is in pascals, rather than atmospheres. Dangit.

Expect fix shortly. Again. And yes, for *this* howler I'll bump the version number.

EDIT: testing shows fixed (I just blowed up my parachute! Oh noes!)

Edited October 4, 2014 by NathanKell

[NathanKell]

Changelog:

v5.3.1

*Fixed stupid typos (thanks Starwaster). Apologies, folks.

[Kalista]

Works now lost both of my US fuel cells and one monotank ( lost other on way down) and burnt thru my entire shield on reentry using same test that I posted before.

[Starwaster]

Works now lost both of my US fuel cells and one monotank ( lost other on way down) and burnt thru my entire shield on reentry using same test that I posted before.

Uhm you did delete my config that I posted before retesting with this new version, right? (otherwise I'd be surprised if your whole ship didn't blow up like popcorn)

[Kalista]

Uhm you did delete my config that I posted before retesting with this new version, right? (otherwise I'd be surprised if your whole ship didn't blow up like popcorn)

Yup always do a clean install when I update a mod so the CFG is the one that comes with the download

[NathanKell]

Oh, right. I think the default density exponent was lowered, which should increase heating some in the upper atmosphere.

[Kalista]

Would that also be why my craft wants to flip on its head till about 28-25km then it settles and wants to go shield first? Doesn't bother me it wants to do that since SAS corrects it with little trouble but was a behavior this ship didn't have in 5.2.

[NathanKell]

Deadly Reentry has nothing to do with aerodynamics. Please try the same descent without DRE installed; if the problem *does* go away, then I'm doing something very odd; if not, it's not a DRE issue. :]

[Kalista]

Taking DRE off makes the craft go shield first entire way down where as with the new DRE ( 5.2 didn't behave this way) has it wanting to go docking port first till below 30km.

Craft File

This is how the testing I did went dropping the ship from 70km @ pitch 60 heading 270

No Dre: craft begins to go retrograde near the 65km mark and except for some bobbing holds that point entire way down building up a slight rotation ( which is by design)

DRE 5.2: Exactly the same as no DRE.

DRE 5.3 w/Fixes: Craft begins to go prograde right around the 62km marker requiring control input and sas to hold retrograde.Just under 30km craft will hold retrograde on its own but will start developing a hard rotation on its own.

All these tests were done with FAR because I refuse to fly with squads default soup atmosphere.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Kalista

[Starwaster]

Taking DRE off makes the craft go shield first entire way down where as with the new DRE ( 5.2 didn't behave this way) has it wanting to go docking port first till below 30km.

Craft File

This is how the testing I did went dropping the ship from 70km @ pitch 60 heading 270

No Dre: craft begins to go retrograde near the 65km mark and except for some bobbing holds that point entire way down building up a slight rotation ( which is by design)

DRE 5.2: Exactly the same as no DRE.

DRE 5.3 w/Fixes: Craft begins to go prograde right around the 62km marker requiring control input and sas to hold retrograde.Just under 30km craft will hold retrograde on its own but will start developing a hard rotation on its own.

All these tests were done with FAR because I refuse to fly with squads default soup atmosphere.

The only thing I can see that might affect that is CoMOffset (center of mass offset) which is used in a few DRE heat shields but those haven't changed from 5.2-5.3.*

BTW Nathan, it doesn't look like chutes and other small parts are being shielded by other parts in front of them anymore.