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

[Entropius]

Odd… because I seem to be able to repeatedly deflate mine. Is that not supposed to work? I like it even if it's a glitch. It offers the option of a sustainable way to land in atmospheres, without necessarily resorting to spaceplanes or repeatedly importing dockable heatshields. In fact I'd actually like to figure out a way to make a variant of that shield non-decoupleable so I can't accidentally lose it.

As for repairs needing a resource, I suppose that makes sense. If you go with the resource route, I'd like to point out that the Community Resource Pack does have a resource named "SpareParts". USI Exploration Pack also has tiny crates that can carry it. Then again rover-wheels seem repairable without resources, so it boils down to realism vs being stock-like.

If we do open the door to repairs being a useful thing, do you think that would also end up applying to the heatshields too?

[Starwaster]

Odd… because I seem to be able to repeatedly deflate mine. Is that not supposed to work? I like it even if it's a glitch. It offers the option of a sustainable way to land in atmospheres, without necessarily resorting to spaceplanes or repeatedly importing dockable heatshields. In fact I'd actually like to figure out a way to make a variant of that shield non-decoupleable so I can't accidentally lose it.

As for repairs needing a resource, I suppose that makes sense. If you go with the resource route, I'd like to point out that the Community Resource Pack does have a resource named "SpareParts". USI Exploration Pack also has tiny crates that can carry it. Then again rover-wheels seem repairable without resources, so it boils down to realism vs being stock-like.

If we do open the door to repairs being a useful thing, do you think that would also end up applying to the heatshields too?

Maybe you or a mod that you installed altered the inflatable's animation settings or used a different animator (firespitter).

As distributed though in DRE, the inflatable is set to be a 'oneshot' animation. It's a simple boolean field. If true, you can't deflate. If false, then you can reinflate

[collustretvia13]

Hey, love this mod. I notice stages with DE's heatshields attached doesn't trigger deltaV calculations on both KER and MechJeb, even tried clean installing w/o other mods. Any workarounds?

[Starwaster]

Hey, love this mod. I notice stages with DE's heatshields attached doesn't trigger deltaV calculations on both KER and MechJeb, even tried clean installing w/o other mods. Any workarounds?

Screenshot demonstrating the problem please.

(I haven't noticed such behavior myself, aside from being decouplers, they dont do anything with staging. If the shield is the only part in the stage then it won't have DV associated with it because it's just a decoupler stage)

[Starwaster]

In preparation for the next update I'm going to need some very specific feedback in a specific manner.

On the subject of difficulty settings: Easy, Normal (Default) and Hard, what do people consider easy or hard?

The form in which I need this feedback is in terms of what changes did you make either through the debug menu or by editing the custom.cfg file? (created when saving through the debug menu)

For instance, if you found parachute destruction to be too hard, what did you change the multiplier to? If reentry was too hard (or too easy) on stock Kerbin, what did you change to make it easier or harder? (densityExp, shockwaveMultiplier, etc.

I expect to have the new difficulty system up and running soon and the Easy/Hard groupings need populating. Currently its primary function is to apply changes to the DRE settings using one of three difficulty templates. which are basically what you see when you look at custom.cfg only there will be three of REENTRY_EFFECTS nodes now (Easy, Default and Hard)

[Drew Kerman]

Easy, Normal and Hard are very gamey generic terms. Please be sure to also specify which would be considered "realistic". Would that be Hard mode? Or is Normal supposed to be the realistic setting and Hard meant to just make things extra-challenging for the sake of challenge?

[NathanKell]

Realistic for what, though? Applying real laws to Kerbin's known characteristics? Or making reentry as difficult as in real life? Those are diametrically opposed things. That's why realism doesn't factor into this; those two are known (observe physical laws, or scale velocity up and *then* observe physical laws), and thus Starwaster doesn't have to ask about them.

[Starwaster]

Easy, Normal and Hard are very gamey generic terms. Please be sure to also specify which would be considered "realistic". Would that be Hard mode? Or is Normal supposed to be the realistic setting and Hard meant to just make things extra-challenging for the sake of challenge?

Amazingly enough, we are indeed playing a game

Shocking, right???

Normal (called Default in the config files) is exactly what it sounds like. If you're playing and finding DRE too difficult you want to make things easier. In the past people would wonder what they needed to edit to make things survivable (even on stock Kerbin).

Even more people would complain the default settings were too easy and want to make things challenging.

Arguably, neither of these viewpoints is correct because the default settings on stock Kerbin are survivable and if you can't survive then you're (apologies) 'doing it wrong.' If you think that the default settings are too easy well, guess what, that just means you did it right. It's not supposed to make things difficult. Doing it right means it gets easy. Doing it wrong means you're hiring more Kerbals. That's the Starwaster viewpoint and it ignores the fact that this is a game and not all players are equal. I can't just tell them that 'space is a tough place where wimps eat flaming plasma death.'

So that brings us to where we are today. If it's too easy then there's a nifty Easy button to click. If you want it harder then you click Hard. (I was tempted to label the Easy button 'CA Mode' but I'm actually a kind person at heart so I didn't do it)

So like Nathan says, it doesn't have a lot to do with realism. If I had to choose one to call 'Real' I'd go with Normal and then try to code the mod to behave realistically on the default settings, with the caveat that I might have to abstract some things in the interest of game play.

So, tl;dr, the difficulty menu is simply about giving people who think it's too hard or not hard enough an easy way of changing things up at the push of a button. I probably won't get the answers I'm seeking with my request and I posted it with that knowledge in mind so I'll end up just choosing some some obvious candidates to change values for and put the update out. Then as the complaints trickle in I'll fine tune as needed. That's cool too.

[RedAV8R]

I guess from my point of view. When playing with RSS, RO, etc. I want real. I don't care really what it's called, whatever it might be. Just as long as documentation tells a user, if they want "real", then such and such is the mode they want. If default/"normal" that's fine, just publicize it. As for what factor to make Easy/Hard. I have no idea:( Of course this will all be a moo point come RealHeat time (I think).

[Starwaster]

I guess from my point of view. When playing with RSS, RO, etc. I want real. I don't care really what it's called, whatever it might be. Just as long as documentation tells a user, if they want "real", then such and such is the mode they want. If default/"normal" that's fine, just publicize it. As for what factor to make Easy/Hard. I have no idea:( Of course this will all be a moo point come RealHeat time (I think).

And again has nothing to do with what's being asked for. The parameters in question are EASILY subject to an RO patch if you care to make one (for all three modes). Trivially easy.

Anyone else want to chime in? Someone who can restrict themselves to Easier / Harder? Come on... Throw me a fricken bone here.... I'm the modder here. Need the info...

Edited October 31, 2014 by Starwaster
Couldn't resist making new meme

[NathanKell]

Yes, it will be moot. RealHeat will have the actual physical laws, and shield performance will be balanced vs stated reentry angle and velocity, shield max temperature, and total ablative mass before and after reentry (and a decent guess at emissivity).

As for DRE, I'll throw in a my two cents. I think for "normal" the max temperatures of most unshielded items should be much lower, on the 600C range (where nylon melts). Then, shields should be about as good as they are currently in DRE, and no exponent or multiplier added. I would also suggest perhaps setting density exponent to 0.5 and reducing the heat transfer multiplier, if you want heating to occur higher in the atmosphere (I think it should).

In sum, I think, in "normal" mode, it should be very hard to impossible for one to reenter without heat shielding, and quite easy with it. Otherwise, from a gameplay perspective, we're not taking advantage of the new mechanic (the necessity for shielding, and how shielded payloads should be heavier/costlier than unshielded ones).

In easy mode, you probably should be able to deorbit most things safely from low orbit on Kerbin, but you would need shielding for interplanetary reentries. No G limits either for parts or crew (or maybe only past like 20Gs).

In hard mode, you should have to work to survive even when shielded: narrow reentry corridors, low G limits, just enough ablative to survive.

[Starwaster]

As for DRE, I'll throw in a my two cents. I think for "normal" the max temperatures of most unshielded items should be much lower, on the 600C range (where nylon melts).

I thought Nylon was about that high too but I've looked at the data sheets at a bunch of different companies and it's about less than half that. And if it's Nylon chutes then the excess temperature will probably speed up mechanical failure before they actually reach melting point. (so stress damage is in the spotlight again but because of higher temperatures). Also, this is limited to on the fly loading of of the various modifiers in the configs so modifying part max temp is out of scope for the current exercise.

// Yes they're all the same; no actual editing has taken place yet
@REENTRY_EFFECTS[Easy]:Final
{
@shockwaveExponent = 1
@shockwaveMultiplier = 1
@heatMultiplier = 25
@startThermal = 750
@fullThermal = 1150
@afxDensityExponent = 0.85
@temperatureExponent = 1.03
@densityExponent = 0.85
@gToleranceMult = 6
@parachuteTempMult = 0.25
@crewGKillChance = 0.01
@crewGClamp = 30
@crewGPower = 4
@crewGMin = 5
@crewGWarn = 450000
@crewGLimit = 900000
}
@REENTRY_EFFECTS[Default]:Final
{
@shockwaveExponent = 1
@shockwaveMultiplier = 1
@heatMultiplier = 25
@startThermal = 750
@fullThermal = 1150
@afxDensityExponent = 0.85
@temperatureExponent = 1.03
@densityExponent = 0.85
@gToleranceMult = 6
@parachuteTempMult = 0.25
@crewGKillChance = 0.01
@crewGClamp = 30
@crewGPower = 4
@crewGMin = 5
@crewGWarn = 450000
@crewGLimit = 900000
}
@REENTRY_EFFECTS[Hard]:Final
{
@shockwaveExponent = 1
@shockwaveMultiplier = 1
@heatMultiplier = 25
@startThermal = 750
@fullThermal = 1150
@afxDensityExponent = 0.85
@temperatureExponent = 1.03
@densityExponent = 0.85
@gToleranceMult = 6
@parachuteTempMult = 0.25
@crewGKillChance = 0.01
@crewGClamp = 30
@crewGPower = 4
@crewGMin = 5
@crewGWarn = 450000
@crewGLimit = 900000
}

Then, shields should be about as good as they are currently in DRE, and no exponent or multiplier added. I would also suggest perhaps setting density exponent to 0.5 and reducing the heat transfer multiplier, if you want heating to occur higher in the atmosphere (I think it should).

In sum, I think, in "normal" mode, it should be very hard to impossible for one to reenter without heat shielding, and quite easy with it. Otherwise, from a gameplay perspective, we're not taking advantage of the new mechanic (the necessity for shielding, and how shielded payloads should be heavier/costlier than unshielded ones).

In easy mode, you probably should be able to deorbit most things safely from low orbit on Kerbin, but you would need shielding for interplanetary reentries. No G limits either for parts or crew (or maybe only past like 20Gs).

In hard mode, you should have to work to survive even when shielded: narrow reentry corridors, low G limits, just enough ablative to survive.

Ok...

[dlrk]

I would say that 'normal' mode should require shielding, the type of which is proportionate to the reentry(more shielding required for faster entry to denser atmosphere). A reasonable reentry path should be required, not too steep.

Hard mode, I'm not sure if an unrealistically difficult mode makes sense at all, but making shields heavier, and less effective would be one way to accomplish that.

For easy mode, you don't have to worry about reentry angle, steepness of entry, if you're shielded, shields are lighter.

But I'm not sure why anyone would want a less realistic DRE.

[legolegs]

But I'm not sure why anyone would want a less realistic DRE.

Because someone wants something better than vanilla.

[Starwaster]

But I'm not sure why anyone would want a less realistic DRE.

Because someone wants something better than vanilla.

So, a DRE that is less realistic is better than 'vanilla' than one that is realistic?

[legolegs]

So, a DRE that is less realistic is better than 'vanilla' than one that is realistic?

I didn't quite understand you here but for me DRE on "normal" (current) and "easy" settings is better than vanilla KSP reentry mechanics.

[Superfluous J]

But I'm not sure why anyone would want a less realistic DRE.

Because they don't want to be able to come in straight down on top of KSC from Jool (fun as that is), but they also don't want to have to calculate their re-entry angle to the degree to keep their ship from exploding.

I fall into this category, incidentally.

[Starwaster]

I didn't quite understand you here but for me DRE on "normal" (current) and "easy" settings is better than vanilla KSP reentry mechanics.

We don't HAVE an 'easy' setting yet. I'm probably asking too much here, but do you have any input on what would be reasonable settings in the Easy category? I took a stab at inputting some values that I think would make things 'easier' but it's not a setting I'd likely use myself so who knows if I got it right....

@REENTRY_EFFECTS[Easy]:Final
{
    @shockwaveExponent = 1
    @shockwaveMultiplier = 1
    @heatMultiplier = 25
    @startThermal = 750
    @fullThermal = 1150
    @afxDensityExponent = 0.95
    @temperatureExponent = 1.03
    @densityExponent = 0.95
    @gToleranceMult = 6
    @parachuteTempMult = 0.5
    @crewGKillChance = 0.01
    @crewGClamp = 30
    @crewGPower = 4
    @crewGMin = 5
    @crewGWarn = 450000
    @crewGLimit = 900000
}
@REENTRY_EFFECTS[Default]:Final
{
    @shockwaveExponent = 1
    @shockwaveMultiplier = 1
    @heatMultiplier = 25
    @startThermal = 750
    @fullThermal = 1150
    @afxDensityExponent = 0.85
    @temperatureExponent = 1.03
    @densityExponent = 0.85
    @gToleranceMult = 6
    @parachuteTempMult = 0.25
    @crewGKillChance = 0.01
    @crewGClamp = 30
    @crewGPower = 4
    @crewGMin = 5
    @crewGWarn = 450000
    @crewGLimit = 900000
}
@REENTRY_EFFECTS[Hard]:Final
{
    @shockwaveExponent = 1
    @shockwaveMultiplier = 1
    @heatMultiplier = 20
    @startThermal = 750
    @fullThermal = 1150
    @afxDensityExponent = 0.5
    @temperatureExponent = 1.03
    @densityExponent = 0.5
    @gToleranceMult = 6
    @parachuteTempMult = 0.25
    @crewGKillChance = 0.01
    @crewGClamp = 30
    @crewGPower = 4
    @crewGMin = 5
    @crewGWarn = 450000
    @crewGLimit = 900000
}

Edited October 31, 2014 by Starwaster

[mckamx]

I have found an alternative use for the inflatable heat shields - when mounted backwards, they make fine high-temperature drogue parachutes.

[PaidLeber]

In preparation for the next update I'm going to need some very specific feedback in a specific manner.

On the subject of difficulty settings: Easy, Normal (Default) and Hard, what do people consider easy or hard?

The form in which I need this feedback is in terms of what changes did you make either through the debug menu or by editing the custom.cfg file? (created when saving through the debug menu)

For instance, if you found parachute destruction to be too hard, what did you change the multiplier to? If reentry was too hard (or too easy) on stock Kerbin, what did you change to make it easier or harder? (densityExp, shockwaveMultiplier, etc.

I expect to have the new difficulty system up and running soon and the Easy/Hard groupings need populating. Currently its primary function is to apply changes to the DRE settings using one of three difficulty templates. which are basically what you see when you look at custom.cfg only there will be three of REENTRY_EFFECTS nodes now (Easy, Default and Hard)

For stock sized Kerbin, I have my densityExponent set to .5, heatMultiplier = 25

I've tested with a basic command pod with 500 ablative (with or without RO_DeadlyReentry patch) and you can easily reenter from LKO, Mun or Minmas with a 0 Pe (lose most or all ablative but shield doesn't overheat). You can even reenter all the way with a 90deg flight path angle and save some shielding but you are in essence trading heat for very high G's.

Also, even at .5 I've found out that I have a lot of altitude to play with for deceleration. With real chutes, I can predeploy ~7000m but actual deployment doesn't matter much unless you are worried about G's.

.5 is a good bet for Hard. A "wanting realism" player will not find it impossible to get started and operate within Kerbin's SOI but will have to become inventive for interplanetary transfer speeds.

Edited October 31, 2014 by PaidLeber

[Felbourn]

I use FAR with a 1.12 shock exponent and 15 heat mult. I consider this "normal" for FAR. Everything else is unchanged. However, I did create a @PART[*]{@maxTemp=1000} config to set a baseline (that I consider to be Easy in hindsight, and may lower to 800 or 600 for my Normal mode) for all parts, and then some things I set higher by hand with more custom configs.

[Wolfox]

My opinion (sorry for no numbers, i never messed with that to really know the dependences of value changes)

Easy: - Unshielded vessel can survive descent as long as its not very steep, shielded basically survive anything, crew and parts doesn´t suffer from G-forces at all. (Lite version, fun without large constrains)

Normal: - Shielding necessary for atmospheric descent, very steep trajectories will burn even through shields, parts and crew can withstand about 20Gs. (You have consider reentry, but mod will not punish for overlooking small things and/or not ideal descent angles)

Hard: - Shallow angles with decent shielding, heavy and costly shields, crew will die at 10Gs (+- real values).

Hope this helps.

[jrandom]

Maybe relabel "Hard" to "Realistic"?

[Wolfox]

Maybe relabel "Hard" to "Realistic"?

I consider "Easy/Normal/Hard" better than "Unrealistic/Semi-Realistic/Realistic"

[jrandom]

I consider "Easy/Normal/Hard" better than "Unrealistic/Semi-Realistic/Realistic"

I'd go with Easy / Normal / Realistic, or Easy / Standard / Realistic. Maybe Easy / Default / Realistic.