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

[Wolfox]

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

I like that!

[Starwaster]

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

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/70414588/InflateDroge.jpg

Yeah, I've done that when my capsule FLIPPED exposing the screaming crew to reentry. Fortunately it was towards the tail end and things were starting to cool off. Seems to me that in 0.25, the inflatable flips much easier in spite of the changes I made to it a few revisions back. I'm going to be adding lead ballast (RealFuels only.... or... maybe I'll do a conditional that also adds the resource if RF isn't present. Yeah....)

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.

Good! Numbers! Thank you!

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

The names are set, I'm not looking to label any as Realistic or add more buttons. The new settings panel is going to be very minimalistic. Three difficulty buttons, a radio button for legacy aerothermodynamics... and I'll probably add a button in as a shortcut for the debug menu.

And as you might or might not know, whenever changes are made in the debug menu it creates a custom.cfg file. The new update will still do that except that it will add three groups of settings corresponding to the difficulty names (except that Normal is labeled as Default in the config file for compatibility). The difference is that debug menu changes made when you have a given difficulty set will result in changes to that difficulty's config node. Those use the :FINAL directive and it would be easy enough to create and distribute 'Realism' configs which ideally would use :BEFORE or :AFTER for third party distributions or :FOR[DeadlyReentry] for DRE official releases. It's all designed to stay modular which is why I'm keeping the actual difficulty panel simple. If I or anyone else wants to later create something that is tweaked for realistic values then it's pretty easy to do so. For example, if RedAV84(R?) wants a custom set of DRE settings for Realism Overhaul then something could be created for RO.

(such configs should use anything but :FINAL for ordering which should stay reserved for the debug created custom.cfg which is created when a player makes changes to via the menu and should be considered personal tweaking)

I'll probably release a test version sometime tonight or tomorrow with some settings combining my arbitrary choices with any usable feedback (i.e. hard numbers) from the forums. Obviously not everything I receive would make it in but hopefully gives me an idea as to how people play, what they want that will make it easier to tweak difficulty to suit them.

[NathanKell]

As mentioned above, "Realistic" with planets the size of Kerbin just isn't that hard, and no matter what Deadly Reentry does, its model doesn't really allow it to be realistic anyway (hence the paused but done-eventually RealHeat).

I would offer some caution regarding playing with density exponent rather than shockwave multiplier/shockwave exponent/heat multiplier. Density exponent changes the height at which heating occurs; the others actually change how much heating there is. If you want to tweak how much heating there is, I would use the latter bunch first.

[jrandom]

I meant "Realistic" in the same sense as the instructions on the front page for "Playing on Stock Kerbin, want "harder" / hotter reentry (i.e. faking an 8km/sec reentry)". I'm worried that people will see the word "Hard" and think it's unnecessarily difficult, like some sort of arbitrary "hard" setting.

[taniwha]

jrandom: The only way to get close to "realistic" with stock Kerbin is to leave DRE at its defaults and then come into Kerbin's atmosphere at somewhere between 8km/s and 11km/s. Then you have the problem that Kerbin is just to darn small: at 5g, shedding 6km/s (from 8km/s) requires 285km. Good luck getting 5g that long on Kerbin (it's 7.6% of Kerbin's circumference, or 27 degrees).

[Starwaster]

I meant "Realistic" in the same sense as the instructions on the front page for "Playing on Stock Kerbin, want "harder" / hotter reentry (i.e. faking an 8km/sec reentry)". I'm worried that people will see the word "Hard" and think it's unnecessarily difficult, like some sort of arbitrary "hard" setting.

This thread is littered with requests on how to make it harder.

[jrandom]

jrandom: The only way to get close to "realistic" with stock Kerbin is to leave DRE at its defaults and then come into Kerbin's atmosphere at somewhere between 8km/s and 11km/s. Then you have the problem that Kerbin is just to darn small: at 5g, shedding 6km/s (from 8km/s) requires 285km. Good luck getting 5g that long on Kerbin (it's 7.6% of Kerbin's circumference, or 27 degrees).

I'll requote from the first post: ""Playing on Stock Kerbin, want "harder" / hotter reentry (i.e. faking an 8km/sec reentry)". That's as close to "real" as one can get with stock-sized Kerbin (which I do not play). I'm just saying it might be better to make the "Hard" settings for stock be set to that configuration which already exists and label it "realistic" for those who want something closer to reality. Those of us who really want realistic settings already play RSS.

[RuBisCO]

Got a problem, plugin is not working, no debug menu, temperature is fixed at 0 degrees, no heating no matter what.

in 0.25x64 with better atmosphere and nothing else.

[Master Tao]

KSP x64 for Windows is unstable, and adding mods to it only makes the existing bugs happen more often. Many mods currently disable themselves to avoid making the stock problems worse, including DRE:

Note: Does not support KSP 0.25 Windows x64 release.

Unless what you have is Linux x64. In which case, please post your output log.

[Starwaster]

KSP x64 for Windows is unstable, and adding mods to it only makes the existing bugs happen more often. Many mods currently disable themselves to avoid making the stock problems worse, including DRE:

Unless what you have is Linux x64. In which case, please post your output log.

Noooo if he has Linux then it's player.log

[technion]

The problem with messing with any of the variables that effect difficulty is that what happens when you're not on Kerbin.

I regularly perform direct captures on the trip home to Kerbin without any heat shields - the default values for everything simply don't need you to do anything. But, even in this configuration, landing on Eve is exceedingly difficult, and landing something capable of a return is a huge challenge. If I increased the Kerbin difficulty, I'd literally expect Eve to become impossible.

[Starwaster]

The problem with messing with any of the variables that effect difficulty is that what happens when you're not on Kerbin.

I regularly perform direct captures on the trip home to Kerbin without any heat shields - the default values for everything simply don't need you to do anything. But, even in this configuration, landing on Eve is exceedingly difficult, and landing something capable of a return is a huge challenge. If I increased the Kerbin difficulty, I'd literally expect Eve to become impossible.

You have to expect that landing on planets other than Kerbin will yield a different experience. The different entry velocity and thicker atmosphere alone ensure that. From a design standpoint however, there is no solution because there's no real problem other than one to be solved by the player. (personally though I find Eve to be one of the easiest planets to land on. Thicker atmosphere, both in terms of pressure and and height, means faster deceleration)

[Wolfox]

(personally though I find Eve to be one of the easiest planets to land on. Thicker atmosphere, both in terms of pressure and and height, means faster deceleration)

I agree, although stronger gravity well can be tricky, with atmosphere that thick its very hard to crash into surface if you have any form of parachute installed. The heat is not a really big problem if you decelerate enough before descending, which can requie more fuel (especially on heavier vessels, like landers capable of return back to orbit).

EDIT: I personally find hardest to land planets with very thin atmosphere (Duna) where it might not slow you down enough before touchdown, especially in high altitude areas. (Looking forward to Moho/Dres dust-based very very thin atmosphere, where hybrid solution between chute and skycrane would need to be used!)

Edited November 1, 2014 by Wolfox

[Starwaster]

I agree, although stronger gravity well can be tricky, with atmosphere that thick its very hard to crash into surface if you have any form of parachute installed. The heat is not a really big problem if you decelerate enough before descending, which can requie more fuel (especially on heavier vessels, like landers capable of return back to orbit).

This is also worth mentioning for just about any planet: Hit it from behind if at all possible. I tried a reentry on Laythe where I hit it oncoming. Literally a headon collision with the atmosphere. No reentry profile could salvage it and I tried quite a few. I ended up quickloading and looking for a course correction that would carry me around Jool and intercept Laythe from behind.

Today I'm testing a variety of planets to see how some of the settings I'm testing will hold up. I used MechJeb's porkchop plotter to find me the fastest possible path to Eve and it took me high up out of Kerbin's orbital path and then back down to intercept Eve as it passed. Gave me a very nasty reentry with over 6km/s orbital.

[Wolfox]

Suggestion: HeatShield Categories (Inspired by Wiki)

- Basic (Standart): Heavy weight, low cost, ablative layer non-reversible. Includes early game heastshields and inflatable shields for biggest payloads.

- SLA (Lightweight): Ultralight variants of basic shields, but only up to diamater of 3.75m. More costly than basic ones, no inflatables.

- Cooled (Extra Endurance): Heatshields capable of redirecting heat during reentry back into atmosphere, thus increasing their lifespan and can survive more violent reentries or protect heavier payloads. Heaviest, middle-expensive, non-reusable, might be mechanically expandable for bigger sizes.

- SIRCA (Reusable): Heavy as (or more) than basic, expensive as SLA, but usable for multiple descents (either "ablative" layer will replenish itself after a period of time, or will have none at all). No inflatables.

Besides price and weight, balance would be achieved by unlocking the types in a tech tree, basic being unchanged, advanced (SLA and SIRCA) around the middle tier and Cooled ones as latest.

Models and textures for each type would not be neccesary, maybe coclor-line or marks destinction would be sufficient.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Wolfox

[Eunito]

Where do you place the chuteS so they don't burn on reentry?

[Taki117]

Where do you place the chuteS so they don't burn on reentry?

Generally as high up on your craft as you can, if you can put them on top of your pod that's probably the best spot. Also, don't open them if you are going faster than about 300m/s.

[Starman4308]

Where do you place the chuteS so they don't burn on reentry?

If they're burning up during re-entry, your heatshields are having issues keeping your pod cool.

If they're burning up when you deploy them, take a second, contemplate the fact that 330 m/s is the speed of sound, and start deploying your chutes at subsonic velocities (I usually wait for 200-250 m/s at the maximum).

[Wolfox]

Generally as high up on your craft as you can, if you can put them on top of your pod that's probably the best spot. Also, don't open them if you are going faster than about 300m/s.

High placement help with stability, and top of rocked is usually one of the safest spots for equipment te be in "shade" of heatshield (if the vessel is not extremely long). Wait for sonic boom (white lines around your rocket) acknowleding you have slowed down to subsonic speed, where drogue chute or main chute predeployment should be safe enough, but I personally wait to about 2000m altitude, so I can avoid uncesessary warp time, which can destroy the craft (chute deployment force in warp time can rip ship apart).

[technion]

If they're burning up during re-entry, your heatshields are having issues keeping your pod cool.

Do you mean that a radially mounted parachute, on a command module, is protected by the heat shield under the module? I just assumed that, so long as the module itself doesn't explode, you can assume the heat shields are doing their job, and exploding chutes needed to be dealt with some other way such as better placement?

[Starman4308]

Do you mean that a radially mounted parachute, on a command module, is protected by the heat shield under the module? I just assumed that, so long as the module itself doesn't explode, you can assume the heat shields are doing their job, and exploding chutes needed to be dealt with some other way such as better placement?

I can't quite follow my own twisted logic, but my best guess is that I was thinking he might have been having heat conduction problems from having the heatshield worn away, and that the chutes might be more heat-sensitive than the rest of it all.

Granted, you get weird situations: my pod was once heating up, and I couldn't figure out what was going on. Turns out my RCS thrusters were poking just a little bit out over the heatshield, and they were conducting heat into the pod (well, at least until they exploded).

[MartGonzo]

I'm struggling with spaceplanes and deadly reentry at the moment, losing ailerons, landing gear, lights, external cameras etc.

they seem pretty much impossible to either get up to orbital speed or get back down without losing (often essential) parts.

I really don't want to have to learn how to edit parts to add more shielding or go through and edit every single part

is there a simple way I can tweak the mod to work better with spaceplanes?

[Starwaster]

I'm struggling with spaceplanes and deadly reentry at the moment, losing ailerons, landing gear, lights, external cameras etc.

they seem pretty much impossible to either get up to orbital speed or get back down without losing (often essential) parts.

I really don't want to have to learn how to edit parts to add more shielding or go through and edit every single part

is there a simple way I can tweak the mod to work better with spaceplanes?

alt+D+R to bring up the debug menu. You could reduce heat multiplier to reduce the amount of heat you're getting but that's affects everything not just space planes. You'll basically neuter the whole mod.

What I recommend instead is that your spaceplane launch and reentry procedures need some consideration. If you're burning up on launch then you need either a steeper ascent or you need to keep your velocity down until the upper reaches of the atmosphere.

For descent you need a much shallower reentry than if you were coming down in a capsule. Stay in the upper atmosphere as much as possible. From entry interface to landing should take about half the planet.

[MartGonzo]

alt+D+R to bring up the debug menu. You could reduce heat multiplier to reduce the amount of heat you're getting but that's affects everything not just space planes. You'll basically neuter the whole mod.

What I recommend instead is that your spaceplane launch and reentry procedures need some consideration. If you're burning up on launch then you need either a steeper ascent or you need to keep your velocity down until the upper reaches of the atmosphere.

For descent you need a much shallower reentry than if you were coming down in a capsule. Stay in the upper atmosphere as much as possible. From entry interface to landing should take about half the planet.

Thanks for the reply Starwaster, yes I suspect you're right, I really need to modify my approach both in flight and in the build.

The reason I was getting to very high speed before shooting for orbit was really just down to the fuel consumption of the rapier in closed cycle mode.

I suppose I'll have to put more fuel on and switch earlier.

[taniwha]

MartGonzo: Especially with FAR, you will be better off just building up speed while slowly gaining altitude. This was done before the nerfs in FAR, but does show an ascent profile that works fairly well:

It's long, but I'm in space within 3 minutes video time.