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

[Enriched Uranium]

man, I wish everyone would supply an win x64 version and just say no support. I can get, what I want to work on x64 so Thank YOU!!!!!!!! lol without x64 I cant put half the mods Im addicted to, even running in openGL. I have been gone for a few months cuz of this and a busted computer but im almost back lol Thanks again! (still gotta run windows cuz of my hardware :-( lol )

[Starwaster]

man, I wish everyone would supply an win x64 version and just say no support. I can get, what I want to work on x64 so Thank YOU!!!!!!!! lol without x64 I cant put half the mods Im addicted to, even running in openGL. I have been gone for a few months cuz of this and a busted computer but im almost back lol Thanks again! (still gotta run windows cuz of my hardware :-( lol )

You're welcome, but come KSP 1.0 (if they're really going that route next update) you're going find it tougher to go 64 lol

[Drew Kerman]

from the change log for the beta release:

ablationMetric scales ablation rate. A value has been determined based on a reentry from Munar orbit. If Real Solar System is detected then a Module Manager config will apply a 10 minute metric. (plus an added safety margin)

What if we have RSS installed but only just to use it for better atmospheric effects and are still playing in the Kerbol system?

[Starwaster]

from the change log for the beta release:

What if we have RSS installed but only just to use it for better atmospheric effects and are still playing in the Kerbol system?

Then the heat shield will have the wrong metric.

Ultimately I need a better system to establish a baseline.

Still working on that but the past few days have had me too busy to focus on it.

[Enceos]

man, I wish everyone would supply an win x64 version and just say no support. I can get, what I want to work on x64 so Thank YOU!!!!!!!! lol without x64 I cant put half the mods Im addicted to, even running in openGL. I have been gone for a few months cuz of this and a busted computer but im almost back lol Thanks again! (still gotta run windows cuz of my hardware :-( lol )

SQUAD officially told the community that x64 version development is going to wait because x64 Unity engine has a ton of bugs SQUAD can't fix themselves.

[MonkeyLunch]

Hi, im having an issue with parts burning up behind the shield during re-entry on Eve.. Not all the parts, just some. And they also have the re-entry effects on them, even though they should be protected behind the shield. While the parts that are not burning, do not have any effects on them.

Some of these burning parts are stock, others are mod parts. The stock ones are landing legs (all of the stock varieties), struts, the stock parachute, and all the stock sensors and antenna's.. The mod parts are "Real Chute" parachute parts. There's probably more parts with this issue that I haven't found. So something is haywire, and the shields aren't creating a safe zone behind them properly. I don't know exactly how this mods works, but this problem is making my using your mod rather difficult, which is a shame. Because its something I really want to use for the added difficulty and complexity.

These parts are burning up even when directly behind the shield attached on the backside of it. So for whatever reason these parts are not being shielded correctly. This really needs to be fixed, the shield should be taking all the abuse and everything behind it should be completely safe.

[Starwaster]

Hi, im having an issue with parts burning up behind the shield during re-entry on Eve.. Not all the parts, just some. And they also have the re-entry effects on them, even though they should be protected behind the shield. While the parts that are not burning, do not have any effects on them.

Some of these burning parts are stock, others are mod parts. The stock ones are landing legs (all of the stock varieties), struts, the stock parachute, and all the stock sensors and antenna's.. The mod parts are "Real Chute" parachute parts. There's probably more parts with this issue that I haven't found. So something is haywire, and the shields aren't creating a safe zone behind them properly. I don't know exactly how this mods works, but this problem is making my using your mod rather difficult, which is a shame. Because its something I really want to use for the added difficulty and complexity.

These parts are burning up even when directly behind the shield attached on the backside of it. So for whatever reason these parts are not being shielded correctly. This really needs to be fixed, the shield should be taking all the abuse and everything behind it should be completely safe.

The most likely cause of such a problem is design so you should post a screenshot of the craft during reentry from several angles.

The issue of reentry effects is not something that can be controlled on a per part basis. KSP handles that entirely and generally if part of the craft has reentry effects then all of it does. (the only exception I've ever seen is if something detached from the ship is occluding it)

It doesn't matter because whether a part has reentry effects does not control whether it is taking reentry heating. What controls whether a part is protected is whether or not it can trace a line from its center (actually from its transform) along its velocity vector and be able to hit something within 10 meters. (10 meters is actually horribly generous btw). It doesn't matter if the part that is occluding the first part is part of same ship or not. If it can trace a 10 meter line down its velocity vector and hit something then it is shielded. It doesn't even matter if the occluding part is itself a heat shield, it still protects other parts from reentry heating. (though if it is itself exposed then it will obviously suffer heating)

There are two other ways that parts can be considered shielded.

1. You have FAR / NEAR installed and the part has been determined by FAR or NEAR to be shielded by a fairing or cargo bay. So if FAR / NEAR thinks the part is shielded then Deadly Reentry thinks it is shielded.
   
2. If KSP thinks that a part is shielded from the airstream (literally part.ShieldedFromAirstream) then Deadly Reentry will also treat it as shielded. This is not currently being used by KSP but I included the check in preparation for the future. (my own drag solution, Stock Drag Fix will in the future make use of this property so that cargo bays of space planes where SDF is used will also provide protection)
   

[UnanimousCoward]

(still gotta run windows cuz of my hardware :-( lol )

I'd venture that you'll get better performance on a stripped-down Linux system than on a Windows one. And 64-bit seems to work fine in Linux.

(Not a Linux fanboy; I'm writing this in Windows, but I've got Ubuntu as well just to run KSP.)

[Drew Kerman]

Then the heat shield will have the wrong metric.

where's the config located so I can remove it for now?

[Starwaster]

where's the config located so I can remove it for now?

It's part of the DeadlyReentry.cfg which you don't want to delete the whole thing.

Edit it and go all the way to the bottom.

It says :NEEDS[RealSolarSystem] I think

Edit:

@REENTRY_EFFECTS
[*]:FOR[DeadlyReentry]:NEEDS[RealSolarSystem]
{
//@ablationMetric = 0.0016666666666667
@ablationMetric = 0.0015
}

So, those who use RealSolarSystem but have configurations that give them smaller than Earth sized kerbin would want to delete it. I'm still working on something that would self scale it so that sizes between Kerbin and Earth would be covered and not require tweaking of or removal of this section. Kerbin / Earth would just be the baseline. One thought I had was to increase the maximum value of ablative and it would be tweakable so that if a player thought they needed more, they could purchase more.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Starwaster

[lextacy]

was the inflated shield at launch bug going to be fixed or do you have a temporary fix I can use in meantime?

[Starwaster]

was the inflated shield at launch bug going to be fixed or do you have a temporary fix I can use in meantime?

Sorry, but no fix will be possible in the foreseeable future as I don't have the original files.

All I can offer is a workaround, which is to edit the craft and replace the shield with a fresh one. (don't forget to re-do any Action Group assignments you might have made for the shield)

The problem is triggered by inflating the shield in the VAB, afterwhich the animation module gets confused as to its state after it is deflated. Not sure why, I can only speculate that maybe the animation doesn't properly finish. I don't know though. So the original model files have to be edited to fix the problem.

A better solution would be to not use it. Use the ADEPT or other inflatables. None of the others that I've seen have this problem.

[lextacy]

Sorry, but no fix will be possible in the foreseeable future as I don't have the original files.

All I can offer is a workaround, which is to edit the craft and replace the shield with a fresh one. (don't forget to re-do any Action Group assignments you might have made for the shield)

The problem is triggered by inflating the shield in the VAB, afterwhich the animation module gets confused as to its state after it is deflated. Not sure why, I can only speculate that maybe the animation doesn't properly finish. I don't know though. So the original model files have to be edited to fix the problem.

A better solution would be to not use it. Use the ADEPT or other inflatables. None of the others that I've seen have this problem.

cool beans, I do have the Adepts and I should be getting into using those finally.

[Starwaster]

cool beans, I do have the Adepts and I should be getting into using those finally.

The only downside to them is that they have no builtin fairing, but if you also use use Procedural Fairings then you can use the interstage for that.

[MonkeyLunch]

Im using procedural fairings, the shield is approx. 10m across, the entire lander is also under fairings. So nothing should be burning up, no??

I should also add, I have not had this problem when re-entering Kerbins atmosphere, it started when I started trying to crack Eve with a lander that can return from the surface. Not an easy feat btw.

I have quiet a few mods installed, maybe its a conflict with one of them? Even though im using the least amount of mod parts as possible while I try to solve this issue. The craft in the picture ive provided is 100% stock except for the real chutes and the procedural parts stuff. The craft underneath the fairings is just a test vehicle with all the burning parts I mentioned in the other post, and its certainly all completely behind the shield, and under the fairings as you can see in the pic. So I cant figure out why this is happening.

My re-entry speed is around 3200m/s at its peak, and it burns off about 90% of the shield before slowing enough to dump the shield and fairings and deploy the chutes.. Am I asking too much of this? Or is something not working right? Any insight you can provide is appreciated. And also, I would like to say thank you for this great mod, the game is lacking without it, imho.

ps: Im using Near also, I forgot mention that.

Edited February 11, 2015 by MonkeyLunch
additional info

[Starwaster]

@MonkeyLunch: It should be shielded in there but Deadly Reentry is dependent on FAR (or NEAR) to determine that. DRE's default system relies on raycasting and it's quite possible for the ray to slip between the seams of the fairings. That shouldn't matter with NEAR installed though.

Do another reentry with that, then quit the game and find your log file.

Put your log file up somewhere that I can download it (dropbox is an easy solution for that if you don't already use it) and post the link.

If you're not sure where to find the logs:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92229

Edit:

Can you post the craft file itself? And the shield itself is Procedural Parts?

Edit #2

Also, just to make sure what I said before was clear (which re-reading it when I'm fully awake it might not be). Given that FAR checks are one of the first to be made, anything in the fairing should be shielded regardless of whether DRE thinks it is. If the FAR check fails then DRE falls back onto its default.

Edit #3

There's a 10 degree pitch there. I can see you have it set to retrograde orientation but it's having trouble holding that. I'd bet money (if I had any) that the pitch difference is enough that the sides are exposed. If NEAR is not fully shielding the enclosed parts then it falls back to raycasting and it's probably slipping right between the cracks... not much I can do about that except maybe write my own fairing shielding code and using a capsule cast instead of the bounding box.

Suggestion: Try that reentry again but with a 45 degree roll angle so that the side of the fairing is definitely between the shockwave and the enclosed parts. (or if that's a 2 piece fairing then make it 90 degrees)

Edited February 11, 2015 by Starwaster
missing 'not' talking about NEAR

[Subcidal]

So long story short BTSM and the latest beta don't play nice?

[jab136]

quick question, I have FAR installed, and when I reenter from a high kerbin orbit (Mun, or Minmus), with PE within kerbin I only lose about 3 units of ablative material on the small command pod. Is FAR decreasing the heating I am getting? because that seems a bit low. Stock size kerbin.

[Starwaster]

So long story short BTSM and the latest beta don't play nice?

Not sure that is true (or isn't true) as I don't use BTSM. There were some changes made that alter DRE behavior on a fundamental level but I should point out a few things:

• The changed behavior was supposed to be part of an optional alternate heating model which is enabled by default in the beta because that's the main thing I'm testing in the beta. Additionally, some of the changes are kicking in regardless of whether the new model is enabled or not and that is not intended. It will be changed in the next update to respect the alternate model toggle.
  
• The BTSM user who was reporting trouble most likely would have had problems regardless of whether BTSM was installed. Probably.
  

On the subject of next beta update, I can't say when that is because I've been very busy for the past couple of weeks. I'm a full time volunteer at a cat sanctuary and the weather hasn't been kind on our older cats. I haven't even been able to bring myself to sit down for a session of serious coding in awhile.

quick question, I have FAR installed, and when I reenter from a high kerbin orbit (Mun, or Minmus), with PE within kerbin I only lose about 3 units of ablative material on the small command pod. Is FAR decreasing the heating I am getting? because that seems a bit low. Stock size kerbin.

From what I understand, the latest versions of FAR increase supersonic drag in the upper atmosphere. Kerbin's atmosphere at its boundary is close to what Earth's is at that altitude except that with Earth you have another 61 kilometers in which to experience heating. And your lower Kerbin reentry velocity already means you're not getting much heating before serious deceleration occurs.

You don't say which version you're using or what difficulty setting, but another factor is that the settings for Hard Mode in the latest official aren't very hot for stock Kerbin. And the latest beta is still, well, beta.

For the latest official version, download this file

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Starwaster/DeadlyReentry/master/DeadlyReentry/HardSettings.cfg

And copy it over the HardSettings.cfg file in the DeadlyReentry folder.

[stevehead]

I'm currently using FAR with DRE and I've noticed with the recent version (or two, not sure which version started this) that my ascent profile needs to be quite a bit more steep to prevent my rocket from getting pretty toasty on the way up. I wrote a kOS script for automating launches in FAR that has worked perfectly fine with DRE for months (until now) using polynomial regression to manage pitch as a function of airspeed from pre-selected pitch and speed points; may not be the most perfect script, but it has worked quite well at keeping my orientation very near the velocity vector while having an ascent profile that is neither too steep nor too shallow:

--airspeed-- --pitch--

~60-70 m/s 85deg

~250 m/s 67.5deg

~500 m/s 45deg (usually around 12km altitude)

~800 m/s 22.5deg

I'm usually completely horizontal between 36-40km up (going around 1200 m/s or so), and hit a 100km apoapsis around 45-50km up. At this point my dV losses due to drag is very minimal. Circularization burn is around 100 m/s dV. My first stage initial TWR is usually between 1.2 and 1.5 and usually ends with ~2.7.

But now to prevent the temperature rising and heating FX, I have to go much steeper, being only at 45deg at 800 m/s, and hitting a 100km apoapsis at 25deg; my circularization burn is as much as 900 m/s.

I don't know if it is something I am doing wrong, if there is some issue with DRE making the atmospheric density too high for FAR, or some other problem. Any help/advice is appreciated. I would hate to have to drop DRE from my install.

[Nansuchao]

Hi, I have a problem with DRE. I use many mods, but mainly parts, just Far and Interstellar as plugins. Everytime I launch a ship, Rocket or SSTO, in a few seconds the engine get overheated... I cannot leave the Runway, or accellerare more than 5/6 seconds from the Launch Pad that my engine went burning... Is that a problem with beta version?

[Starwaster]

I'm currently using FAR with DRE and I've noticed with the recent version (or two, not sure which version started this) that my ascent profile needs to be quite a bit more steep to prevent my rocket from getting pretty toasty on the way up. I wrote a kOS script for automating launches in FAR that has worked perfectly fine with DRE for months (until now) using polynomial regression to manage pitch as a function of airspeed from pre-selected pitch and speed points; may not be the most perfect script, but it has worked quite well at keeping my orientation very near the velocity vector while having an ascent profile that is neither too steep nor too shallow:

--airspeed-- --pitch--

~60-70 m/s 85deg

~250 m/s 67.5deg

~500 m/s 45deg (usually around 12km altitude)

~800 m/s 22.5deg

I'm usually completely horizontal between 36-40km up (going around 1200 m/s or so), and hit a 100km apoapsis around 45-50km up. At this point my dV losses due to drag is very minimal. Circularization burn is around 100 m/s dV. My first stage initial TWR is usually between 1.2 and 1.5 and usually ends with ~2.7.

But now to prevent the temperature rising and heating FX, I have to go much steeper, being only at 45deg at 800 m/s, and hitting a 100km apoapsis at 25deg; my circularization burn is as much as 900 m/s.

I don't know if it is something I am doing wrong, if there is some issue with DRE making the atmospheric density too high for FAR, or some other problem. Any help/advice is appreciated. I would hate to have to drop DRE from my install.

I'd try the beta (6.5.2)

It uses a completely different model. Ascent heating is a little kinder.

But it is beta and I'm still working out specific settings. I forget what the defaults even are right now, but if you're using RSS then you should try (in the debug menu, which is accessible only in Flight from the toolbar menu) setting the first 5 items to 1.

(except that multiplier might need to be increased by as much as 8.33 to counteract stock dissipation values which dissipate heat too quickly)

Hi, I have a problem with DRE. I use many mods, but mainly parts, just Far and Interstellar as plugins. Everytime I launch a ship, Rocket or SSTO, in a few seconds the engine get overheated... I cannot leave the Runway, or accellerare more than 5/6 seconds from the Launch Pad that my engine went burning... Is that a problem with beta version?

Make sure you have the latest beta. If you DO have that problem using the latest beta then one of your other mods is involved with that problem. My engines don't overheat so quickly. (DO expect some overheating but it's gradual and you'll probably be jettisoning the engine before it gets critical enough to throttle down. Or in the case of space plane, probably be in orbit by then)

[Nansuchao]

Make sure you have the latest beta. If you DO have that problem using the latest beta then one of your other mods is involved with that problem. My engines don't overheat so quickly. (DO expect some overheating but it's gradual and you'll probably be jettisoning the engine before it gets critical enough to throttle down. Or in the case of space plane, probably be in orbit by then)

Thanks. I have the la test beta, so you're probably right. I have to throttle down immediately.

I'll reinstall KSP and see what's wrong...

[Starwaster]

Thanks. I have the la test beta, so you're probably right. I have to throttle down immediately.

I'll reinstall KSP and see what's wrong...

Or start uninstalling mods one at a time until you find out which one is doing it.

Or if you are going to reinstall KSP then install mods one at a time...

[NathanKell]

Interstellar demands you put precoolers before SABREs/RAPIERs or they overheat and die. Try without Interstellar and see if the problem persists.