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

[Starwaster]

The problem is with this pod. (I sent it to Eeloo - landing on surface and back to Kerbin.)

http://i.imgur.com/BJGW5Ltm.jpg

It's not problem with docking port because after I removed them the problem still is.

btw. I'm using BTSM + Deadly Reentry.

craft file if you need: http://www./download/658jhccat13yao8/Pod+6_25m+heatshield.craft

Why do you have the docking port though? The shield can be jettisoned

[Luten]

Why? Because this:

Red - Lander

Green - Mothership

I think that's explain all

Anyway I pressed that button call jettison but nothing happend. Maybe I use it wrong or I don't know how to use it The only thing what I can do with that heatshield is open and close. Here I would like to mention one issues. Always when I try to launch rocket I have got open that heatshield. What's is wrong? It is also happen when i use F5 to quick save and then F9 to load or just choose ship from list in tracking sation and click fly. Always the same result - open heatsield.

Edit:

It's weird I delivered just a moment ago my rover on Eve surface. Of course I used 6.25m heatshield with sock part.cfg (CoMOffset = 0.0, 3.0, 0.0) and there wasn't any problem with stability. Maybe before it was too light weight of pod for this heatshield but I think for future possible stability problems CoMOffset should be change for CoMOffset = 0.0, -1.2, 0.0. The center of mass should be on the bottom not on top. Just like for the other heatshields.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Luten

[Starwaster]

Anyway I pressed that button call jettison but nothing happend. Maybe I use it wrong or I don't know how to use it The only thing what I can do with that heatshield is open and close. Here I would like to mention one issues. Always when I try to launch rocket I have got open that heatshield. What's is wrong? It is also happen when i use F5 to quick save and then F9 to load or just choose ship from list in tracking sation and click fly. Always the same result - open heatsield.

Sorry, jettison was the wrong word for me to use. I should have said decouple. There's a decouple button and it can also be decoupled by staging. The jettison button has to do with the fairing and it works the same as an engine fairing. (which for all practical purposes means that you very rarely, if ever, need it)

BTW: Anyone using the alternate heating model setting might want to go check the crew g-force settings. I must have used the Hard presets as a template because I've just noticed that warning level and kill levels are half what they would be in Default. So if you were finding that your crew were turning into a thin red paste when you least expected it.... well, that's why.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Starwaster

[stevehead]

IRL, max heating typically occurs somewhere between 60-80km altitude. 6.4x is closer to Earth than it is to Kerbin so 55km isn't unreasonable as far as altitude goes.

As far as the low temps, I just noticed something peculiar in the RSS config bit that you posted. The entry for useAlternateHeatModel is missing from that config node. Playing around with it, it seems like there's a bug where it's possible for it NOT to write that setting to the custom file. However, that doesn't seem to be impairing it and the game still treats it as enabled. (probably because that's what I set the default to. It has to explicitly encounter it in the settings file as False)

Still, try another reentry right when you're going to hit atmo, open up the DRE menu and make sure (while RSS is enabled of course) that Alternate Heating Model is enabled. (has a green light next to it)

Maybe even disable then enable it again.

Edit: BTW, the graph in that document you cited has the altitude for peak reentry heating all wrong. I don't know if they left off a zero for each of the altitudes but that's the only way Figure 4.1.7-15 makes any sense.

(I'm familiar with that site; I used it to produce DRE's new heating model and I noticed that discrepancy awhile back)

Sorry, been busy IRL. I'll play around with it some more this evening.

[Dolin]

Hello, I'm using KSP 0.90 with RSS, FAR, DRE beta and FASA.

DRE is set on the RSS feature present in the beta version, and I don't get any overheating on launch. However the launch effects still trigger. In general, I feel like those plasma flames come up way too soon (temperature-wise).

Is there a way to tweak their triggering cue?

Thanks a lot

[Starwaster]

Hello, I'm using KSP 0.90 with RSS, FAR, DRE beta and FASA.

DRE is set on the RSS feature present in the beta version, and I don't get any overheating on launch. However the launch effects still trigger. In general, I feel like those plasma flames come up way too soon (temperature-wise).

Is there a way to tweak their triggering cue?

Thanks a lot

Click on the Deadly Reentry icon in the toolbar. Then click 'Open Debugging Menu' and look for FX Density exp.

It's probably set to 0.75. Increase it. Don't increase it past 1.

[Manimal]

I have a curious problem. When I try to enter increased shock numbers my dot key '.' does not work. So instead of '1.12' it reads '112'. I tried to copy and paste which doesn't work and looked up where the dot key is on american keyboards but to no avail.

[Starwaster]

I have a curious problem. When I try to enter increased shock numbers my dot key '.' does not work. So instead of '1.12' it reads '112'. I tried to copy and paste which doesn't work and looked up where the dot key is on american keyboards but to no avail.

It's a known issue and it's caused by the fact that the GUI tries to parse the number on the fly as you type it. 1. doesn't make sense to it and it truncates the decimal.

To work around it, put the cursor in front of whatever number is there and then enter the decimal. (or 'dot')

So if a 1 is there it becomes

0.1

It can be a really bad idea to do this during an actual reentry if you're not careful because very low numbers can be dangerous, such as in the density exponent. (low numbers mean lots of heat at higher altitudes)

I've thought about different ways to handle it but because it's more of a nuisance than a real show stopping bug, it just doesn't seem to me to be worth the effort in dealing with it.

[RainDreamer]

So, I noticed I have some problem with the expandable heatshield too, in that adding lead ballast seem to move the COM *away* instead of closer into the shield.

[Starwaster]

It's because that shield's CoM isn't in the shield itself (which issue was pointed out a few posts ago)

So in essence it's moving the vessel's CoM closer to the shield's CoM.

It'll be fixed next time I update. (which I'm not sure when that's going to be, probably when I take this set of updates out of beta + any bug fixes that might have gone in)

[Manimal]

....

Thanks for the info that did the trick (and I'd never found that solution by myself).

[Maeyanie]

So, I noticed I have some problem with the expandable heatshield too, in that adding lead ballast seem to move the COM *away* instead of closer into the shield.

What you can do to work around it for now is to put a tiny procedural tank just behind the shield, and put the ballast in that instead.

Or, if the geometry allows, do what I've always done, and put the inflatable shields on both ends of the craft. Then it doesn't matter which way around it flips in the atmosphere.

[funk]

I'm not sure where to post it so I try it first in here...

There might be an issue with Near Future Propulsion. Due to cutting maxTemp to ridiculous maxTemp the engine start to burn at +- half of the max thrust. I've read in this thread, that output temp should be reduced as well. So I'm guessing that it isn't reduced. Is this something to mention here or in NFT thread? Or it might be cool to have a boolean variable in cfgs to check if maxtemp reduction should be used.

[Manimal]

Is it posssible to get an explanation what each of the parameters does?

[Starwaster]

I'm not sure where to post it so I try it first in here...

There might be an issue with Near Future Propulsion. Due to cutting maxTemp to ridiculous maxTemp the engine start to burn at +- half of the max thrust. I've read in this thread, that output temp should be reduced as well. So I'm guessing that it isn't reduced. Is this something to mention here or in NFT thread? Or it might be cool to have a boolean variable in cfgs to check if maxtemp reduction should be used.

The latest versions of DRE reduce heat output on any engine that has had its maxTemp reduced. Additionally, if Real Fuels is installed, it also goes through every engine configuration and cuts the heat output in those as well.

If you provide a log (output_log.txt. player.log if Linux/Mac) I'll try to diagnose the problem but it's likely a conflict with NFP and I don't know that I can do anything about that. (I'm not inclined to implement any exemptions for engines in the form of config toggles or other forms)

To the best of my knowledge, that is working properly and as intended and I have not received any reports to the contrary

Is it posssible to get an explanation what each of the parameters does?

There's no document assembled but they've each been talked about at various times in this thread. It has been on my mind to document the various settings but I obviously haven't gotten to that

[Manimal]

Hi Starwaster,

the reason I'm asking is, that in 0.25 I set some values to higher numbers and got some challenging reentries (like 180 of 250 shielding burnt up). entering those values in 0.9 I find the reentries, ehmm unchallenging (about 10 of 250 shielding is gone). So yeah I'm going to up some numbers but without really knowing whats going on I have to resort to trial and error.

[funk]

The latest versions of DRE reduce heat output on any engine that has had its maxTemp reduced. Additionally, if Real Fuels is installed, it also goes through every engine configuration and cuts the heat output in those as well.

If you provide a log (output_log.txt. player.log if Linux/Mac) I'll try to diagnose the problem but it's likely a conflict with NFP and I don't know that I can do anything about that. (I'm not inclined to implement any exemptions for engines in the form of config toggles or other forms)

To the best of my knowledge, that is working properly and as intended and I have not received any reports to the contrary

Yep, when I consider it, I agree, there isn't any need for an exemption... Nevertheless I've tested all engines of NFP and the result is, that the pulsed inductive thrusters are the only ones, which are affected. They start to overheat at ~half thrust. I've found this post in NFP http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/52042-0-90-0-25-Near-Future-Technologies-%28NFPropulsion-0-90%29?p=1760848&viewfull=1#post1760848. May guessing the following module isn't handled by DRE?

MODULE
        {
            name = VariablePowerEngine
            HeatCurve
            {
                key = 0 400
                key = 1 520
            }
            PowerCurve
            {
                key = 0 400
                key = 1 800
            }
            IspCurve
            {
                key = 0 3700
                key = 1 5550
            }

        }

Here you can find the output.log as well as the engine cfgs and a craft file for testing (needs NFP/NFE and PP): https://www.dropbox.com/sh/leh9z1d4u6g6rr0/AABiPZu6dvHll9ZyEAPi1Qw_a?dl=0

[futrtrubl]

That's also a problem with ProcedualParts' SRB since it overrides heat production when scaled.

[Starwaster]

Yep, when I consider it, I agree, there isn't any need for an exemption... Nevertheless I've tested all engines of NFP and the result is, that the pulsed inductive thrusters are the only ones, which are affected. They start to overheat at ~half thrust. I've found this post in NFP http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/52042-0-90-0-25-Near-Future-Technologies-%28NFPropulsion-0-90%29?p=1760848&viewfull=1#post1760848. May guessing the following module isn't handled by DRE?

MODULE
        {
            name = VariablePowerEngine
            HeatCurve
            {
                key = 0 400
                key = 1 520
            }
            PowerCurve
            {
                key = 0 400
                key = 1 800
            }
            IspCurve
            {
                key = 0 3700
                key = 1 5550
            }

        }

Nope, not handled. That makes it pretty obvious without the need for the log. I can't do anything right now but watch this thread tonight and I'll see if I can come up with a solution.

In point of fact, engines are currently handled primarily through a Module Manager patch instead of via the plugin because it was a hassle dealing with Real Fuels/ Modular Fuels engine config nodes which do quite a bit on the fly and I got tired wrestling with reflecting into the class and just wrote up a MM hack.

I can probably do the same for VariablePowerEngine's HeatCurve.

Re: PP SRB: I'll look into it.....

[Wuwuk]

Hello,

tell me how to go from orbit on the space plane.

To what altitude to lower periapsis?

At what angle to enter the atmosphere?

With the "normal" if I enter into the atmosphere in the prograde position,

then burn all RCS thrusters and control surfaces and wing tips.

With the "easy" burn only RCS thrusters and sometimes part of the control surfaces.

[Starwaster]

Hello,

tell me how to go from orbit on the space plane.

To what altitude to lower periapsis?

At what angle to enter the atmosphere?

With the "normal" if I enter into the atmosphere in the prograde position,

then burn all RCS thrusters and control surfaces and wing tips.

With the "easy" burn only RCS thrusters and sometimes part of the control surfaces.

Keep a 45 degree angle

Only put RCS and speedbrakes (if any) on the upper surfaces where they will shielded.

If you use MechJeb then use SmartASS +SVEL (pitch +45) because it's your surface velocity vector that matters here and it will deviate from your orbital vector. (if you're eyeballing it from the navball then switch to surface mode manally when you start reentry)

Edit: @Funk, Fell asleep before finishing my work on a module manager config for NFP's engine. Still working on that.

- - - Updated - - -

@Funk or anyone else using NFP

Edit your EngineHeatAdjuster.cfg file and add this to the end. That should work but obviously I'm not familar with NFP or its VariablePowerEngine workings so let me know if this doesn't.

(note that this patch only assumes a two element HeatCurve, so if there's an engine with more than two curves, this will fail and I'd have to add more key edits in)

@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[VariablePowerEngine]],!MODULE[ModuleHeatShield]]:FINAL
{
	oldMaxTemp = #$maxTemp$
	@maxTemp = 1250
	tempMult = 1250
	@tempMult /= #$oldMaxTemp$

	@MODULE[VariablePowerEngine],*
	{
		@HeatCurve,*
		{
			heat0 = #$key,0[1]$
			heat1 = #$key,1[1]$

			heat0 *= #$/tempMult$
			heat1 *= #$/tempMult$

			@key,0 = #$key,0[0]$,$heat0$
			@key,1 = #$key,1[0]$,$heat1$
		}
	}
}

Edited March 31, 2015 by Starwaster

[Wuwuk]

Keep a 45 degree angle

Only put RCS and speedbrakes (if any) on the upper surfaces where they will shielded.

If you use MechJeb then use SmartASS +SVEL (pitch +45) because it's your surface velocity vector that matters here and it will deviate from your orbital vector. (if you're eyeballing it from the navball then switch to surface mode manally when you start reentry)

Thank you.

I try in the evening.

Another question,

about "inflatable heat shield".

Why is it always at the start of the inflated,

although the button in position "deflated"?

Edited March 31, 2015 by Wuwuk

[Starwaster]

Thank you.

I try in the evening.

Another question,

about "inflatable heat shield".

Why is it always at the start of the inflated,

although the button in position "deflated"?

That happens if you open it in the editor and close it again. Remove it from the craft and put a new one on and don't open it.

[Wuwuk]

That happens if you open it in the editor and close it again. Remove it from the craft and put a new one on and don't open it.

Ok, now I remember.

[Wuwuk]

Keep a 45 degree angle

Only put RCS and speedbrakes (if any) on the upper surfaces where they will shielded.

If you use MechJeb then use SmartASS +SVEL (pitch +45) because it's your surface velocity vector that matters here and it will deviate from your orbital vector. (if you're eyeballing it from the navball then switch to surface mode manally when you start reentry)

I try to 45 degree angle.

On "Normal",

if the angle is 45 degrees,

then burn all wings and engines.