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

[Starwaster]

1 hour ago, fanelli said:

is there something I'm suppose to do to deadly re entry when using it for RSS and RO mod?  Cause I read in a couple post like on page 1, but unsure what it means.  I got it with ckan but then used Nathan kells updated config on the page 200 to fix the errors with module manager (at least I think that's what it was for).  Did that possibly break RSS, am I suppose to change something for it specifically?

 

thank you for anyone's time in replying.

Everything on page 1 is from 3 years ago, with the exception of the first post which I keep up to date with current information.

I have no idea what NathanKell configs you are talking about; there are no posts by him on page 200. (which is the page you posted on)

[national-holiday]

On 6/5/2016 at 4:46 PM, Synthesis said:

Sorry, I was just speaking from my own experience--removing DR immediately caused KIS to work again. DR's own functions were working fine, by contrast.

Thank you for sharing this, the same worked for me.

[MaverickNoob]

What do I need to do, in order to provide the information necessary to address these errors?

Edited June 7, 2016 by MaverickNoob

[Starwaster]

3 hours ago, MaverickNoob said:

What do I need to do, in order to provide the information necessary to address these errors?

 

 

[MaverickNoob]

8 hours ago, Starwaster said:

 

Thank you, for the work around. But, say this work around did not exist, and this was a "new" "bug," what is the procedure to provide dev with information needed?

[Starwaster]

2 hours ago, MaverickNoob said:

Thank you, for the work around. But, say this work around did not exist, and this was a "new" "bug," what is the procedure to provide dev with information needed?

Log files are useful things to provide. Preferably hosted on Dropbox just because a Dropbox account is incredibly useful to you to have and you'll thank me later for getting one if you don't already have one.

output_log.txt (in either KSP_Data or KSP_x64_Data depending on if 32 or 64 bit) combined with ModuleManager.ConfigCache (in Gamedata folder)

And a  description of how to repro the problem.

[eightiesboi]

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 9:13 AM, national-holiday said:

Thank you for sharing this, the same worked for me.

I had the same problem and it is (apparently) related to an interaction between certain mods which includes DRE and KIS (I don't use the other mod implicated); however, it does *not* appear to be a DRE issue, but rather a KIS one. If you go here:

and use the indicated patch, the problem goes away without having to give up on all the DRE goodness. And I (for one) won't play KSP without DRE!

 

[Starwaster]

Minor update:

Deadly Reentry 7.4.5.1

• Don't delete leaveTemp. (causes errors in latest versions of Module Manager)
• Changes to vernier thermals. (increased survivability of the Vernor RCS part)

I don't usually do updates for changes of this magnitude but I don't think there will be another update going out until KSP 1.1.3 and the leaveTemp config causes problems like no MM cache being written so I'm getting it out of the way now.

The DLL has not changed or been recompiled so the version number will not change.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Starwaster

[RadarEclipse]

3 hours ago, Starwaster said:

Minor update:

Deadly Reentry 7.4.5.1

• Don't delete leaveTemp. (causes errors in latest versions of Module Manager)
• Changes to vernier thermals. (increased survivability of the Vernor RCS part)

I don't usually do updates for changes of this magnitude but I don't think there will be another update going out until KSP 1.1.3 and the leaveTemp config causes problems like no MM cache being written so I'm getting it out of the way now.

The DLL has not changed or been recompiled so the version number will not change.

It's a tiny thing, but the .zip is labeled as 7.4.6 instead of 7.4.5.1.

[Starwaster]

1 hour ago, RadarEclipse said:

It's a tiny thing, but the .zip is labeled as 7.4.6 instead of 7.4.5.1.

Ooops I thought I fixed that. It was a last minute versioning change. It's safe to ignore but I'll fix it.

[Climberfx]

On 1.1.2 i don't need deadly reentry because it burns all engines in normal stock reentry. Even the smooth ones...

[kcs123]

1 hour ago, Climberfx said:

On 1.1.2 i don't need deadly reentry because it burns all engines in normal stock reentry. Even the smooth ones...

Deadly Reentry is not only burning effect, although it is improved version of stock. From the OP:

On 03.08.2013. at 0:48 PM, Starwaster said:

What Deadly Reentry does!

(especially with KSP's new handling of thermodynamics)

• Deadly Reentry balances part thermal properties (max temp values of skin and internal as well as various conduction properties: skin-skin, skin-internal, emission, etc)
• If parts get too hot then they may catch fire. (or begin to melt; depends on if they are logically flammable or not). This begins to happen at 85% of its max temp. Some parts have had their max temp increased to compensate. Basically, think of the 85% mark as being a soft failure point leading to hard failure.
• Parts and Kerbals that experience excessive G forces for excessive periods of time may fail/die.

Besides burning, you have also need to watch for extreme G forces, you need to slowdown smoothly and with less breaking force (airbrakes/engines/parachutes/air drag) to avoid Kerbals being killed.

But, yes, stock heating system is much improved, so you might not even need deadly reentry if it is too chalanging and produce conflict here and there with some other mods.

[Climberfx]

KCS123, i did not tell that because DR is superfluous, besides that.

I was telling that Stock KSP is too sensitive and already explode what was made to survive the reentry...

I love DR.

[Starwaster]

3 hours ago, Climberfx said:

On 1.1.2 i don't need deadly reentry because it burns all engines in normal stock reentry. Even the smooth ones...

Well good for you. The rest of us still think it's a little tame in stock and needs to be made a little harsher.

[Climberfx]

It upsets me to see the rocket blowing up the part of the engine, which is designed to withstand high temperatures on reentry in Kerbin. This is nonsense (in the case of stock)

Besides that, i like the hardness off DR.

[Starwaster]

22 minutes ago, Climberfx said:

It upsets me to see the rocket blowing up the part of the engine, which is designed to withstand high temperatures on reentry in Kerbin. This is nonsense (in the case of stock)

Besides that, i like the hardness off DR.

Real life rocket engines are not designed to withstand reentry. They must be shielded or situated so as to not be exposed.

They do not make good heat shields which is why Deadly Reentry brings rocket max temps to within sane values

And just in case someone feels like mentioning Space X first stage reentry, it uses its engines to slow itself enough to be able to survive reentry. Otherwise it would burn up. Engines don't really make good heat shields. Another thing that helps is that it's not having to deal with reentry from full orbital velocity. Falcon 9 only has 20% of the velocity that something would have coming in from LEO.

[Climberfx]

30 minutes ago, Starwaster said:

Real life rocket engines are not designed to withstand reentry. They must be shielded or situated so as to not be exposed.

They do not make good heat shields which is why Deadly Reentry brings rocket max temps to within sane values

And just in case someone feels like mentioning Space X first stage reentry, it uses its engines to slow itself enough to be able to survive reentry. Otherwise it would burn up. Engines don't really make good heat shields. Another thing that helps is that it's not having to deal with reentry from full orbital velocity.

Tell this to Elon Musk Falcon nine man. They do it almost every flight. I know, it is not on the terminal velocity, but half. and in half, in KSP it still explodes...

Edited June 25, 2016 by Climberfx

[Starwaster]

8 minutes ago, Climberfx said:

Tell this to Elon Musk Falcon nine man. They do it almost every flight. I know, it is not on the terminal velocity, but half. and in half, in KSP it still explodes...

Terminal velocity is irrelevant. And you apparently didn't read or didn't fully comprehend what I said. The Falcon 9 WOULD burn up if it did not use retropropulsion to slow itself to safe speeds. That is a fact borne out by early Falcon 9 stages that DID burn up before they started employing retropropulsion to slow the stage down to safe speeds. That's why the first stage survives reentry. Not because its engines are heat resistant. They do not make good heat shields. The heavier components would probably survive but the engine itself  would be trashed 

[Climberfx]

30 minutes ago, Starwaster said:

Terminal velocity is irrelevant. And you apparently didn't read or didn't fully comprehend what I said. The Falcon 9 WOULD burn up if it did not use retropropulsion to slow itself to safe speeds. That is a fact borne out by early Falcon 9 stages that DID burn up before they started employing retropropulsion to slow the stage down to safe speeds. That's why the first stage survives reentry. Not because its engines are heat resistant. They do not make good heat shields. The heavier components would probably survive but the engine itself  would be trashed 

 

I know that man, i watch every launch and return. What i don't know is how much it slow down. To what speed.

I try that try too. I did the slow down in two ways.

One, that resolve the head (but i thing is because a bug, or a non realistic cool effect, when the engine is on, stock telling)is to have the engine on in 1% of power, so, that way the speed goes down slowly, from around 55km high until near 10 km.

Other was to burn full power (or almost) on the moment it start to show the temp bar., slow it to half speed, like 1250 m/s. But that way it still burn and explode some time latter. I thing that is a bit odd.

 

p.s.: Sorry to bother you with this off topic comments. Was only to be a outflow! cheers

Edited June 25, 2016 by Climberfx

[Starwaster]

1 minute ago, Climberfx said:

 

I know that man, i watch every launch and return. What i don't know is how much it slow down. To what speed.

I try that try too. I did the slow down in two ways.

One, that resolve the head (but i thing is because a bug, or a non realistic cool effect, when the engine is on, stock telling)is to have the engine on in 1% of power, so, that way the speed goes down slowly, from around 55km high until near 10 km.

Other was to burn full power (or almost) on the moment it start to show the temp bar., slow it to half speed, like 1250 m/s. But that way it still burn and explode some time latter. I thing that is a bit odd.

That's still nearly Mach 4. You need to slow down much more than that.

[yaume]

Hi,

I'm using deadly reentry with RO and I can't get my small probe to reenter.

I'm in orbit, with a perigee and apogee of ~170km each. My probe consists of the able avionics package, the mk16 parachute on top and the 1.5m heatshield on the bottom and that's it. To re-enter, I decrease my perigee to 90km (I tried -400k, 60k, 70k, ..., 100k), but the 113 units of ablator get consumed before I reach 65km and I explode.

There must be something wrong, right ?

Should I decrease the heat multiplier? If yes, were to find it? I'm on a Mac so key binding might differ

Thanks

[Starwaster]

34 minutes ago, yaume said:

Hi,

I'm using deadly reentry with RO and I can't get my small probe to reenter.

I'm in orbit, with a perigee and apogee of ~170km each. My probe consists of the able avionics package, the mk16 parachute on top and the 1.5m heatshield on the bottom and that's it. To re-enter, I decrease my perigee to 90km (I tried -400k, 60k, 70k, ..., 100k), but the 113 units of ablator get consumed before I reach 65km and I explode.

There must be something wrong, right ?

Should I decrease the heat multiplier? If yes, were to find it? I'm on a Mac so key binding might differ

Thanks

It sounds like the heat shield is not properly configured but I need more information here. 

Like what version of KSP and Deadly Reentry.  

If you can put your ModuleManager.ConfigCache up for download (Dropbox is a good site for that) and post the link and tell me what the name or title of the shield is, that might help me figure out what's going wrong. 

[Nakedchef]

Not a bug just pilot error.

Hi,

I may have encountered a bug (there is as always the possibility that the error is on my side), but as it is reentry related I thought posting it could not hurt.

 

I build a spaceplane and have trouble reentering. For the most part I used stock Mk2 parts. The problem is that the Mk2 cockpit has a nasty habit of melting.

 

To make it a bit more clear what I mean I put 2 identical copies of the same craft in a 200km orbit and reduced the periapsis to 35km (I tried many different values as well). The only difference between the 2 ships is that one has a Mk2 cockpit and the other doesn't (See screenshots). The one without cockpit has no problem reentering whatsoever.

On the other hand, if I put a Mk2 cockpit in front it just explodes at about 45 km height and the rest of the craft continues on its trajectory.

On both crafts the inital orbital conditions where the same. Also I did not make any steering inputs at all. Just pointed them prograde and watched.

Screenshot 1 (Plane without cockpit, works fine.)

 

 

Screenshot 2 (Plane with cockpit, same initial conditions, screenshot taken a bit before the cockpit explodes)

Greetings

Edited July 1, 2016 by Nakedchef

[kcs123]

11 minutes ago, Nakedchef said:

Just pointed them prograde and watched.

That is exactly main mistake you have made here. I have made similar mistake even with stock heating system.

Instead of prograde, try to maintain high AoA in uper atmosphere, high AoA as much as possible to prevent backfliping. You can either, pitch up, or roll sideway, like you do S turns. It is possible to have high AoA (35-60 degree) down to 50 km. After that do a bit less AoA, up to 15-20, depending of your craft capabilities, again, be careful of backfliping.

Problem is that design with cockpit have much less drag, and because of that, you didn't slow down enough before reaching lower part of atmosphere.

[Nakedchef]

53 minutes ago, kcs123 said:

That is exactly main mistake you have made here. I have made similar mistake even with stock heating system.

Instead of prograde, try to maintain high AoA in uper atmosphere, high AoA as much as possible to prevent backfliping. You can either, pitch up, or roll sideway, like you do S turns. It is possible to have high AoA (35-60 degree) down to 50 km. After that do a bit less AoA, up to 15-20, depending of your craft capabilities, again, be careful of backfliping.

Problem is that design with cockpit have much less drag, and because of that, you didn't slow down enough before reaching lower part of atmosphere.

Thank you.