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

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Hello,

how can I disable the Parachute warning that is getting displayed at high speeds in atmosphere?

[Starwaster]

I'm having a similar issue with NEAR, except that during lower reentry (~20km to 30km) -for some reason- the Mk I Pod intregal shield, the DRE 1.25 m shield and the 1.25 m conical Oblivion shield stop using ablative shielding for a few seconds (~3 to 5) before resuming to use it. That repeats 3 or 4 times per reentry. Higher up (~30km to 35km) the ablative shield will rapidly switch between not being used and having minor usage (~0.03/sec). This is on the Normal DRE setting. Overall, from a 85x30 reentry I'm using ~60 to 80 ablative shield units. Incidentally, a Mk1-2 pod with the included 1000 unit heat shield nearly burned up from a 120x30 decent with ~0.7T extra. In short, DRE is behaving oddly with NEAR since the update to .90.

The only things I think it could be is that DRE is 'cooling' the shield as is ablates or NEAR has messed with something that DRE assumed to be true. As far as I know, both DRE and NEAR are updated on my system. I'll probably switch back to FAR if it isn't having this issue. If more info is needed, I can provide it.

I'm not sure where the fluctuations are from but don't think it's from part cooling. How much to ablate is actually calculated using only the shockwave. Some of the later calculations do involve the part temperature but all of those calculations are used to determine how much incoming heat there is and raise the temperature accordingly. (not really heat in the proper sense, it's fudged)

I don't use FAR or NEAR unless I'm doing targeted DRE testing to see how my changes affect / are affected by those mods. And I see the same fluctuations so it's not that.

SOME of what you are seeing is just how the resource GUI updates and doesn't represent actual fluctuations. Some of it on the other hand is real. Probably.

Hello,

how can I disable the Parachute warning that is getting displayed at high speeds in atmosphere?

You can't at this time.

A later update will make that possible but I have no ETA on when that is going to happen.

[oktav]

Perhaps a FAR/NEAR button?

Easy, Normal, Hard, FAR/NEAR configurations would be nice, at least it would cause less headaches to configure it

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

You can't at this time.

A later update will make that possible but I have no ETA on when that is going to happen.

Too bad. That means i have to switch back to an older version of DR for my recordings.

Edit:

In my opinion it would be more subtle to just put a red -light into the DR Button on the Top-Left of the screen when it is unsafe to open parachutes instead of the current text.

Edited January 5, 2015 by MalfunctionM1Ke

[Starwaster]

Thank you for your opinion.

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Thank you for your opinion.

I hope I didnt offend you with it.

Truly, I honor the effort you guys put into the mods and the community.

[Starwaster]

I hope I didnt offend you with it.

Truly, I honor the effort you guys put into the mods and the community.

No I meant it, whether I agree or not I welcome feedback.

[Hektos]

Is there any way to make the nodes on the heat shields farther apart. As they are now, they are almost impossible to place properly

Unless I'm doing something wrong? Every time I try to attach them, they attach via the bottom node instead of the top node :/

[Starwaster]

Is there any way to make the nodes on the heat shields farther apart. As they are now, they are almost impossible to place properly

Unless I'm doing something wrong? Every time I try to attach them, they attach via the bottom node instead of the top node :/

If they were further apart then one side wouldn't fit snugly. I know it can be tough sometimes placing things with very close nodes but it's far from impossible, you just need a steady hand.

[somnambulist]

If they were further apart then one side wouldn't fit snugly. I know it can be tough sometimes placing things with very close nodes but it's far from impossible, you just need a steady hand.

Hey isn't there a mod that resizes nodes in the VAB for easier attachment of parts with closely spaced nodes? Seriously though is NodeResizer working in .90?

[Hektos]

If they were further apart then one side wouldn't fit snugly. I know it can be tough sometimes placing things with very close nodes but it's far from impossible, you just need a steady hand.

With all due respect (and I really do appreciate you maintaining DRE), but isn't that what the offset tool is for now?

I understand if this is something you do not wish to change though.

But as it is now, heat shields are sooo frustrating to put on. Is there some sort of "trick" I don't know about?

[Gryphon]

Is there some sort of "trick" I don't know about?

Any thin part can get attached the less-desirable way in the editor. For instance, it's easy to put an OCTO2 inside the part it's attached to. I use three methods to help avoid this:

1. Adjust Camera Angle: be off to the side, not directly above or below the work face.

2. Zoom In: Put the camera near to the work face.

3. Drag THEN Drop: When you are placing the part, don't clicky the mouse until you are sure it's going to attach properly. (This is easier after doing #1 and #2.)

Also, keep in mind that Command Pod Mk1 has a heat shield built in, but Mk1-2 Command Pod does not.

Please let me know if this works better for you.

[Starwaster]

With all due respect (and I really do appreciate you maintaining DRE), but isn't that what the offset tool is for now?

I understand if this is something you do not wish to change though.

Sorry, you're right: I don't agree that making that change is for the best. That solution would force everyone to have to use the offset tool to move the shield back into position regardless of whether they themselves were having trouble with it.

[Jacke]

Is there any way to make the nodes on the heat shields farther apart. As they are now, they are almost impossible to place properly

Unless I'm doing something wrong? Every time I try to attach them, they attach via the bottom node instead of the top node :/

I find the misattachment of vertically near nodes more of a problem on a thin BTSM battery (the POT-360 Elite) than with heatshields.

The trick to making them seat properly is when holding the new thin part to slowly raise it towards the bottom of the rocket so far (where it's supposed to attach) until you get the first (and correct) attachment and the part goes green. Release the mouse button then. If you're still having problems, raise the rocket in the VAB and lower your point of view to just below the bottom so far.

[Hektos]

Please let me know if this works better for you.

I find the misattachment of vertically near nodes more of a problem on a thin BTSM battery (the POT-360 Elite) than with heatshields.

The trick to making them seat properly is when holding the new thin part to slowly raise it towards the bottom of the rocket so far (where it's supposed to attach) until you get the first (and correct) attachment and the part goes green. Release the mouse button then. If you're still having problems, raise the rocket in the VAB and lower your point of view to just below the bottom so far.

Yes thank you both of you, the "drag and drop" method did help nicely. Still a total PITA but at least more doable than it was before.

I appreciate the assistance.

[MartGonzo]

Is there something different about the linear 7 place anywhere RCS ports?

Every time I re-enter, regardless of aerobraking maneuvers I lose the linear 7 rcs ports and JSI hullcams all the other parts are fine including the more prominent multidirectional rcs ports, they survive just fine, but all the linear ports burn up.

[Tahib]

I'm curious, is there something in the code that want to turn any vessel to Retrograde when equipped with the Inflatable Heatshield? Sometimes i try to stick it on the top, but i find it very difficult to keep rockets staying prograde at reentry. Adding winglets and rcs at the end does help a bit, but they still try to flip retrograde. added image for clarification, seconds before flip.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[taniwha]

Tahib: it's drag that is flipping you. Your vessel is not aerodynamically stable in that configuration. You need some fins.

[Starwaster]

Is there something different about the linear 7 place anywhere RCS ports?

Every time I re-enter, regardless of aerobraking maneuvers I lose the linear 7 rcs ports and JSI hullcams all the other parts are fine including the more prominent multidirectional rcs ports, they survive just fine, but all the linear ports burn up.

It's more unusual that the quads aren't burning up. None of those RCS ports are shielded. If they are exposed to the airstream then they can burn up.

Same for the hullcams I suppose, but I'm not familiar with those parts. But DRE doesn't do anything in particular with them.

I'm curious, is there something in the code that want to turn any vessel to Retrograde when equipped with the Inflatable Heatshield? Sometimes i try to stick it on the top, but i find it very difficult to keep rockets staying prograde at reentry. Adding winglets and rcs at the end does help a bit, but they still try to flip retrograde. added image for clarification, seconds before flip.

What Taniwha said, but also, the inflatable isn't just a high drag part, it's also very lightweight. Changes have been made to it over the past year, but the last few KSP updates seem to have made it harder to keep stable.

I notice that you are not running the latest version of DRE.

Even if you don't want to update, you should still grab the part config file for the inflatable. It might help a little. (I moved its CoM back a bit, which should move its Unity rigidbody back as well.. That in turn moves the drag point closer to the rest of the vehicle. Not that will help that particular design though)

In fact, grab these three files: (the second two take the place of the existing DeadlyReentry.cfg file)

inflatable heat shield part.cfg (replaces DeadlyReentry/Parts/deadlyReentry_6.25Heatshield/part.cfg)

DeadlyReentry.cfg (replaces DeadlyReentry/DeadlyReentry.cfg)

DefaultSettings.cfg (goes in DeadlyReentry)

So, the result of that will be to add lead ballast to the inflatable shield. By default it will have 0 ballast. Try adding some and see if that stabilizes things a little. No guarantees; it's experimental. The inflatable has long been a thorn in my side and probably will still be one for awhile to come

[arachnidan]

I'm curious, is there something in the code that want to turn any vessel to Retrograde when equipped with the Inflatable Heatshield? Sometimes i try to stick it on the top, but i find it very difficult to keep rockets staying prograde at reentry. Adding winglets and rcs at the end does help a bit, but they still try to flip retrograde. added image for clarification, seconds before flip.

http://imgur.com/a/cN6G8

I think your design is much heavier towards the engine, especially with the fuel tank empty, which will flip the rocket retrograde.

[HerrGeneral]

What's the g-force tolerance on parts such as the OKTO-2? My SRBs are exploding my parts... granted, said SRBs have a TWR of like 300, but I'm curious how high I can go without blowing up my craft.

[Starwaster]

What's the g-force tolerance on parts such as the OKTO-2? My SRBs are exploding my parts... granted, said SRBs have a TWR of like 300, but I'm curious how high I can go without blowing up my craft.

It's based on the part's crashTolerance * (random multiplier based on engine / non-engine) raised to pow of 0.5. The result is added as damage if it's less than the current g-forces experienced. If damage goes over 1 then the part is destroyed.

Not entirely realistic but it works. Except that IMO, smaller parts should get a bonus on their g-force tolerance. I don't think something like Stardust would work in KSP. (Stardust experienced peak forces of 34g and was designed to withstand up to 40g)

[bac9]

@Starwasher, is it possible to implement slightly more complex shielding definition than the current one?

Right now shielding direction is defined by a single Vector3:

	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleHeatShield
		direction = 0, 1, 0
		reflective = 0.5
	}

It's workable for vast majority of parts, but unfortunately, not for something like this:

When users have an option to separately select the shielding on top, bottom, leading and trailing surfaces of the wing, one direction can not adequately describe the shielding of a wing. I propose a few alternative models:

A. Six floats or two Vector3 values, representing reflection multipliers on X+/X-/Y+/Y-/Z+/Z- directions. Instead of evaluating the difference between reentry direction and orientation of an old vector, you can interpolate between those six values on a sphere, finding exact shielding multiplier for a given arbitrary vector. Not very precise for very complex shapes, but still covers 99% of cases, including parts with shields on multiple vectors, like my wings. Let's say we have a wing with a leading edge covered with RCC, topside and trailing edge covered with LRSI tiles and underside covered with HRSI tiles. The config would look like this:

	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleHeatShield
                reflective = 0.5;
		multiplierOnXPos = 0;    // cross section, no shielding
                multiplierOnXNeg = 0;    // cross section, no shielding
		multiplierOnYPos = 1;    // leading edge, RCC, highest shielding
                multiplierOnYNeg = 0.25; // trailing edge, LRSI, low shielding
		multiplierOnZPos = 0.25; // topside, LRSI, low shielding
                multiplierOnZNeg = 0.75; // underside, HRSI, high shielding
	}

B. Array of arbitrary Vector3 and multiplier pairs. The most precise way, allowing to correctly describe even very complex shapes with varied degrees of shielding. Instead of evaluating the difference between reentry direction and orientation of an old vector, you can find the value of shielding at a given vector by averaging contributions from array vectors weighted by their relative placement on a sphere relative to the vector you're checking. Closest vector-value pairs contribute more, ones at 180 degrees from evaluated vector and further contribute nothing, vector-value pairs in between contribute to an appropriate degree. This allows you to describe anything: for example, shovel-shaped shielded parts like lander from Interstellar or OPT cockpit, space shuttle nose cones with their intricate distribution of various materials facing various vectors, hemispherical shields and so on. Here an example of possible syntax:

	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleHeatShield
                reflective = 0.5;
		velocityCurve
		{
            		0,    1,    0,    1
                        0.25, 1,    0,    0.25
                        0.5,  1,    0,    0.65
                        // and so on, just random sample here
		}
	}

[Nartainpower]

is there a way to change the speed at which certain parachutes auto-fail? i'm using Realchutes and it seems kinda weird to have to wait till i'm below 350 m/s to deploy the drogues which by that time seems pointless?

is there any config i can change to allow for example, drogues to deploy safely at high speeds but not main chutes?

thanks

[Starwaster]

@Starwasher, is it possible to implement slightly more complex shielding definition than the current one?

Right now shielding direction is defined by a single Vector3:

{
name = ModuleHeatShield
direction = 0, 1, 0
reflective = 0.5
}

    MODULE

It's workable for vast majority of parts, but unfortunately, not for something like this:

http://i.imgur.com/4Md1LP0l.jpg

When users have an option to separately select the shielding on top, bottom, leading and trailing surfaces of the wing, one direction can not adequately describe the shielding of a wing. I propose a few alternative models:

A. Six floats or two Vector3 values, representing reflection multipliers on X+/X-/Y+/Y-/Z+/Z- directions. Instead of evaluating the difference between reentry direction and orientation of an old vector, you can interpolate between those six values on a sphere, finding exact shielding multiplier for a given arbitrary vector. Not very precise for very complex shapes, but still covers 99% of cases, including parts with shields on multiple vectors, like my wings. Let's say we have a wing with a leading edge covered with RCC, topside and trailing edge covered with LRSI tiles and underside covered with HRSI tiles. The config would look like this:

{
name = ModuleHeatShield
reflective = 0.5;
multiplierOnXPos = 0; // cross section, no shielding
multiplierOnXNeg = 0; // cross section, no shielding
multiplierOnYPos = 1; // leading edge, RCC, highest shielding
multiplierOnYNeg = 0.25; // trailing edge, LRSI, low shielding
multiplierOnZPos = 0.25; // topside, LRSI, low shielding
multiplierOnZNeg = 0.75; // underside, HRSI, high shielding
}

    MODULE

B. Array of arbitrary Vector3 and multiplier pairs. The most precise way, allowing to correctly describe even very complex shapes with varied degrees of shielding. Instead of evaluating the difference between reentry direction and orientation of an old vector, you can find the value of shielding at a given vector by averaging contributions from array vectors weighted by their relative placement on a sphere relative to the vector you're checking. Closest vector-value pairs contribute more, ones at 180 degrees from evaluated vector and further contribute nothing, vector-value pairs in between contribute to an appropriate degree. This allows you to describe anything: for example, shovel-shaped shielded parts like lander from Interstellar or OPT cockpit, space shuttle nose cones with their intricate distribution of various materials facing various vectors, hemispherical shields and so on. Here an example of possible syntax:

{
name = ModuleHeatShield
reflective = 0.5;
velocityCurve
{
0, 1, 0, 1
0.25, 1, 0, 0.25
0.5, 1, 0, 0.65
// and so on, just random sample here
}
}

    MODULE

No idea who this 'Starwasher' person is that people keep seeing. (must be some kind of mass hallucination. Poor devils )

Honestly, I'm not sure right now how to achieve what you're after because there's a certain problem to overcome concerning wings placed in symmetry mode.

Is that how your wings are placed? If so, problem: Wings are rotated and not mirrored in symmetry mode. The y vector points up on one side and down on the other.

That's why, historically, we deal with wings by giving them 360 degree coverage. (except for certain parts packs where each side is represented by a separate discrete wing part)

is there a way to change the speed at which certain parachutes auto-fail? i'm using Realchutes and it seems kinda weird to have to wait till i'm below 350 m/s to deploy the drogues which by that time seems pointless?

is there any config i can change to allow for example, drogues to deploy safely at high speeds but not main chutes?

thanks

For those who don't want to get used to how chutes work in real life (i.e. destroyed because they got opened at excessive velocities) there is always the option of opening the DRE settings and then from there accessing the debug menu. Increase the parachute part multiplier. Keep increasing it until it lets you open the chute at a velocity that makes you happy.