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

[rsparkyc]

3 minutes ago, Starwaster said:

Yeah, I know about that one. Not sure why it's happening. I think that stock KSP might be trying to destroy the part not knowing that I already did so.

OR part.explode is being called multiple times...

Might have to find another way to destroy it. (though if it's the second one then I could designate it internally as having been destroyed or about to be destroyed and then check for that when I go to explode the part)

Cool, I might poke around and see if I can find anything too.

[Starwaster]

2 hours ago, dlrk said:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qid50jqqc8q22c4/output_log.txt?dl=

There ya go

Hmmm still didn't tell me WHY it happened so I installed PP and was able to duplicate it... I have a vague idea of what's causing it but not why. I'll do another release sometime tonight. 

You can fix it before then by downloading this file: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Starwaster/DeadlyReentry/master/DeadlyReentry/DeadlyReentry.cfg

Replace the one that is already in the DeadlyReentry folder.

Can't bring myself to assemble a proper download package right now though. One of our cats, Ariel, just passed away a few minutes ago. She's been in poor health for a long time now but she's always managed to pull out of it, but not this time. We got her as a tiny little orphan kitten. She was found in the middle of the street eating road kill. In fact, we called her that as a nickname. At the time we had an older bottle fed kitten who I was trying to wean. 

(that's how tenacious she was. When he was still drinking out of a bottle in a house, she was living on the streets eating carrion to survive)

Anyway, I'll try to assemble a proper download package later tonight.

[dlrk]

Thanks for the fix!

Sorry to hear about your cat

[Starwaster]

This was Ariel a few years ago

[dlrk]

I just tried the new CFG, no change, same problem

[Starwaster]

9 minutes ago, dlrk said:

I just tried the new CFG, no change, same problem

*Goes into the repository to check the updated file*

*Lots of throwing of breakable objects and swearing*

Re-download and try again. 

[Sol Invictus]

@Starwaster What should I do with following options in advanced difficulty settings: Part Pressure Limits, Part G-Force Limits, Kerbal G-Force Limits? Should they all be disabled if using Deadly Reentry 7.5.0?

Please accept my deepest condolences. I can't imagine what you must be going through. I would die if something ever happened to my cat.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Sol Invictus

[rsparkyc]

So sorry to hear about Ariel. I remember when we had to put our cat down (Her name was Bella, until we found out that She was actually a He.  He was then renamed to Almond Joy (AJ for short), because "Almond Joys have nuts...").  He got hit by something in the street, and we had to take him to the vet at around midnight to be put down.  My daughter was probably 3 at the time, and she still talk about him (even though it's been about 2 years)

"The Ariel Edition" sounds like a good name for the next release name.

Edited January 10, 2017 by rsparkyc

[kcs123]

17 hours ago, Starwaster said:

This was Ariel a few years ago

At the moment, I was confused, where Ariel is on that picture. I was expecting something like this:

Then I was figured out that is about cat. I'm sorry, about your loss, but I laught on my own stupidity here.

[Starwaster]

Thanks guys. Yeah it's a little rough right now. She'd had little crisises in the past where I thought we would lose her. So while I wasn't entirely surprised I had still thought she might pull out. 

@Sol Invictus

for now leave them enabled. Most don't really conflict. Kerbal G limits only affects 'blackout' and works well with DRE. Part g limits is the only one with potential to conflict but so far my experience is that it is set too high by default to be an issue. Same with pressure limits really. 

I will be looking out for feedback on all of those however and at some point may introduce configs to tweak some of them as we do for temps

[dlrk]

Works now, out of curiosity, what was the problem?

[Starwaster]

35 minutes ago, dlrk said:

Works now, out of curiosity, what was the problem?

Still not really sure as the actual error was occurring in Squad's code when it walks over the part's module list when Procedural Parts was checking for the existence of certain modules. Since it only happened when DRE was installed I acted on a hunch that it might have to do with the fallback method that we use to add ModuleAeroReentry. A method which has been safe until now and that I would prefer to keep using because the alternative is to do it in a :FINAL call which I try to avoid doing. (:FINAL should not be used by modders; it's for players to make MM tweaks after all mod patches have been applied)

[Clinton]

I've been playing the 1.2 dev version of deadly reentry, but I've noticed the landing struts have a maximum skin temperature of 1073K, which results in them melting on reentry for me. Is this intended? Is there an effective way to shield them?

Perhaps the landing struts should be instead 1073/2000 (internal/skin) instead of 1073/1073. I don't understand why landing struts should be less less heat resistant than say fuel tanks. They're just bits of metal. If anything they should be more heat resistant as they don't contain explosive stuff like rocket fuel. 

It's worth noting that the aircraft landing gears are 1073/2706 (internal/skin). Admittedly, they're retractable but the struts are just metal anyway. Perhaps that's what the limits for landing struts should be too? 

Edited January 12, 2017 by Clinton

[Phineas Freak]

1 hour ago, Clinton said:

They're just bits of metal.

I will probably take it too far but almost nothing is just "bits of metal", not even propellant tanks. A landing gear can contain electric motors, position sensors (encoders), micro-controllers and other sensitive stuff. Even if you consider them to use hydraulics then again they are very sensitive to high temperatures. All that assuming that you want the part to work afterwards.

Now, considering the use of the landing gear in KSP, they have to sustain a pretty large heat load (but not direct reentry). Using the stats of the aircraft gear bays could be a good starting point.

[Starwaster]

8 hours ago, Clinton said:

I've been playing the 1.2 dev version of deadly reentry, but I've noticed the landing struts have a maximum skin temperature of 1073K, which results in them melting on reentry for me. Is this intended? Is there an effective way to shield them?

Perhaps the landing struts should be instead 1073/2000 (internal/skin) instead of 1073/1073. I don't understand why landing struts should be less less heat resistant than say fuel tanks. They're just bits of metal. If anything they should be more heat resistant as they don't contain explosive stuff like rocket fuel. 

It's worth noting that the aircraft landing gears are 1073/2706 (internal/skin). Admittedly, they're retractable but the struts are just metal anyway. Perhaps that's what the limits for landing struts should be too? 

Shield those struts with a heat shield or put the the craft in a cargo bay. They're not meant to survive atmospheric reentry. Keep in mind that they are going to be made primarily of aluminum which has a melting point of 663 C. And that's just it's melting point. The point at which it fails as a structural component is going to be considerably lower. That's IRL. In the game, there's no concept of structural failure with heating. The part either survives or it explodes. In the past, DRE has tried to simulate structural failure by reducing the force required for structural failure (breakingTorque and breakingForce) but it never really worked well because the part tended to explode from overheating long before it 'failed'.

In general, DRE is actually lenient with its temperature failing points. As an IRL example, the space shuttle's aluminum structure could not go above 175 C. That's 448 Kelvin, which is the unit used by KSP internally. That's considerably lower than the 1073 max temp of those struts and lower even than the 85% threshold where we start damaging those parts. 

As for the other landing gears with skin max temp of 2706, those are retractable gears with protection on the outside. There is a system in place that detects if they are opened and increases outer-inner thermal conduction to simulate the inrush of the reentry plasma.

So, TL;DR, yes they are intended to not survive unshielded reentries, yes you can shield them, bits of metal aren't really heat resistant because they're structural bits that can't get very hot or Bad Things will happen and DRE is actually going pretty easy on you even if it looks like it's punishing you unfairly.

[Clinton]

It just seems silly that the best way to survive reentry and to still have landing legs is to use four landing gears as defacto landing legs. It's far less mass than trying to hack an oversized heatshield underneath, and it also looks ugly it's less ugly than the alternatives I can think off. 

The small landing gear also has an impact tolerance of 50m/s as an added bonus. 

Even girders have a 2500K skin temp and hence probably make better landing legs on planets with atmospheres.

I'm personally going to mod the landing structs up to 2706K skin, admittedly there probably should be landing structs with have a heat resistive casing when retracted, but for gameplay reasons I'm going to pretend the stock ones do (so I don't have silly landers with four locked wheels at right angles). 

A suggestion which you can take or leave is either to add some landing struts with heat protection (perhaps slightly more mass) or just pretend the current ones have casings and have similar heat resistance as the landing gears when they're retracted. 

(For those interested, below is module manager cfgs to make the changes. I play with 120% heating though.):

// Make TACS less heat resistant (no more than fuel tanks)

@PART[TacLifeSupport*]
{
  @maxTemp = 1000
  %skinMaxTemp = 2000
}

@PART[HexCan*]
{
  @maxTemp = 1000
  %skinMaxTemp = 2000
}

// Make landing legs more heat resistant

@PART[landingLeg1]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2706
}
@PART[landingLeg1-2]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2706
}
@PART[miniLandingLeg]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2706
}

// Make adapters and couplers more heat resistant (at least as much as fuel tanks)

@PART[mk3spacePlaneAdapter]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}

@PART[largeAdapter]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}

@PART[largeAdapter2]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}

@PART[radialDecoupler]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}
@PART[radialDecoupler1-2]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}
@PART[radialDecoupler2]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}
@PART[stackBiCoupler]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}
@PART[stackDecouplerMini]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}
@PART[stackPoint1]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}
@PART[stackSeparator]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}
@PART[stackSeparatorBig]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}
@PART[stackSeparatorMini]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}
@PART[stackTriCoupler]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by Clinton

[Starwaster]

On 1/12/2017 at 8:27 PM, Clinton said:

It just seems silly that the best way to survive reentry and to still have landing legs is to use four landing gears as defacto landing legs. It's far less mass than trying to hack an oversized heatshield underneath, and it also looks ugly it's less ugly than the alternatives I can think off. 

The small landing gear also has an impact tolerance of 50m/s as an added bonus. 

Even girders have a 2500K skin temp and hence probably make better landing legs on planets with atmospheres.

I'm personally going to mod the landing structs up to 2706K skin, admittedly there probably should be landing structs with have a heat resistive casing when retracted, but for gameplay reasons I'm going to pretend the stock ones do (so I don't have silly landers with four locked wheels at right angles). 

A suggestion which you can take or leave is either to add some landing struts with heat protection (perhaps slightly more mass) or just pretend the current ones have casings and have similar heat resistance as the landing gears when they're retracted. 

(For those interested, below is module manager cfgs to make the changes. I play with 120% heating though.):

 

2500 is too much and just means that there's some parts that have been overlooked in balancing and need to either have their max temps adjusted downwards or their masses adjusted upwards commensurate with a material that would justify having such a high heat tolerance.

 

[The-Doctor]

so is this mod discontinued or what?

[eightiesboi]

12 minutes ago, The-Doctor said:

so is this mod discontinued or what?

Not remotely. Why would you think that? The mod author has a post literally above yours.

Edited January 16, 2017 by eightiesboi

[jstnj]

Is the GUI not working in 1.2.2? I don't see DRE in either blizzy or stock menu

[Ninadragonborn]

those this mod works on ksp 1.2.2 

[Ninadragonborn]

On 1/13/2017 at 4:57 AM, Clinton said:

It just seems silly that the best way to survive reentry and to still have landing legs is to use four landing gears as defacto landing legs. It's far less mass than trying to hack an oversized heatshield underneath, and it also looks ugly it's less ugly than the alternatives I can think off. 

The small landing gear also has an impact tolerance of 50m/s as an added bonus. 

Even girders have a 2500K skin temp and hence probably make better landing legs on planets with atmospheres.

I'm personally going to mod the landing structs up to 2706K skin, admittedly there probably should be landing structs with have a heat resistive casing when retracted, but for gameplay reasons I'm going to pretend the stock ones do (so I don't have silly landers with four locked wheels at right angles). 

A suggestion which you can take or leave is either to add some landing struts with heat protection (perhaps slightly more mass) or just pretend the current ones have casings and have similar heat resistance as the landing gears when they're retracted. 

(For those interested, below is module manager cfgs to make the changes. I play with 120% heating though.):

// Make TACS less heat resistant (no more than fuel tanks)

@PART[TacLifeSupport*]
{
  @maxTemp = 1000
  %skinMaxTemp = 2000
}

@PART[HexCan*]
{
  @maxTemp = 1000
  %skinMaxTemp = 2000
}

// Make landing legs more heat resistant

@PART[landingLeg1]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2706
}
@PART[landingLeg1-2]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2706
}
@PART[miniLandingLeg]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2706
}

// Make adapters and couplers more heat resistant (at least as much as fuel tanks)

@PART[mk3spacePlaneAdapter]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}

@PART[largeAdapter]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}

@PART[largeAdapter2]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}

@PART[radialDecoupler]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}
@PART[radialDecoupler1-2]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}
@PART[radialDecoupler2]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}
@PART[stackBiCoupler]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}
@PART[stackDecouplerMini]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}
@PART[stackPoint1]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}
@PART[stackSeparator]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}
@PART[stackSeparatorBig]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}
@PART[stackSeparatorMini]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}
@PART[stackTriCoupler]
{
	%skinMaxTemp = 2000
}

 

one advise friend try to be creative that's how we did go to places no one go before that's how humanity have came so far from cave into space 

try adding some radiator panels i know they are not very fast at dispersing heat but try adding at least tree of them near engine and your landing legs try to do something to work with for you

for example add 6 struts instead of 4 or even 8 the more there is the better they Spread the heat among them and the more part became heated the less heat they get because the heat is spread among more parts 

this is how i do

do something that work even if no one has done that before 

good luck on your space journey  

 

[Delcraft]

Hello,

I found that for RO mod Deadly Reentry completely destroy my probe in high atmosphere (>70 km) even under very "light" conditions: LEO reentry, 700kg mass (1.0m diameter), LEO heat shield 1.5m. In ksp 1.1.3 all was OK with these settings. I managed to safely re-enter the atmosphere only lowering convection factor down to 3.5 (against 7.0 by default in 7.5 version). But I need to decrease this factor every time I load my game, which is annoying. Where can I change the default value of this factor?

Thanks in advance!

[Starwaster]

23 hours ago, Delcraft said:

Hello,

I found that for RO mod Deadly Reentry completely destroy my probe in high atmosphere (>70 km) even under very "light" conditions: LEO reentry, 700kg mass (1.0m diameter), LEO heat shield 1.5m. In ksp 1.1.3 all was OK with these settings. I managed to safely re-enter the atmosphere only lowering convection factor down to 3.5 (against 7.0 by default in 7.5 version). But I need to decrease this factor every time I load my game, which is annoying. Where can I change the default value of this factor?

Thanks in advance!

Make a config file with the code found below:

You should be aware though that in Realism Overhaul machConvectionFactor is actually set to 1.72

So if it's 7.0 in your game then either you don't have Realism Overhaul installed properly or another mod or Module Manager patch is overriding it.

@PHYSICSGLOBALS:FINAL
{
	@machConvectionFactor = 3.5 // Realism Overhaul value = 1.72!!! Set this to whatever you like.
	//@machTemperatureScalar = 7.5 // Set to 7.5 down from 21 in stock KSP so be careful that this one isn't changed as well.
}

 

[Delcraft]

Thank you for your reply!

Yes, you're right, the default value for machConvectionFactor is exactly 1.72, but I'm talking about the value found in debug menu - Physics - Thermal (though I don't know whether these two are the same or not). You can see my menu data on the screenshot: http://imgur.com/a/ftZwu

And if they are the same coefficients and my installation is indeed corrupt, where should I place this config file and how should I name it?

Edited March 4, 2017 by Delcraft
grammar edit