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

[Motokid600]

Hmm.. looks like im going to have to do some experimenting. IRL Apollo used an off-set center of mass to produce lift and have control of the entry angle. The pod would enter the air in a lift up position skipping like a rock, raising its periapsis where a second, less violent reentry followed. Now I am using FAR, but I don't think FAR can emulate that. I may need to add wings or some sort. But then you'd have to pitch the craft in the opposite direction ( heatsheild up ) to lift the craft and actually start ascending again. .. I really wanna try this now.

[Starwaster]

Hmm.. looks like im going to have to do some experimenting. IRL Apollo used an off-set center of mass to produce lift and have control of the entry angle. The pod would enter the air in a lift up position skipping like a rock, raising its periapsis where a second, less violent reentry followed. Now I am using FAR, but I don't think FAR can emulate that. I may need to add wings or some sort. But then you'd have to pitch the craft in the opposite direction ( heatsheild up ) to lift the craft and actually start ascending again. .. I really wanna try this now.

It can handle it. It depends on your reentry angle though. Your trajectory. Depending on where you start from, it may not support such a maneuver nor would it be necessary. Apollo did that when returning from the moon, but I don't think you would be able to from a LEO...

[NathanKell]

Indeed, Realism Overhaul makes just such a change to the Mk1-2 pod so you can do lifting reentries.

sidfu: does "the smoke addon" change engines from ModuleEngines to ModuleEnginesFX? Does it change heatProduction values?

[mdapol]

Reporting strange bug. Just downloaded the update. In the VAB things looked fine but I didn't notice that the mk1pod ship I was flying to the moon and back had no Ablative Shielding like it was supposed to. Very surprised when it blew up. This is a saved craft from before the update so I checked it again on the launch pad but no shielding. Removed the pod and replaced it with a new one and checked again, still no shielding. Did a test launch of a simple two stage rocket and no shielding. Triple checked my update and the DeadlyReentry.cfg file definitely says that the mk1pod should have shielding. Now I'm stumped.

Edit: Reloaded all parts. Now it seems to be fine.

Edited March 13, 2014 by mdapol

[NathanKell]

In GameData, do you have one (and only one) ModuleManager dll?

[sidfu]

this is the part that deals with the smoke pluging addon

MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE_PERSIST

{

name = smokethrust

modelName = MP_Nazari/FX/smokebooster2

transformName = thrustTransform

emission = 0.0 0.0 // Curve for emission like stock

emission = 0.07 0.0 // Curve for emission like stock

emission = 0.2 0.4 // Curve for emission like stock

emission = 1.0 1.1 // Curve for emission like stock

energy = 0.0 0.2 // Same for energy

energy = 1.0 3.2 // Same for energy

speed = 0.0 1.0 // And speed

speed = 1.0 0.8 // And speed

grow = 0.0 0.0 // Grow the particles at 0% per seconds ( 0.02 would be 2% )

grow = 1.0 0.11 // Grow the particles at 0% per seconds ( 0.02 would be 2% )

scale = 0.0 1.0 // Rescale the emitters to +0%

scale = 1.0 1.0 // Rescale the emitters to +0%

offset = 0.0 0.0 // Move the particle emitter away from its default position by x meters

offset = 1.0 0.5 // Move the particle emitter away from its default position by x meters

size = 0.0 1.0 // Rescale the particles to +0%

size = 1.0 1.1 // Rescale the particles to +0%

renderMode = "Billboard" // Render mode : Billboard / SortedBillboard / HorizontalBillboard / VerticalBillboard / Stretch

collide = false // Collision active or not

collideRatio = 0 // how the particles react on collision. 1 is a mirror bounce, 0 is go parallel to the hit surface

fixedScale = 1.0 // Fixed rescale of the particle emitter (for when you rescale the model)

sizeClamp = 50 // Limits particle size. Default to 50

// ***************

// From here the value are not the default anymore.

// ***************

angle = 0.0 1.0 // Display if the angle between the emitter transform and camera is lower than 45ï½°

angle = 45.0 1.0

angle = 50.0 1.0

distance = 0.0 1.0 // Display if the distance to camera is higher than 110

distance = 100.0 1.0

distance = 110.0 1.0

emission // Modulate emission from mach and density curve. You can add other section for size, energy, speed, grow, offset and scale

{

mach = 0.0 1.0

mach = 0.8 1.0 // don't display until mach .8

mach = 1.0 1.0

density = 1.0 1.0

density = 0.4 1.0 // don't display over .4 atmo

density = 0.3 1.0

density = 0.002 1.0

density = 0.001 0.0 // and stop under .001

}

}

its same as hotrockets but it changes it into a perssist

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6861684/Smoketrails.zip

https://spideroak.com/share/NRXXEZLNL5UXA43VNVPWI33MN5ZA/ksp/d%3A/document/Cloud%20Documents/Share/ksp/kw-hotrockets.zip

those the 2 .cfg im using from the hotrockets and smoke plugin threads

[NathanKell]

sidfu: please see the last two posts on the HotRockets thread.

[Crater]

While I was double-checking my work for the modified HotRockets config I just posted in that thread, I noticed a minor boo-boo in the drec config file, too.

For your attempted workaround for HotRockets in your latest version, you double up the ModuleEngines with a ModuleEnginesFX definition for the heatProduction adjustment..... but you missed the FX variant for the skipper

Though, the alphabet being what it is, it'll probably work anyway, since your heatProduction mod will go first, before the HR one changes the module name.

[NathanKell]

Thanks for the catch!

Alas, per my posts on the HotRockets and SmokeScreen threads, they *don't* change the module name...they nuke the old module and write a new one. That's why it's failed so far. I've requested that instead they just change the module name, which will work fine with DRE.

[Dwight_js]

"A heat shieldless craft with mod parts enters the atmosphere from LKO. Burns engines for a few seconds at around 32km. And survives. Is this right? Or is the mod not working correctly?"

The amount of heating can be adjusted in the settings. Left at default you can reenter just about anything from LKO without a heat shield. But if you increase the shock-wave component and multiplier you can make life more difficult for yourself. See the first post under the "note about settings".

[Drew Kerman]

Me again

at T+48s I lose a solar panel due to excessive G-forces. I didn't even really realize it it was so quick. But when I checked a bit later (shown in the video) I saw the status message. Thing is, by that time my G-force had become even greater, yet I didn't lose any more solar panels (except for the fact that I was ascending too flat and slamming through the atmosphere fast enough for DREC to overheat and eventually explode them all. Oops I should have left the fairing on longer...).

So I'm guessing it wasn't acceleration that damaged the panels but the fact that I was maneuvering in my gravity turn at the time? Or what? I've already launched this same satellite (communication satellite) using the same launch vehicle, and I didn't lose any solar panels due to G-force although I mostly went straight up to stay over the KSC for maximum comm contact length. For the second satellite I was able to use the first to bounce signal and fly over the horizon on a flatter trajectory - too flat it would seem

[Motokid600]

So the reentry effect problem is worse then I thought. I must've had my speakers muted last time, but now im getting this horid skipping sound as the reentry effects bug out. Heres the debug..

"[Exception]: InvalidCastExcpetion: Cannot cast from source type to destination type."

I tried removing a module manager cfg that added heatsheilds to mod command pods. Didn't work. I tried removing SmokeScreen. didn't work.. Is there anything I can do about this?

[Starwaster]

So the reentry effect problem is worse then I thought. I must've had my speakers muted last time, but now im getting this horid skipping sound as the reentry effects bug out. Heres the debug..

http://i.imgur.com/pelxJJ8.jpg?1

"[Exception]: InvalidCastExcpetion: Cannot cast from source type to destination type."

I tried removing a module manager cfg that added heatsheilds to mod command pods. Didn't work. I tried removing SmokeScreen. didn't work.. Is there anything I can do about this?

You need to update DREC. BIG EDIT: link on front page is current latest. Grab it.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Starwaster

[Motokid600]

Here's some other information about what happens behind the scenes with the plugin: When your craft is in atmo and travelling fast enough in dense enough atmosphere to have a shockwave heating it up above ambient it is first checked to see if it is shielded. The isShielded function takes the direction of travel as its sole parameter. It checks first to see if the part is a stock parachute and is in any state of deployment. If both of those are true it is automatically unshielded and subject to thermal effects. It is then checked to see if it is a RealChute parachute and in any state of deployment. As above, if deployed it is unshielded. (IMO, a better solution might be to simulate chute failure by putting it in CUT state, assuming that's possible, which it might not be)

If it's not any kind of deployed chute then a ray is cast from the part's transform (the part of it that designates its origin) in the direction of travel. If the ray hits something in its path then the part the part is treated as shielded.

Since we're talking about undeployed chutes (they are undeployed right?) then that means the chutes are failing the raycast test. The ray is striking nothing in its path so the chutes are unshielded. Being higher up the cone shaped capsule would definitely decrease the likelihood of hitting any part of the cone. And it also depends on exactly where the transform of the part is. If it's closer to the attachment side of the part then that increases the chance that the ray hits the capsule. If it's further away, closer to the end that's sticking out, then that increases the chance of a miss. I specify the capsule here because there's really nothing else it might hit.

You might increase the odds of survival if you don't orient the capsule at an angle. The chute part's direction of travel would then be much more likely to strike either the capsule, or maybe the battery below, depending on where its transform is. (hypothetically, it could be so close to the capsule that when attached, the chute's origin is inside the capsule, in which case it might hit nothing at all. Hypothetically)

BTW if you are using the latest version of RealChutes then you want the very latest version of DeadlyReentry. I'm not sure Nathan's dropbox is updated yet with it, so here's a link to my dropbox. Source is on Github. (see front page)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e86pz9cv8i65o2l/DeadlyReentry.zip

Is this the one? Sad to say im already using it.

EDIT: Just saw your edit. Ill try that new one.

[NathanKell]

Then you need to update RealChutes too.

[Starwaster]

Is this the one? Sad to say im already using it.

EDIT: Just saw your edit. Ill try that new one.

Then you need to update RealChutes too.

Some clarification Motokid: The update I put out was explicitly to fix an incompatibility introduced when RealChutes changed how some of its variables worked. Basically you've got a version mismatch going on. Upgrading one means having to upgrade the other.

[Motokid600]

I have upgrade both DRE and RealChutes, but debug is still throwing me those lines and the unsightly glitch persists. I still have SmokeScreen removed.. im not quite sure what else I have that could relate. FAR should be no problem, right?

EDIT: Its throwing a new code now. [log] skipped rendering frame because gfxdevice is in invalid state(device lost).

... ive seen this before, but I forget where.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Motokid600

[Starwaster]

I have upgrade both DRE and RealChutes, but debug is still throwing me those lines and the unsightly glitch persists. I still have SmokeScreen removed.. im not quite sure what else I have that could relate. FAR should be no problem, right?

EDIT: Its throwing a new code now. [log] skipped rendering frame because gfxdevice is in invalid state(device lost).

... ive seen this before, but I forget where.

...

You were alt-tabbed out away from the program during that time period

...

And, let me make sure I have this correct: You're upgraded to the very latest DREC and RealChutes and still seeing InvalidCastException errors? During reentry?

Edited March 15, 2014 by Starwaster

[Motokid600]

...

You were alt-tabbed out away from the program during that time period

...

And, let me make sure I have this correct: You're upgraded to the very latest DREC and RealChutes and still seeing InvalidCastException errors? During reentry?

Lol ah.. yes I to make that post. I was getting the InvalidCastException before I updated. Now im not. The debug seems to be error free. But I am still getting the broken reentry effects. A graphical setting of some sort maybe? I have FXAA on and Nvidia control panel overriding the AA. Ive been doing that for awhile now though..

EDIT: So I removed the DRE folder and well.. smooth as butter. Is it possible the problem could be with what im guessing are module manager files in DRE's root folder? Im updated on that as well.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Motokid600

[Starwaster]

Lol ah.. yes I to make that post. I was getting the InvalidCastException before I updated. Now im not. The debug seems to be error free. But I am still getting the broken reentry effects. A graphical setting of some sort maybe? I have FXAA on and Nvidia control panel overriding the AA. Ive been doing that for awhile now though..

EDIT: So I removed the DRE folder and well.. smooth as butter. Is it possible the problem could be with what im guessing are module manager files in DRE's root folder? Im updated on that as well.

I don't think we can rule out graphical settings right now, but I already tried duplicating your problem by playing with the aeroFX settings with no luck.

It does look from your last screenshot like you're at a lower setting but if anything I would *think* that would decrease the likelihood of the sort of behavior you reported. (looks like the effect of that setting is less tessellation in the reentry geometry)

There's also DREC specific settings that control when the effects start and when they peak but that shouldn't cause it to alternate with the supersonic effects because it doesn't touch those at all. You would, I think, already have to be at an eligible altitude and atmospheric density for those to be active in order for the reentry FX to be alternating with the supersonic (condensation) FX.

Sorry, don't have anything more than that for you

[Motokid600]

I don't know why that pic looked like that I have everything turned up. That's the visual bug, but on top of that it skips. As does the sound. Which is the worse part.. ill keep tweaking things I suppose.

[Motokid600]

Heres the problem in the flesh.

[vardicd]

Heres the problem in the flesh.

I've never had that visual stutter on the re-entry, but I've had that sound stutter for as long as I've used this mod. I just thought that was the way it was. I never realized that was some kind of glitch?

[coldblade2000]

For some reason Procedural fairings do jack for me. They work with FAR as intended and the objects inside have the isShielded flag set to true, but they still heat up when I'm launching. I can't even count the amount of times the DP-10 antenna burned off during accent. Is this a problem with DR or PF? I;m using RSS and procedural fairings BTW

[Starwaster]

For some reason Procedural fairings do jack for me. They work with FAR as intended and the objects inside have the isShielded flag set to true, but they still heat up when I'm launching. I can't even count the amount of times the DP-10 antenna burned off during accent. Is this a problem with DR or PF? I;m using RSS and procedural fairings BTW

Just because FAR says they're shielded doesn't mean DREC does. They use different methods. I've tried without success to make DREC FAR-aware.