Buster Charlie Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 9 hours ago, magico13 said: I don't think it would be too hard to add, so I've added a reminder on github. It won't be any time soon though, sorry. No rush! Thank you for continuing to support this great mod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rohaq Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Just chipping in to add that StageRecovery doesn't seem to work in the 1.1 prerelease. Sad times! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polnoch Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) Very fine mod, very useful in Career in hard mode. Thank you very much about it is exist! Please update it for be compatibly with 1.1. Edited March 31, 2016 by Polnoch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magico13 Posted March 31, 2016 Author Share Posted March 31, 2016 16 hours ago, Rohaq said: Just chipping in to add that StageRecovery doesn't seem to work in the 1.1 prerelease. Sad times! Thanks for testing, though it was pretty expected it wouldn't work. 13 hours ago, Polnoch said: Very fine mod, very useful in Career in hard mode. Thank you very much about it is exist! Please update it for be compatibly with 1.1. I will try to get a quick update out for 1.1 this weekend, but no promises (it's a pre-release anyway so I have zero obligation to support it at all, plus I have a lot of writing to do this weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polnoch Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Just now, magico13 said: I will try to get a quick update out for 1.1 this weekend, but no promises (it's a pre-release anyway so I have zero obligation to support it at all, plus I have a lot of writing to do this weekend. Please not rush! We just want one - about new release will become once Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swjr-swis Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 17 minutes ago, magico13 said: I will try to get a quick update out for 1.1 this weekend, but no promises (it's a pre-release anyway so I have zero obligation to support it at all, plus I have a lot of writing to do this weekend. Manage your priorities; 'at all' seems about the right level of support to me. I'm sure 'we' can handle waiting for one good update against an actual release version, than getting several inherently unguaranteed-to-work attempts against a potentially-daily-changing pre-release. Besides, with as profound as some things have changed, it would do people good to reacquaint themselves with the stock unmodded experience for a few weeks. Heck, it would do Squad good (and ultimately us again) for people to play stock and report things that they would perhaps never notice in a modded install... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rohaq Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 2 hours ago, magico13 said: Thanks for testing, though it was pretty expected it wouldn't work. I will try to get a quick update out for 1.1 this weekend, but no promises (it's a pre-release anyway so I have zero obligation to support it at all, plus I have a lot of writing to do this weekend. No worries; I'm not expecting any mod makers to be rushing out updates days after the prerelease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loren Pechtel Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 What is it thinking??? Reality: Stage #0 isn't coming home. Stage #1 is simply a decoupler that I now realize can be merged into stage 0 Stage #2 will be lost in orbit. Stage #3 should recover fine. Stage #4 should recover fine. There is no stage #6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PocketBrotector Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 48 minutes ago, Loren Pechtel said: What is it thinking??? It is showing you the terminal velocity (at sea level, presumably) and expected fund-recovery fraction for each stage, assuming fully deployed chutes. Looks like everything is working fine here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loren Pechtel Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 13 minutes ago, PocketBrotector said: It is showing you the terminal velocity (at sea level, presumably) and expected fund-recovery fraction for each stage, assuming fully deployed chutes. Looks like everything is working fine here. Except it's showing the recovery of a stage that doesn't exist and not mentioning two stages that do exist and were successfully recovered (at the speed given for stage 6.) There are some aerodynamic parts on stage zero that are blown off as soon as the engines shut down and I'm out of the atmosphere. Could they be confusing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PocketBrotector Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 59 minutes ago, Loren Pechtel said: Except it's showing the recovery of a stage that doesn't exist and not mentioning two stages that do exist and were successfully recovered (at the speed given for stage 6.) There are some aerodynamic parts on stage zero that are blown off as soon as the engines shut down and I'm out of the atmosphere. Could they be confusing it? Well you've only shown the StageRecovery readout, not the actual craft in question. Without any information about what's actually on the stages, I doubt anyone will be able to answer questions about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magico13 Posted April 1, 2016 Author Share Posted April 1, 2016 @Loren Pechtel I'd need to see the vessel itself to have any idea if there's even a problem. I think the PEBKAC and there's just a misunderstanding of how StageRecovery defines stages (which is different from how KSP defines stages, which I think is what MechJeb uses). I highly suggest using the highlight buttons to see exactly what parts StageRecovery is saying belong to the stage, it'll no doubt be different from what you're expecting. StageRecovery defines a stage as all the parts between decouplers (or the start/end of the stack where appropriate), with identical "stages" grouped into one (I can't remember if each gets it's own stage number though, which would explain the jump from 2 to 6). It provides estimates for every stage it finds since it doesn't know what's a booster and what's payload, plus you might want to know an estimate for how fast your command pod will land. Take a picture of the whole craft with and without the whole vessel highlighting active and we can start to figure out if anything is actually wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loren Pechtel Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 1 hour ago, magico13 said: @Loren Pechtel I'd need to see the vessel itself to have any idea if there's even a problem. I think the PEBKAC and there's just a misunderstanding of how StageRecovery defines stages (which is different from how KSP defines stages, which I think is what MechJeb uses). I highly suggest using the highlight buttons to see exactly what parts StageRecovery is saying belong to the stage, it'll no doubt be different from what you're expecting. StageRecovery defines a stage as all the parts between decouplers (or the start/end of the stack where appropriate), with identical "stages" grouped into one (I can't remember if each gets it's own stage number though, which would explain the jump from 2 to 6). It provides estimates for every stage it finds since it doesn't know what's a booster and what's payload, plus you might want to know an estimate for how fast your command pod will land. Take a picture of the whole craft with and without the whole vessel highlighting active and we can start to figure out if anything is actually wrong. Ok, if it's grouping like stages that certainly could explain it although it's not what I'm used to it doing. If Stage 6 were really a grouping of the missing stages it would make sense. I do not recall ever seeing it group like that before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrot Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 (edited) I don't know why would it burn up. I checked in very detail. It has -116km Pe not above 0 at all. My another 1st stage didn't even hit 70km but it still said burnt up with 2xx m/s but there is a touch down speed said 6.x ms. Is there any problem from me? I didn't install deadly reentry. May I know how to use it please? Edited April 6, 2016 by Carrot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reapersms Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 If your parachutes are set to activate at the time you stage the booster off, they're probably going to be destroyed instantly. Tweak their min pressure to something around 0.46 or so, and they ought to survive, and still be there when StageRecovery looks at it. The 0.46 or so keeps them from opening at all until ~3000m or so, giving the atmosphere a while to slow it down, and still activate in case they get to the surface before they leave physics range. If it's burning up due to a speed over 2k m/s, I think you can stuff a heat shield on and SR will give you better odds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loren Pechtel Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 7 hours ago, reapersms said: If your parachutes are set to activate at the time you stage the booster off, they're probably going to be destroyed instantly. Tweak their min pressure to something around 0.46 or so, and they ought to survive, and still be there when StageRecovery looks at it. The 0.46 or so keeps them from opening at all until ~3000m or so, giving the atmosphere a while to slow it down, and still activate in case they get to the surface before they leave physics range. If it's burning up due to a speed over 2k m/s, I think you can stuff a heat shield on and SR will give you better odds. It's pretty hard to heat shield a booster because the engine is there. On those returns the engine gets very, very hot--I normally hold off on burning the remaining fuel until the overheat bar in the stage listing is well up there so I get the maximum benefit of the drag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magico13 Posted April 6, 2016 Author Share Posted April 6, 2016 12 hours ago, Carrot said: I don't know why would it burn up. I checked in very detail. It has -116km Pe not above 0 at all. My another 1st stage didn't even hit 70km but it still said burnt up with 2xx m/s but there is a touch down speed said 6.x ms. Is there any problem from me? I didn't install deadly reentry. May I know how to use it please? Reentry heating is a Stock feature now, so Deadly Reentry isn't required for StageRecovery to cause stages to burn up. As soon as the speed goes above 2km/s at recovery then there's a chance of the stage burning up. The chance goes up to 100% at 3km/s, 200% at 4km/s, etc. You can either add a heatshield (doesn't have to actually be in a useful place) which will reduce the chance by 100% or you can change the DR Velocity setting. If you set it to -1 then StageRecovery will never destroy things from overheating, or you can up it to 2500 to even further reduce the chance of burning up. Personally I just don't expect anything that's nearly suborbital to survive reentry, but you are free to reconfigure things as you find appropriate for your play style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loren Pechtel Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 8 minutes ago, magico13 said: Reentry heating is a Stock feature now, so Deadly Reentry isn't required for StageRecovery to cause stages to burn up. As soon as the speed goes above 2km/s at recovery then there's a chance of the stage burning up. The chance goes up to 100% at 3km/s, 200% at 4km/s, etc. You can either add a heatshield (doesn't have to actually be in a useful place) which will reduce the chance by 100% or you can change the DR Velocity setting. If you set it to -1 then StageRecovery will never destroy things from overheating, or you can up it to 2500 to even further reduce the chance of burning up. Personally I just don't expect anything that's nearly suborbital to survive reentry, but you are free to reconfigure things as you find appropriate for your play style. While you might not expect nearly suborbital things to survive they do. Anything big enough to be worthwhile (no point in chutes on aerodynamic-only parts) that's going to be coming off before I attain orbit (even if it's coming off during the circularization burn) I slap chutes on and get back every time. (And really now, why are Kerbals so poor at shipping stuff around? The recovery percentage is stupidly low! I'm not blaming you--you seem to be using the stock numbers but they're stupid!) I have enough success at recovery that anything that's coming back to Kerbin gets chutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reapersms Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 6 hours ago, Loren Pechtel said: It's pretty hard to heat shield a booster because the engine is there. On those returns the engine gets very, very hot--I normally hold off on burning the remaining fuel until the overheat bar in the stage listing is well up there so I get the maximum benefit of the drag. If you're flying the thing back manually, SR won't kick in anyways. For fire and forget ones, it would be nice if the powered recovery could take into account the excess fuel to get the max velocity under the burn up percentage. What I'm going to try on the next big launch is sticking a heatshield on the front of the booster, under the decoupler, and see if that improves the chances of it surviving a trip back from the end of the circularization burn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loren Pechtel Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 11 minutes ago, reapersms said: If you're flying the thing back manually, SR won't kick in anyways. For fire and forget ones, it would be nice if the powered recovery could take into account the excess fuel to get the max velocity under the burn up percentage. What I'm going to try on the next big launch is sticking a heatshield on the front of the booster, under the decoupler, and see if that improves the chances of it surviving a trip back from the end of the circularization burn. I'm wondering about how you're losing them. I can't recall losing anything discarded at suborbital velocity except once when I didn't expect it to be recoverable and didn't put chutes on. (I was bit off on the delta-V, I thought it would burn out soon after leaving low orbit.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reapersms Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Anything I drop before I hit vac survives fine with just chutes without any further intervention. What doesn't always work is getting to an 80x80, decoupling the booster, and sending it back with a ~20km periapsis to trigger StageRecovery. It leaves physics range, so there's no aero drag, and it hits the 23km kill point at 2200+ m/s, and falls victim to the dice roll for burning up. They usually have 300-500 dV left in them at the time (thanks to losing the mass from the upper stage) but I believe SR doesn't try bleeding speed off until after the burn check. I've been meaning to hide a heat shield on them for a while, but the last couple of nights of KSP have been in fiddling with TOT mission plans and/or circularizing with the upper stage instead of a fully orbit capable lower booster. Until now, for those I've just been flying them back manually, but that starts getting a bit repetitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magico13 Posted April 6, 2016 Author Share Posted April 6, 2016 When I get a chance to do a feature release I'll see about using excess fuel for reducing the speed. The (approximate) calculations aren't hard to do, just need to think about which to prioritize. Probably easiest/best to prioritize reducing speed over landing, since burning up would prevent the landing anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loren Pechtel Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 18 minutes ago, magico13 said: When I get a chance to do a feature release I'll see about using excess fuel for reducing the speed. The (approximate) calculations aren't hard to do, just need to think about which to prioritize. Probably easiest/best to prioritize reducing speed over landing, since burning up would prevent the landing anyway. I would think landing fuel would be small compared to speed-reducing fuel unless you're right at the cusp of survival. My inclination would be to save what you need for landing and burn the rest to avoid burning up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chippy the Space Dog Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 Stage Recovery with class in yesterdays Spacex's CRS-8 ISS resupply and Inflatable module delivery mission. Incredible! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYmQQn_ZSys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsparkyc Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Should this be expected to work properly with RO/RP-0? I tried using it, but it said that my stage (small boosters) were recovered over 3000km away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts