Jump to content

Stratennotblitz

Members
  • Posts

    66
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

27 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. it didn't matter because the radioactive trail could kill anything in it's path, so they only needed approximate location and circle around it, by the 70's we already had guidance for cruise missiles, the tomahawk was developed in the 1980's too, the reason why they needed star trackers was because of the amplifying of errors from the radio navigation, so star trackers would help at night snd also offset that error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decca_Navigator_System this is what I'm trying to do, as you saw in the graph it's only less accurate than the gps, what I'm wondering is if it can work in land, be more precise with the addition of new inertial and traditional tracking systems like star trackers and better pre disposed software and maps, I'm not looking for gps, I already have that Maps only tell you the relative positions of features on the surface of the Earth - at no point does it tell where you are exactly. You can't use a map to adjust for errors - you gotta find a reference with 'known' positions then try to determine where you are. And since the comment was made in reply to airborne positioning beacon it's kinda useless IMO if you have a beacon that in itself have to derive their position from a completely different system already all the time (granted GNSS satellites does this - they're tracked by ground stations with known 'fixed' locations - but as with most celestial bodies space ephemeris are pretty accurate). If those airborne positioning beacons have to derive from ground stations we'd probably need a ton more ground stations (since they'd need one at line-of-sight), so much that it'd probably be easier to use the ground stations directly, and if they derive from GNSS themselves why not just use the GNSS directly ? Well GNSS is the advancement in technology we've finally arrived at. [well yes, but I'm pretty sure some navigation systems use maps to offset errors as soon as they have food measurement systems and a good initial "ping", gps satellites would be over worked if vehicles pinged them every second, there are better ways] I was saying that to someone before, satellites can only give so much accuracy, you need better points of reference
  2. [Snip] ksp can run on ps4/xbox consoles fully well, it runs un my damn Mac laptop, the real question here is wether you wanna gatekeep pc games so you can get them earlier on and feel special, simple as that ps4 and xbox are more powerful than even some gaming computers, and the way ksp 2 is built should make it easy, especially with the whole build made around efficiency ps4 and xbox can run games well, especially ps4, not to mention they got upgrades over the years, the reason why ksp is so bad on console is because it wasn't meant to be on it, especially with the kraken (which is a bug), a proof that the game doesn't use traditional computing methods on it's engine, I don't think you know enough about ps4/xbox architecture to say this, not to mention the devs haven't even mentioned console and Mac, but then again, the game has been in development for some time now, I'm sure the devs can import this into less than traditional gaming setups
  3. you can use normal topographic maps, we already have very precise versions of those, I'm not looking to build a satellite and launch it into space, so not sure why gps/gnss is persistent here, just a though experiment to see if it would be cheaper to make with recent advances in tech
  4. gps satellites move, in fact they move faster than atmospheric electric planes for navigation, about 2 times circling the earth in a day compared to more than 3 days for electric planes, meaning they can stay in a specific area longer, the only issues would be atmospheric turbulences, but that could be fixed by using topographic maps to adjust craft error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Aquila
  5. yup, they're called star trackers : I doubt gps/gnss are going to be cheaper in the future, we could use atmospheric satellites in the future, just like Facebook did with their flying internet planes to beam down positional data, it's far cheaper and reliable, since there are thousands of those (possible) compared to only a few gps systems, not to mention using radio antennas with better inertial measurement units to communicate, the us military already wants a better gps for national security reasons so that industry might develop in the future, the optimal system would be a mix of all the previous nav methods
  6. yup yup! had this idea from it, watched a documentary about redundant nav systems damn, I didn't know that, I wonder if someone could pull full nav off with good enough software and day/night trackers thanks for the answer, I just wanna experiment with navigation systems for developing countries yes already patented (kinda) https://patents.google.com/patent/US7945271B1/en
  7. so my idea is to use 3 axis accelerometers and star trackers to create a homemade navigational system, it would use the star trackers at night to give the user a "position 0" and the accelerometers, as the user walks would be able to pick up rotation(you could use a compass as backup), speed (thus position relative to position 0) etc, you could overlay that info on a pre-existing map and make some sort of gps system homemade, a version 2.0 would use radio signals with broadcasting towers and their exact coordinates to triangulate a more precise position, per example you have a rotating antenna that picks up and bounces signals to other radios and measures the intensity of the signal (you could use a barometer and altimeter to correct atmospheric distortion etc) if you have a stronger signal from 3 radio sources relative to you position 0 and you, you can use that to correct your actual position more correctly by figuring out the different signal intensities between them (distance) and comparing it to your distance from the position 0 and their distance from it. (https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/08/radio-navigation-set-to-make-global-return-as-gps-backup-because-cyber/) essentially this image but with modern additional equipment
  8. shouldn't tale that much time, the code for the original mod wasn't a lot, less than a mega byte
  9. we're gonna be able to make better game art, screenshots and movies with it, it doesn't take that much energy and if the devs don't want that then it's ok the possibilities are endless, also what if you're in a parafoil and want to land, or in the external seat, hell even on a glider, you have to think this trough Never used the mod nor do I care to uh the mod from version 0.25? it doesn't work anymore... there's not even a mod for that currently
  10. anyone want this too? I'd be amazing tp land a whole mission in iva first person then eva first person, planting a flag etc, I'd be easy for the devs since you can just put an invisible camera in the helmet area, the issue would be now adding breathing effects when running without obstructing the view, reducing the cameras shakiness and stopping the helmet from jumping around causing "space sickness", a future upgrade to the helmet adding it an antenna, better jet pack and a hud, with gps and view of the kerbal explorer relative to the Eva'd ship even further if the mods add an oxygen and Eva fuel you could see the levels here too! hell let's go further, temperature limits on suits with low upgrades
  11. absolutely!, we need altitude and biome maps, I wanna make a surface access lander with Kos in the future with those maps, the original ksp does not have them and mechjeb assumes it's ground level until it isn't per example a mountain so we do need slope, topographic altitude maps/biome (with ground slope in degrees), I wanna make or would like to see a navigation mod made of them, can you imagine a live cam with biome colours, velocity vectors etc like the nasa morpheus lander : https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/exploration/morpheus/index.html
  12. learn to take a joke, I'm satiring hardcore realism payers
  13. true! a human can control a crashing planes in this game better than a robot, yesterday I was trying to dock a return sample rover to a lander and get the science and it was on the moon's North Pole, meaning that I couldn't drive automatically with the automated rover, so I had to do maneuvers to avoid blocking my antenna, another example is after returning the sample in low mun orbit I choose to rendezvous automatically, and mechjeb put the orbit at -10 km so it wouldn't skip faster than 4 times, so I boosted the orbit and made a Homman maneuver to then dock, mechjeb can teach people but it won't do excrements for you, DO NOT TRUST MECHJEB I could say the same thing for the stabilization systems, you won't learn to pid manually if you have a probe core doing for you, hell why do we even use docking magnets do the real thing we need better burn time!!! it's gonna be so hard to change orbit with an Orion exploding each second
  14. so basically planes in ksp suck the issue with kerbin is it's low gravity, in reality when you touch the ground you will bounce but not as hard as the game wants you to think, hopefully the base game will add some sort of suction when landing just like docking why would I spend hours reloading a save when I can have a computer do it for me? It's not like I need to prove myself, I fly. on way more difficult sims (dcx, mfs etc) Maybe you just haven't figured out how to build a good plane yet. That's actually not so easy. no I'm really good at building planes it turns out, my landings however the issue with the game is the lack of air brake, per example in real life you can have different modes on your elevators, combat, which makes it more manoeuvrable, landing which uses the air resistance on them to slow down and align the gliding slope, and take off to make it stable ksp doesn't have those
×
×
  • Create New...