Preferred CommNet Difficulty

[Renegrade]

Just now, Blaarkies said:

Mars SMA is 227.9Gm (meter notation should always be lowercase)

Oops - right.  Should be Gm, Mm, not GM/MM.  I'm not sure why I do that.  Not the first time I've made that mistake (nor will it be the last :/ )

Just now, Blaarkies said:

Sorry, it just seemed wildly inconsistent, to the point where I was thought you were doing it almost on purpose.

Naw; any errors in my work were accidental

Just now, Blaarkies said:

I apologize if the "misinformation" comment was offensive

Eh, that's okay.  Don't worry about it - I should have been more careful with the doublings and labeling/qualifying of said doublings, so I'm partly to blame here.  Sometimes a little thwack across the knuckles helps focus the mind

[KerikBalm]

On 10/22/2016 at 4:05 PM, Gaarst said:

This. While I like the idea of a comm network, the fact that we still can't plan manoeuvres doesn't make any sense. There should be a way to plan nodes when you have comms available so that you can still execute them (automatically maybe, with no direct control if they go wrong) even if your craft is on the dark side of the Mun, Duna, Jool, Sun, whatever.

Ummm, but we can place maneuver nodes in advance while comms are up. The advanced probe cores can orient to the maneuver node heading by themselves even without comms connections. The probe wont fire its engine automatically unfortunately - but you can still do it because lack of coms still allows you to choose between 100% and 0% throttle.

Less advanced probe cores can still orient pro/retrograde which is what you'll probably want anyway (and fire engines)

The only real problem is the real basic probe cores that have no reorientation capability without comms... so those you need to oritent to the direction of the maneuver node before comm loss.

My biggest issue is that we can't delete maneuver nodes when comms are out... which prevents chaining multiple maneuver nodes when comms are lost.

[Northstar1989]

On Fri Oct 21 2016 at 4:24 PM, Jestersage said:

So what's the more realistic occulsion, 0.90/0.75, 1/1, or some other number?

O.90/0.75, aka the "default settings" are MOST realistic of those named here (I always laugh a little inside when I see people crying REALISM and then making things UN-realustic because they don't understand how real physics work) although the perhaps 92 or 93% vac occlusion might be a little closer to reality...

Communications signals can indeed pass through a certain amount of solid matter (just think of getting a cellphone signal inside any building not made with a metal frame- metal creates a "Gaussian Cage" that prevents most signals from getting through such buildings) and just as importantly, they can DIFFRACT around objects to a certain degree.  The comms signals in the game may appear to be straight lines that are passing through mountains, but really they are DIFFRACTING around those mountains rather than passing through them... 

I'm not 100% sure what the atmo modifier does, but OBVIOUSLY the comms signals have a certain ability to pass through the atmosphere.  After all, they have to pass through it in the first place to reach any vessel or relay satellite from the KSC (which is on the ground, BELOW the atmosphere), and how do you think remote-control planes work in real life?

It would be absolutely ridiculous, and completely unrealistic, if you had to set up a Probe Control Point in at least Low Kerbin Orbit just to control any unmanned vessel in the game, and if probes were totally un-controllable inside the atmosphere of Kerbin or any other planet.  After all, right now any real-life rocket is in constant communication with the ground all the way up to Low Earth Orbit...  So why shouldn't comm signals be able to pass back through a limited amount of atmosphere again after leaving it, if they had to pass through it on the way up?

 

Regards,

Northstar

[Nathair]

On 2016-10-19 at 4:03 PM, regex said:

I'm using it like I use RT2

Do you prefer it to RT2?

[regex]

7 hours ago, Nathair said:

Do you prefer it to RT2?

If RT2 ever changed their PID values I'd probably like using it more, but as of the last time I used it my craft were basically dying fish. I think, when I wrote that, that I was more thinking of multiple ground stations (like in RO; single ground station may be compelling gameplay the first time you set up a comm network but it is certainly not realistic) with no lightspeed delay (because I prefer manual control to limited automation to represent IRL planning (and no, I'm not going to install KOS, I code for a living)).

What I do like the stock system over RT2 for is the limited control. I don't use throttle any more than I have to anyway so I'm already used to full blast/off control. The ability to use the basic navball directions in SAS means I can do pretty much whatever I need to.

So, yeah, I do prefer it to RT2, but mainly because manual flying is a big part of the game for me.

Edited March 13, 2017 by regex

[cantab]

Still just using the defaults myself, although RSS does buff the ranges. I've not gone in for loads of relays, when I sent a probe fleet to Mars I included just a single relay sat and planned for and dealt with comms interruptions. I've also got one at Moon and one at each of Earth-Sun L4 and L5. All with the second-best dish, together they just about cover most of the inner solar system.

When I start/resume a new save though I think I'll disable the "limited control" thing, I understand that they're trying to do an abstraction for being able to pre-program the probe but it still feels a bit like a get-out, and I would also make the occlusion stricter because it seems too generous. I would definitely leave the DSN at full strength and might even buff it (if that can be done without changing the dish ranges) - to me it feels ridiculous for a bunch of dishes bodged together on the runway can outperform the actual Tracking Station. And I'd stick with the multiple sites too, because really I see making the complex Kerbin relay networks as grunt work. I'd rather put my relays somewhere interesting like the planet I'm exploring.

[Superfluous J]

On 3/11/2017 at 8:04 PM, Northstar1989 said:

O.90/0.75, aka the "default settings" are MOST realistic of those named here (I always laugh a little inside when I see people crying REALISM and then making things UN-realustic because they don't understand how real physics work) although the perhaps 92 or 93% vac occlusion might be a little closer to reality...

I was aware that there would be some diffraction due to atmosphere, but not any just around the objects. Well, I knew it was a thing but didn't realize it would actually help at all. While my cell phone works in a building, I don't expect it'd work under a mountain of any appreciable size. I lose my cell signal when traveling through a tunnel, for instance. Granted, cell signals are not intended to reach interplanetary distances, but still.

I personally was running 1.0/0.90 in my game and thought it was realistic. If 0.93 or so is a more realistic value for vacuum worlds, I'll happily do it (easier AND more realistic? Thank you!).

Any opinions on the 0.75 for atmospheric worlds? That just seems crazy low to me but I don't have any reference for it, either. Is 0.80 better? 0.85? What would be a more realistic value, if any?

Edited March 13, 2017 by 5thHorseman

[kBob]

4 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

I was aware that there would be some diffraction due to atmosphere, but not any just around the objects. Well, I knew it was a thing but didn't realize it would actually help at all. While my cell phone works in a building, I don't expect it'd work under a mountain of any appreciable size. I lose my cell signal when

I live in the mountains.  There are very few line of site things here.  Cell phone I get because I live on top of a hill, the people below me don't get much or anything.  But I don't think cell signals show this effect very well.  Back in the days of analogue TV I could get an off the air signal from a station about 100 miles away despite the fact that a rather large range of mountains known as the Sierra-Nevada were between me and it (sure it helps I'm at 6,000'--the transmission tower was at 50' + its height).  It wasn't totally reliable all it took was a couple of clouds hovering above the mountain peaks between us to degrade/destroy the signal.  Of course since we went digital the signal strength went down considerably so I wouldn't expect to get anything now.  I used to have satellite TV though and those signals would get blocked by a leaf or a snow flake (ok I exaggerate, but just a little ).   Note that unlike with AM radio, I'm pretty sure this was not ionosphere bounce the reception was the same day or night and it was low clouds on the peaks that would block the signal (those peaks are generally around 9,000').

Here's a basic explanation of why "sharp" mountains are better at diffraction.