I understand not being able to create maneuver nodes when not connected to Commnet, but at least let us delete them!

[Fireheart318]

Maneuver nodes can't be made when not connected to Commnet, but it should be possible to delete them. I want to be able to warp to a point in my orbit instead of worrying about a burn I made three KSP years ago!

[Superfluous J]

100% yes.

[Spricigo]

22 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

200% yes.

 

[KSPFanatic102]

300% Yes

[John FX]

Myself I have mechjeb installed, which allows you to do this. You can make and destroy nodes with the node editor even when not connected. You have no manual control still but you can have the `computer` in your craft make some basic decisions, like a circularisation burn for example.

I agree that something which belongs more on the main screen at KSC should be made and destroyed without a connection in a stock game though.

[Corona688]

On 11/24/2017 at 8:56 AM, John FX said:

I agree that something which belongs more on the main screen at KSC should be made and destroyed without a connection in a stock game though.

Destroyed, sure, but how would you create them?  That's part of the probe's flight computer, which can't receive anything but one-word commands like "start", "stop" under limited control.

Yes, part of the flight computer.  It's why you can't create nodes for debris, and how advanced probe cores can follow targets under limited control.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Corona688

[DAL59]

400% yes

[John FX]

4 hours ago, Corona688 said:

Destroyed, sure, but how would you create them?  That's part of the probe's flight computer, which can't receive anything but one-word commands like "start", "stop" under limited control.

Yes, part of the flight computer.  It's why you can't create nodes for debris, and how advanced probe cores can follow targets under limited control.

Then either the flight computer can make and destroy regardless of connection or a connection is needed for both. Makes no sense to do one but not the other.

Whatever the mechanism, you should be able to do both, or neither. I would say both.

[Corona688]

 

Quote

Whatever the mechanism, you should be able to do both, or neither. I would say both.

Let me put it this way.  When Juno arrived in space near Jupiter, it announced its success with a radio wave   Juno didn't align its good antennas for this - something they didn't want to depend on - so the signal contained no information.  They received the radio tone at the right time via radio telescope, therefore they know Juno was still operating, still on course, and had finished its burn.  That is all.  Until Juno's antennas align to Earth, that's the best it can do.

If Juno failed to send that signal, NASA might have tried sending a powerful beam of a frequency which Juno would interpret as a request to reboot itself, at which point the first thing it would do is re-orient itself to Earth so NASA can regain control.  (Juno actually did that by itself, later, for reasons unknown.  It worked.  Hooray for contingency plans.)  At that great a distance without Juno's proper antennas aimed at them, that's the best they can do.

That's the level you're operating at, when you have "limited probe control".  You're reduced to the electronic equivalent of a dog-whistle.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Corona688

[Spricigo]

1 hour ago, John FX said:

Then either the flight computer can make and destroy regardless of connection or a connection is needed for both. Makes no sense to do one but not the other.

Whatever the mechanism, you should be able to do both, or neither. I would say both.

It don't need to make sense, it just need to not be an unnecessary annoyance.

 

 

[Corona688]

1 minute ago, Spricigo said:

It don't need to make sense, it just need to not be an unnecessary annoyance.

If you want full control all the time despite accidents or mistakes, why not turn off commnet?

[Spricigo]

20 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

If you want full control all the time despite accidents or mistakes, why not turn off commnet?

I don't want control all the time. And I also don't want my time warping being interrupted exactly because I will have no control at the maneuver node and consequently will have nothing to do about it.

Edit: actually why not make the consequences of the accident/mistake a bit harsher: maneuver node become hidden the moment you lose connection without a pilot on board. 

Also both can be dependent on the setting [require signal to control]

Edited November 29, 2017 by Spricigo

[Corona688]

3 hours ago, Spricigo said:

I don't want control all the time. And I also don't want my time warping being interrupted exactly because I will have no control at the maneuver node and consequently will have nothing to do about it.

Why not?  You will have SOME CONTROL.  Limited control is more than no control.  With a little planning it could easily be enough.

If you left your probe facing the manuever, Z/X is all you need for a rough burn.  An Octo can do all that plus stability assist, even under limited control.  A HECS has prograde/retrograde, which is enough for some simple ad-hoc manuevers to fine-tune after.  And a HECS2 can actually rendevous under limited control!

Quote

Edit: actually why not make the consequences of the accident/mistake a bit harsher: maneuver node become hidden the moment you lose connection without a pilot on board.

But then, how would you utilize limited control?

Edited November 29, 2017 by Corona688

[Spricigo]

8 hours ago, Corona688 said:

Why not?  You will have SOME CONTROL.  Limited control is more than no control.  With a little planning it could easily be enough.

Maybe my game settings are not what you assume. 

An alternative: give me the option [warp until signal acquired].

[John FX]

9 hours ago, Corona688 said:

Why not?  You will have SOME CONTROL. 

Using your Juno example, there should not be that. If we take the suggestions from Juno fully on board then we should have a way of the computer executing the burn, which we do not and never will without a mod. They sent various commands to prepare the craft for insertion but the craft performed the burn itself and we have reached the point where this metaphor runs out of usefulness. This is what actually happened, as I am sure you can see to do things the way Juno did them would require Mechjeb or similar...

Spoiler

“Ten days ago, we opened the main engine cover so that the engine would be ready to fire when we get to July 4, and a couple of days ago we pressurized the whole system, so that the engine is ready to go, (and) all the propulsion, all the pipes and valves are all ready to fire,” said Ed Hirst, Juno mission manager at JPL.

Engineers transmitted the final command file, dubbed “ji4040,” to Juno around 3:15 p.m. EDT (1915 GMT) Thursday via an antenna in NASA’s Deep Space Network located in Goldstone, California.

“Once those commands are sent, it will be hands-off from the team here on the ground,” Hirst told reporters Thursday before sending the order for Juno to launch its Jupiter arrival sequence. “We’ll continue to monitor the spacecraft and make sure everything is executing as we expect it to execute, but the spacecraft is on its own, and it’s designed to take care of itself with all the command sequences that we’ve sent it.”

Look, this is a game. For gameplay purposes, it makes no sense to have instant manual control over throttle but not to be able to cancel a manoeuvrer node, especially one in the past. You can still have control limited at the same time as being able to make or destroy a node, it does not make your craft more or less controllable, just allows you a marker for a burn to be made or removed.

I have long been in favour of KSP having the ability to automatically execute a pre-planned burn like Juno did. If that were implemented then it would make sense to not be able to change burn markers without control. As it is, we can point our craft in any cardinal direction we choose, and execute manual burns of an arbitrary length which we can decide at the moment. When you have that much manual control, to restrict adjustment of node markers makes no sense.

 

[Corona688]

2 hours ago, John FX said:

Using your Juno example, there should not be that.

My Juno example illustrated using a special frequency for a special function which can be accomplished at great distance even under poor radio conditions.  Why, given that, could there not be special frequencies for special functions which can be accomplished at great distance even under poor radio conditions?  They can only convey one bit of information:  "On".  Limited.  Control.

Quote

  Reveal hidden contents

“Ten days ago, we opened the main engine cover so that the engine would be ready to fire when we get to July 4, and a couple of days ago we pressurized the whole system, so that the engine is ready to go, (and) all the propulsion, all the pipes and valves are all ready to fire,” said Ed Hirst, Juno mission manager at JPL.

Engineers transmitted the final command file, dubbed “ji4040,” to Juno around 3:15 p.m. EDT (1915 GMT) Thursday via an antenna in NASA’s Deep Space Network located in Goldstone, California.

“Once those commands are sent, it will be hands-off from the team here on the ground,” Hirst told reporters Thursday before sending the order for Juno to launch its Jupiter arrival sequence. “We’ll continue to monitor the spacecraft and make sure everything is executing as we expect it to execute, but the spacecraft is on its own, and it’s designed to take care of itself with all the command sequences that we’ve sent it.”

Look, this is a game. For gameplay purposes, it makes no sense to have instant manual control over throttle but not to be able to cancel a manoeuvrer node

Given a special frequency for "reboot", could there not be a special frequency for "engine on"?

Quote

You can still have control limited at the same time as being able to make or destroy a node, it does not make your craft more or less controllable, just allows you a marker for a burn to be made or removed.

And how, exactly, is the craft going to get the information for a new maneuver node through a one-bit transmission?

"Delete", I'd believe.  You can encode "delete" in a one bit prearranged command.

Quote

I have long been in favour of KSP having the ability to automatically execute a pre-planned burn like Juno did.

Rejoice, for today you get your wish.  Advanced probe cores can follow maneuver nodes, even under limited control!  That's what they're for.

Not completely what you asked for, but a solid 99% of it, about as close as they can get without radically changing the core of the game.

Quote

If that were implemented then it would make sense to not be able to change burn markers without control.

You mean, it isn't?

Quote

As it is, we can point our craft in any cardinal direction we choose, and execute manual burns of an arbitrary length which we can decide at the moment. When you have that much manual control, to restrict adjustment of node markers makes no sense.

Why?

Do you not understand the difference between a one-bit signal and a datagram?

Do you not understand the difference between executing a prearranged command and transmitting new instructions?

3 hours ago, Spricigo said:

Maybe my game settings are not what you assume. 

If you're not using commnet, this topic is pointless of course.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Corona688

[John FX]

4 hours ago, Corona688 said:

My Juno example illustrated using a special frequency for a special function which can be accomplished at great distance even under poor radio conditions.  Why, given that, could there not be special frequencies for special functions which can be accomplished at great distance even under poor radio conditions?  They can only convey one bit of information:  "On".  Limited.  Control.

Given a special frequency for "reboot", could there not be a special frequency for "engine on"?

And how, exactly, is the craft going to get the information for a new maneuver node through a one-bit transmission?

"Delete", I'd believe.  You can encode "delete" in a one bit prearranged command.

Rejoice, for today you get your wish.  Advanced probe cores can follow maneuver nodes, even under limited control!  That's what they're for.

Not completely what you asked for, but a solid 99% of it, about as close as they can get without radically changing the core of the game.

You mean, it isn't?

Why?

Do you not understand the difference between a one-bit signal and a datagram?

Do you not understand the difference between executing a prearranged command and transmitting new instructions?

If you're not using commnet, this topic is pointless of course.

I think you may be taking this a little too seriously. Try to separate `game` from `reality` a little, it will help you keep some perspective, eh?

But to rebut, and point out where you contradict yourself.

4 hours ago, Corona688 said:

My Juno example illustrated using a special frequency for a special function which can be accomplished at great distance even under poor radio conditions.  Why, given that, could there not be special frequencies for special functions which can be accomplished at great distance even under poor radio conditions?  They can only convey one bit of information:  "On".  Limited.  Control.

This could allow destruction of a manoeuvrer node, the precise topic of this thread. It would not allow instant control, manually, of throttle.

Of course the situation being described in the OP means even that signal cannot be sent.

 

4 hours ago, Corona688 said:

Rejoice, for today you get your wish.  Advanced probe cores can follow maneuver nodes, even under limited control!  That's what they're for.

But they cannot execute them, which is what I said. Executing is 99% of the job. Point at what you like, without execution you go nowhere.

 

4 hours ago, Corona688 said:

Why?

Do you not understand the difference between a one-bit signal and a datagram?

Do you not understand the difference between executing a prearranged command and transmitting new instructions?

It would appear you do not otherwise you would realise that the limited control, oh sorry, Limited. Control. can not possibly operate using the mechanism you say it should follow, I notice you conveniently ignore the word `instant` as well.

So, first you say that a single bit can be transmitted then this single bit can let a user control a craft but not send any information to the craft or have any control except the ones you like, instant throttle control for example. How do you propose that the signal which both sends and does not send information and can control and not control the craft gets around the planet which is causing the signal to be blocked?

I will give you a clue, it cannot.

There cannot even be a single bit sent when you lose connection to KSP.

Maybe have a proper think, sort out what it is you actually think, then if it makes sense and does not contradict itself come back to the thread when you want to discuss rather than have a row.

EDIT :

Before you return, remember this thread is about the fact you can make a node without a signal but not destroy one and a call to allow a player to destroy the node they just made with no signal...

Edited November 29, 2017 by John FX
Attempt to get back on topic

[Corona688]

1 hour ago, John FX said:

This could allow destruction of a manoeuvrer node, the precise topic of this thread. It would not allow instant control, manually, of throttle.

I never said "manual".  You certainly don't get manual.  You get on, and off.

As for instant, the game doesn't consider speed of light delays yet. Either that, or its the tracking station's job.

Quote

But they cannot execute them, which is what I said. Executing is 99% of the job. Point at what you like, without execution you go nowhere.

It's a game engine limitation.  Objects which aren't being flown have no physics.

Quote

I notice you conveniently ignore the word `instant` as well.

The game ignores it, too, and is convenient.  We may have to come to grips with that someday, but I don't think that is today.

Quote

So, first you say that a single bit can be transmitted then this single bit can let a user control a craft but not send any information to the craft or have any control except the ones you like

No no no -- not "features I like".  Just "prearranged signals designed into the probe core".  If I was designed to my liking it'd be a bit different.

Juno understands that a radio wave on such-and-such a frequency means "reboot myself".  The signal doesn't contain a reboot instruction, it just knows what to do when it gets a signal on that band.

It's possible to have more than one of those.  2290Mhz might mean "stabilize", 2295Mhz could mean "execute", and 2300Mhz could mean "stop":  It'd increase the complexity and power requirements of the probe.

Quote

How do you propose that the signal gets around the planet which is causing the signal to be blocked?

That's a good question.  I can think of three ways.  First, diffraction.  Light spreads out when it goes past an edge:

The effect is greater for radio waves, especially for long wavelengths.  If you have lots and lots of transmitter power, and your probe is in high orbit, you could get a signal around the edges of the moon by brute force.  It wouldn't work if your probe were landed, or were on the far side of Pluto.

Second, you could reflect the signal off some other stellar body.  Same poor signal, same relatively-nearby limits.  Not much use on Earth, but we don't have Minmus...

Both depend on ridiculous amounts of transmission power but that is a thing.  We have radars strong enough to get an echo off of Venus.  Just let that sink in a moment.

I doubt you'll find my third idea satisfying, but please bear with me:  "The power of imagination". 

Jeb doesn't actually fly the craft, we do.  The probe doesn't actually fly the craft either -- we do, within the limits imposed by a simple targeting computer.  Perhaps that's what "limited control" means.  When it's beyond the reach of ground control, it's up to the "program", i.e. us.

Quote

Before you return, remember this thread is about the fact you can make a node without a signal

Limited control isn't no control.  You might say there shouldn't be control but that's a different argument.  I think there should be -- what else is a probe core for?  I thought they were useless until someone explained how "limited control" worked.

But make a node?  Are you sure?  That has to be a bug.

 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Corona688

[Slam_Jones]

Wow, this thread has gotten a bit heated...

I agree with OP and think it would be nice to be able to delete maneuver nodes after you have passed them, assuming limited control.

This is not for realism or anything like that, but rather because KSP is, first and foremost, a video game that is designed to be fun.  And, IMO, having a maneuver node from three KSP years ago still showing up on your navball doesn't sound like fun.

Personally, I think the best bet is to add it in as an option in the difficulty menu, defining just how 'limited' it is in your particular game.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Slam_Jones

[Spricigo]

9 hours ago, Corona688 said:

If you're not using commnet, this topic is pointless of course.

*Sight* Is not yet clear I have commnet on but partial control disabled?

3 hours ago, Corona688 said:

I doubt you'll find my third idea satisfying, but please bear with me:  "The power of imagination".

Personally I find extremely satisfying. Now I can Ignore arguments about what make sense or since we'll go with the power of imagination. 

 

[John FX]

13 hours ago, Slam_Jones said:

Wow, this thread has gotten a bit heated...

Yes it has and I am not responding to the ever more desperate attempts to make it worse.

I agree with the OP. We should be able to delete the node we can make when we have no comnet access.

[DAL59]

@John FX @Corona688, you can throttle during partial control using the thrust limiter slider.  

[Kerbinchaser]

Happened to me today. I launched a station core and staged by accident while the injection stage was still on. It went into a Sun orbit. XD

[Superfluous J]

6 hours ago, DAL59 said:

@John FX @Corona688, you can throttle during partial control using the thrust limiter slider.  

I am 99% sure they removed that after the first version that Limited Control was available, because it was reported as a bug.

I'm not that last 1% sure because I can't be bothered to load the game to test something I'm 99% sure of.

I am 100% sure that there exist versions of the game for which this is true, because when I read about it I was happy and tested it to make sure it worked as advertised. If it doesn't work that way now, then I'm gong to fill out another bug report