Anomaly Detection - questions

[RabidSeason]

Alternate title:  Things Not Found in the Instruction Manual

I'm looking at details for the Probodobo RoveMate and see that it has 100% anomaly detection - what a deal!  But also scans are enhanced when: [basically landed].

What types of things should I scan while on the ground?  How do I effectively use this with a rover?

How much less effective will scans be from orbit?  How can I use this with a satellite?

There is also a fairly limited field of view for KerbNet Access, 5-10 degrees.  What does this mean for ground scans?

To give a frame of reference for my current knowledge:  I have used scan-sats to map out biomes and terrains; I can create way-points, but have never actually used them; and I have just recently realized that there is an option to "Track" anomalies in the Tracking Center which displays the orbits.  I do not have any anomalies marked on Kerbin or any other bodies - just asteroids.

[GarrisonChisholm]

You are in much the same boat as I, as far as progress and utilization, so I will eagerly watch this thread for a response. 

 

[bewing]

1 hour ago, RabidSeason said:

I'm looking at details for the Probodobo RoveMate and see that it has 100% anomaly detection - what a deal!  But also scans are enhanced when: [basically landed].
What types of things should I scan while on the ground?  How do I effectively use this with a rover?
How much less effective will scans be from orbit?  How can I use this with a satellite?
There is also a fairly limited field of view for KerbNet Access, 5-10 degrees.  What does this mean for ground scans?

It's the FOV that's enhanced when you're landed, and that's it. There's no other change.

For most probe cores -- when you are landed, you only see about a 5 meter radius directly underneath the ship on KerbNet. The rovemate still sees out for a fair distance with KerbNet, even when landed -- but the only thing to look for is anomalies.

Scanning stats for multiple probecores combines, AFAIK. So a rovemate with a HECS2 will have both good range and high detection. So it's basically always best to do the scanning from a satellite -- scans from orbit are more effective. The visible range on the ground is just too short.

1 hour ago, RabidSeason said:

To give a frame of reference for my current knowledge:  I have used scan-sats to map out biomes and terrains; I can create way-points, but have never actually used them; and I have just recently realized that there is an option to "Track" anomalies in the Tracking Center which displays the orbits.  I do not have any anomalies marked on Kerbin or any other bodies - just asteroids.

Sorry, there are no anomalies on asteroids. The ? In the tracking station just indicates an "unowned object". Which basically means asteroids and craft to rescue.

The only way to see anomalies is with KerbNet, and the only way to track them is by putting a waypoint on them.

 

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

When I was doing the Mun Arch Challenge, I had never looked for anomalies before, and someone suggested using the Mk2 dronecore. This turned out to be a very good suggestion. It was the only problem I could get to work well. It has a high detection rate, but also a good field of view. If you put one in a polar orbit of Mun, for example, turn on Kerbnet, hit timewarp, and keep hitting the "refresh" button, anomalies will begin popping up all over the surface (there are a good number of them on Mun). Then you just tag them for navigation and land by them one at a time to see what they are. This obviously works anywhere else, as well. It's kinda fun, cuz you never know what it's gonna be until you get close enough to actually see it. I think you'll enjoy finding them. And, if nothing else, they make for good screenshots. 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Cpt Kerbalkrunch

[TheFlyingKerman]

^^ There is a button on the top left corner of the Kerbnet screen that automatically refreshes every 7 or 3.5 seconds. I prefer using the RoveMate form a very high orbit so I am sure a negative result means no anomaly.

[RabidSeason]

I'm glad to hear I wasn't being eccentric for wanting to put both probe cores on one satellite.