ShadoxFilms

Glad to hear the news that science is on it's way. @Dakota The main post mentions that the team would like to use the KERB as a means to look at Patch-to-Patch issues, rather than major bugs. As someone in Academia, its a very annoying issue when incorrect units, or nonsensical measurements are given, as this renders the educational aspect of KSP moot. I know that @Anth is tracking the thread of inconsistent details in the tracking station granted, its a bit old at this point, see: If the team could give a once over pass regarding all units/measurements presented, I think it would go a long way to showing that the team values the scientific merits of the legacy that is KSP. Cant' wait for science! Best regards,

Right, they are saying that the value of circumference as shown in the tracking station is using the wrong formula. For example, Kerbol has a reported C = 2.1499351693039E+17m if you use the incorrect formula, as @Excors found, then you get a radius of 2.616E+8m, which is the same radius of Kerbol in KSP1 If you use the correct formula for radius, which is C = 2*pi*r, and plugging in the reported C from the tracking station, you get a radius of 3.4217E+16, which is 5 orders of magnitude larger than the semi-major axis of Eeloo. In other news regarding tracking station Planet list order is neither in the order of the orbits, nor is it alphabetical, added to main post

LMAO, such a simple mistake, Sounds like a typo I'd have in my code, nice job figuring that one out.

Hey Trickplay, I'm going to add this post to the compilation post I have over at

(Current for EA Release Build, Last Edit: 3 March 2023) Hi, Figured I'd compile my own noticed issues along with the others that people have noticed here on the forums, if you notice something new, note it down! I'll do my best to organize these. Side note: It does look like some parameters, like Eve's Sea Level Pressure being changed from KSP1, until someone tells me otherwise, I won't label this as a bug. Units of Measurement Surface Gravity: Units are labeled as m/s, when the value given is in G's (1.00034 vs. 9.81 for Kerbin) Related Threads: Author: Sginga Forum Thread: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/214147-tracking-station-data/#comment-4249399 Circumference: Values given for the physical characteristic "circumference" make no sense, I have tried figuring out what these values are, It's not related to the planetary radius, SOI or orbit, I'm honestly at a loss (props if you can figure out what the devs are trying to show here) Related Threads: Author: Rook116 Forum Thread: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/213361-kerbin-tracking-station-information-incorrect/#comment-4244728 Atmosphere: Units here are given as (atm), when the values given reflect the densities, which have units of (kg/m^3). Atm is a unit of pressure where 1 atm = 101,325 Pa Related Threads: Author: ShadoxFilms Forum Thread: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/212899-different-celestial-body-properties-are-presented-in-the-tracking-station-why/#comment-4243319 Eccentricity: Value should be unitless, current UI shows it having units of degrees Related Threads: Author: Trickplay Forum Thread: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/214331-planetary-data/ Localization / Typos General Typos In descriptions: Grammar is hard, I completely empathize. Other times, describing astrophysics is even harder. Related Threads: Author: Zipmafia Forum Thread: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/213718-typos-in-synopses-of-kerbin-and-dres-in-tracking-station/#comment-4246376 Author: Strawberry Forum Thread: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/214160-disrepencies-and-bugs-in-the-tracking-station-menu-descriptions/ Display Planet order does not make sense: If it were by orbit, order would be Moho, Eve, Kerbin, Duna, Dres, Jool, Eeloo. It's obviously not alphabetical either. Author: Shadoxfilms Forum Thread: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/214163-all-noted-tracking-station-bugs-for-celestial-body-information-so-far/&do=findComment&comment=4252139

Good Catch! You can see the comparison in my pictures, I think you're right. Honestly I didn't even notice. Yeah, units seem to be whack in the new tracking station (sidereal period is a measurement of how much time it takes to complete 360 degrees rotation in a fixed reference frame, in units of seconds, but tracking station reports units of m/s)

Yeah, I've found myself double tapping f12 to take a clean screenshot. I really just need to rebind the key.

If you're using steam, you can use the default screenshot button which is f12, and you can find your screenshots on your hard-drive by opening steam, clicking view in the top left corner, select screenshots, then select select in folder Otherwise, you can use the built in windows screencapture feature, or snipping tool as other users have mentioned.

Now that KSP2 is out for early access, I've been looking through the tracking station for any changes to the properties of celestial bodies to update some of my Python scripts to help plan missions. One of the things that is new, is that circumference is given, instead of radius. While the value of the body radius can be calculated simply from circumfrence, which is needed for many orbital calculations (at least for perfect spheres), I do wonder why the change. I guess the main question that stands is, what drove the changes in the displayed data in the tracking station, and for non-spherical bodies (dres has a nasty protrusion at the equator, but for future bodies that may be more oblate than not) how do the devs plan to communicate the details to the player (average radius, equitorial radius, etc). Side note: I am absolutely in love with the added precision for the values that are given! Pictures are of KSP1 vs. KSP2 Kerbin Parameters Maybe I'm just being too OCD about this, I'd love to know other players thoughts, especially those who love the mission planning side of things. Best, Also, the term "Atmosphere" In KSP2 is slightly confusing In aerospace, atm is a unit of pressure (1atm = 101,325 Pa), however given the value of 1.225, I think they are referring to density. Unless kerbin in KSP2 does have a 1.225 atm. at Sea Level, which corresponds to a pressure of 124.12 KPa

For that issue, what is a good solution? Or I guess, what is the cause of this? Should the base be made wider?

Wow, did not realize this. I'm not familiar with what goes on with mod development.

If you have the ability to read static pressure then use that for P, and use your stagnation pressure for P0

There are a few things that stand out to me. 1. units: you mention kPa, knots, and in-Hg as units you used. Make sure your units are consistent, use ft/s, slugs/ft^3, and lbs/ft^2 for velocity, density, and pressure respectively (or m/s, kg/m^3, and Pa for metric) 2. there is a much easier way to calculate dynamic pressure, where qbar = .5*density*velocity^2, from here you can use Bernoulli's principle (I'm assuming you're in the incompressible regime, below mach 0.3ish) to calculate velocity. where P0 = P + q. P0 will be the total pressure readout from your transducer, P is the static pressure (based on your elevation/altitude). Since we assume incompressible flow, you can get density from your altitude as well from the 1976 Standard Atmosphere from there, just rearrange the equation to give you V2 = 2(P0-P)/density

Thanks for the insight, I'll dig into some of the mods you've mentioned and see if I can't find something that will work!

https://kerbalx.com/ShadoxFilms/UX-12-Dracon There ya go!