Maneuver Node Editor Option: Rotation Gizmo

[Superfluous J]

I was trying to do a fairly complicated maneuver node the other day, where I was going significantly normal, AND retrograde, with a little radial sprinkled in. As anybody who has tried to do this knows, it can be frustrating because at a certain point, adjusting the "normal" markers affects prograde more than normal, and vice versa. Eventually it seems impossible to the the result you want with those little tuggy nodes on the Maneuver Node.

Frustrated with this, I said to myself, "Agh! I wish this was a rotation gizmo. I'd have nailed this in SECONDS."

And now I want this really bad. I don't even know if it's easy (or possible) to allow the user to use a rotation-like gizmo to set up a maneuver node and then have the game figure out what the burn should be like, but if it is, I want it baaaaaaaad.

[Wallygator]

Dude, that would be fab! I support this 100%!!!!!

[GreenWolf]

The normal/antinormal markers affecting the prograde/retrograde components is what finally lead to me installing Precise Node. A better maneuver node system would be greatly appreciated.

[jake9039]

+1 total support

[BudgetHedgehog]

HI I'M BARRY SCOTT AND I'M HERE TO TELL YOU ABOUT INTUITIVE MANOEUVRES!

Have you ever pulled the normal so hard it became prograde? Or been frustrated that manoeuvre node editors are displayed with the post-manoeuvre trajectory, but the manoeuvre burn is calculated from the pre-maneuver trajectory, thus resulting in a discrepancy between what you want to happen and what actually happens e.g. pulling normal just adjusts inclination while keeping the pre-manoeuvre SMA? THEN INTUITIVE MANOEUVRES IS FOR YOU!

pls Squad fix this error. it's really annoying

Edited March 26, 2015 by ObsessedWithKSP

[Superfluous J]

HI I'M BARRY SCOTT AND I'M HERE TO TELL YOU ABOUT INTUITIVE MANOEUVRES!

Have you ever pulled the normal so hard it became prograde? Or been frustrated that manoeuvre node editors are displayed with the post-manoeuvre trajectory, but the manoeuvre burn is calculated from the pre-maneuver trajectory, thus resulting in a discrepancy between what you want to happen and what actually happens e.g. pulling normal just adjusts inclination while keeping the pre-manoeuvre SMA? THEN INTUITIVE MANOEUVRES IS FOR YOU!

pls Squad fix this error. it's really annoying

I think my suggestion would fix that problem, because it's decoupling "where you want to go" with the whole prograde/normal/radial paradigm of the maneuver node. Really, those don't matter because all you want is the vector.

[nholzric]

I think my suggestion would fix that problem, because it's decoupling "where you want to go" with the whole prograde/normal/radial paradigm of the maneuver node. Really, those don't matter because all you want is the vector.

I agree maneuver nodes are often unwieldy and I hope something is done to make them easier to manipulate. I'm not sure this would be the most helpful - are you imagining adjusting a maneuver by magnitude and direction, as in you say I want to burn x dv and then use a rotation tool to point that vector? (and of course you could iterate between adjusting the magnitude and direction until you find the desired result)

Although it is true that ultimately you just want the magnitude and direction, it is often helpful to consider if your primary goal is to change the altitude of your orbit, adjust the location of apogee/perigee, or change your inclination. Of course these three results are often interrelated. But the current 3 orthogonal vector system is well suited for making adjustments of these kinds.

Maybe we play differently, how often do you know the magnitude of your maneuver before you know the direction? I find that I know I want to adjust apogee/perigee or inclination or both in some way and I need to discover the required vector and magnitude.

Of course you'd expect play styles or ways of thinking to adapt to the tools available which may not be the best case. I just think direction magnitude would best case take some getting used to and worst case be less helpful than the current 3 orthogonal vector system.

[John FX]

I'm imagining a hybrid node gizmo which has rotational parts and also similar widgets to the ones we use now. It would be nice to decide the resulting vector by rotational gizmo but also to be able to increase or decrease prograde burn as a separate thing.

Sometimes I just want to burn retrograde for 100 Dv, sometimes I want to keep my speed the same and alter my vector. It would be nice to be able to go from an equatorial orbit to a polar one with a single adjustment keeping the same Ap and Pe.

I currently use precise node and mechjeb to make my nodes. This means I can make a node far in the future or many orbits away easily and then adjust either the time of burn in micro increments to get the exact result I require. It's handy for interplanetary burns or when rendezvousing, I can often get to within 100m with a single burn at the right time.

[Guest]

I think this suggestion has merit but I'd rather that the maneuver node just stayed stationary relative to where you whacked it on the orbit instead of rotating when adjusted. That way you could adjust relative to your orbit rather than the expected orbit. A few more quality of life adjustments would make the widget much more useful; for one, a modifier key that would stop mouse wheel acceleration for fine adjustment would go a long way. I've noticed recently that nodes now retain their current orbit when the time is being adjusted, which is a big thing.

[Superfluous J]

I'm not sure this would be the most helpful - are you imagining adjusting a maneuver by magnitude and direction, as in you say I want to burn x dv and then use a rotation tool to point that vector?

Yes. No. Kind of See below.

Although it is true that ultimately you just want the magnitude and direction, it is often helpful to consider if your primary goal is to change the altitude of your orbit, adjust the location of apogee/perigee, or change your inclination. Of course these three results are often interrelated. But the current 3 orthogonal vector system is well suited for making adjustments of these kinds.

When you're making minor adjustments, yes. But not when you're making major changes of inclination which is specifically what I'm dealing with when I want this tool. Note: I'm not asking to replace the current maneuver node, but enhance it.

Maybe we play differently, how often do you know the magnitude of your maneuver before you know the direction? I find that I know I want to adjust apogee/perigee or inclination or both in some way and I need to discover the required vector and magnitude.

My imagined use of this tool does not need me to know the magnitude or direction of the burn. Here's what I want (maybe I should update the first post with this):

You want to align with Gilly. Your orbit after your aerobrake at Eve is nowhere near Gilly's. Tilted about 45 degrees (hey at least you're not retrograde) and quite a ways around Eve. You're lucky (or you planned it this way) though that you've got an ascending node out near your apoapsis, so the burn will be relatively cheap to align. And while you're out there, you could also with the same burn (to save fuel) bring up your periapsis to encounter Gilly on a tangent so you can actually plan the encounter part of your mission.

I would consider the above to be a typical experience for me.

Now, with the normal maneuver node editor, the SECOND part of this (the burn at your closest point) is a breeze while the first is a nightmare. With my proposed node, both are easy.

My proposed node would drop a rotation gizmo on the orbit. What this gizmo says is that you want to leave it at the same speed you were going when you went in TO START WITH, at the direction vector you were going when you went in ALSO TO START. You rotate it around (it could even have a snap to the plane of the target button) and then drag it so your direction vector is now coplanar with Gilly. Likely, the speed you're going isn't correct so then you can drag the speed vector arrow (that is not on the VAB's rotation gizmo, this would be an addition). Now you have told the game what direction and speed you want to be going AFTER THE BURN. The game, then, kindly figures out what that burn should be and tells you where to burn. In short, you're not using the gizmo to tell the game where you want to BURN, you're telling it where you want to go AFTER the burn.

For the slowdown or speedup to meet Gilly in the second node, you can use that speed arrow to just slow down or speed up. It's the same as the prograde/retrograde markers so long as you don't rotate the gizmo at all.

Of course you'd expect play styles or ways of thinking to adapt to the tools available which may not be the best case. I just think direction magnitude would best case take some getting used to and worst case be less helpful than the current 3 orthogonal vector system.

Again, that's why I specified that this should be an option in addition to the current node.

I do not deny that this proposal is a very fundamental change in the way maneuver nodes work. Currently, you are telling the game how you want to burn and it's telling you what will happen. With my proposal, you tell the game what you want to happen and it tells you how to make the burn.

I think this suggestion has merit but I'd rather that the maneuver node just stayed stationary relative to where you whacked it on the orbit instead of rotating when adjusted. That way you could adjust relative to your orbit rather than the expected orbit. A few more quality of life adjustments would make the widget much more useful; for one, a modifier key that would stop mouse wheel acceleration for fine adjustment would go a long way. I've noticed recently that nodes now retain their current orbit when the time is being adjusted, which is a big thing.

I agree here, I'd like this too. Either make the tuggy nodes do what they look like they'll do while they're moving, or leave them there relative to the orbit. I'd prefer the latter (like you would) but would still like my proposed tool as an addition to this.