Newbish Scanning

[Superfluous J]

Clamber would have allowed my (so far) only "successful" Eve land-and-return mission to succeed without hyperedit. Everything worked great except the Kerbal kept falling off the top of the ladder backwards instead of forwards.

So I'm personally excited about it

[John FX]

I'll keep Scansat in my folder and remove the SQUAD parts, a sad state of affairs but it seems the best game to play is not the one SQUAD makes...

I'll also be keeping FAR and DRE and KER etc from the looks of things.

At least they optimised a bit to reduce memory footprint and got rid of some holes so a modded install should be more stable with 1.0

That's one of the best features IMHO, that we can mod a little more...

[nholzric]

The limitation of needing an inclination beyond 80° isn't that artifical; how else would you scan the entire planet.

The instant scan... well, in a game where you can timewarp, Harv probably figured that it wouldn't make that much of a difference. Perhaps there were technical considerations we can't quite grasp.

I'm surprised so many of you are okay with this. Let that be a lesson that not everyone feels exactly the way I do.

I'm really skeptical that there's a technical reason for leaving this out as evidenced by SCANsat. Anything a mod can code the devs should be able to code at least as well if not better - leaving aside priorities and for all I know a "better" scanning mechanic is in hopper for a future update. Or maybe that's way the resource system is being advertised as super modable.

The time-grindy aspect of a higher fidelity scanning simulation is a reasonable concern. But then again a big selling point of the new resource system is that it works on-rails - I don't think there's any difference between saying "You don't expect your Ore tank to be filled instantaneously when you activate the drill" to saying "You don't expect to scan the entire planet the instant you turn one sensor on". Besides, it seems like a reasonable game mechanic to encourage planning ahead; if you want to scan for resources before you drill, send a scanner first - it's likely to have large swaths scanned by the time the drilling ship is launched and arrives.

Lastly, I don't like how if you launch the large scanner on a satellite, that satellite is going to be useful for 10 seconds and then obsolete. It's more fun (obviously subjectively) to think that my scanning satellite was useful for "a long time" as it did rev after rev of scanning. And maybe it had a resonance and left patches unscanned, in the future I can decide if it's worth it to try to fix that.

In the end, this looks like a placeholder system to me and that's just crass and disappointing. Because of this, 1.0 has the odd effect of making mods *more* important to me rather than less. Still, I can't wait to get my grubby little hands on a copy of 1.0, it'll be a lot of fun! And I can't wait to see how mods tweak this.

[Superfluous J]

I'll keep Scansat in my folder and remove the SQUAD parts, a sad state of affairs but it seems the best game to play is not the one SQUAD makes...

I'll also be keeping FAR and DRE and KER etc from the looks of things.

At least they optimised a bit to reduce memory footprint and got rid of some holes so a modded install should be more stable with 1.0

That's one of the best features IMHO, that we can mod a little more...

You seem to be under a misconception, that your opinion of "best" and "worst" is fact.

I prefer what I've seen of the scanning to Scansat. I prefer what I've seen of aerodynamics to FAR. I prefer what I've seen of re-entry and heat to DRE. I feel no need to mod these in. This makes it better than modding.

For ME.

Squad did not fail. They implemented a system that some people will like and some people won't. For those that like it, great. For those that don't, Squad thought ahead and left everything as open to modding as can be reasonably expected (and then some).

[Tuareg]

You seem to be under a misconception, that your opinion of "best" and "worst" is fact.

I prefer what I've seen of the scanning to Scansat. I prefer what I've seen of aerodynamics to FAR. I prefer what I've seen of re-entry and heat to DRE. I feel no need to mod these in. This makes it better than modding.

For ME.

Squad did not fail. They implemented a system that some people will like and some people won't. For those that like it, great. For those that don't, Squad thought ahead and left everything as open to modding as can be reasonably expected (and then some).

5th is the ?paid? defender of the crown. first, he didnt say those are global facts, he dont even mention anything like that. he said "I'll", not "everybody will" so you seem to be under a misconception. also when nobody really likes it but you (this topic is 3 pages of complaints telling ppl accept it but dont like it), then you count as a minority and so your preference is the preference of the minority and other than you nobody cares. get yourself together before you go out to attack others. what squad does is covering up their inability with saying: but we made it moddable. all that is done by modders could be implemented with ease, the logics are there, even codes are there, they simply dont want to invest time and work. i've told right after the announcement how much they will fail and what they did is exactly as i've predicted it, just like in the case of science.

[JumpsterG]

...not everyone feels exactly the way I do.

Everyone should repeat this to themselves 3 times before commenting on feature discussion threads.

...Or maybe that's way the resource system is being advertised as super modable.

I think this is pretty much why it's so simple. I feel like it is easier to mod a simple system to be more complex than the other way around. Yeah, it is the least common denominator in terms of how simple the system is, but I don't mind that being the "vanilla" experience. Advanced players WILL mod.

The time-grindy aspect of a higher fidelity scanning simulation is a reasonable concern. But then again a big selling point of the new resource system is that it works on-rails - I don't think there's any difference between saying "You don't expect your Ore tank to be filled instantaneously when you activate the drill" to saying "You don't expect to scan the entire planet the instant you turn one sensor on". Besides, it seems like a reasonable game mechanic to encourage planning ahead; if you want to scan for resources before you drill, send a scanner first - it's likely to have large swaths scanned by the time the drilling ship is launched and arrives.

It seems out of whack, but there's a difference between waiting on a resource to build up, and waiting on information to become available. I think this is what drove the decisions on these two similar features. A real life mars mission involving ISRU would involve either a long stay or a period for robotic miner/converters to prepare for astronaut arrival. Managing launch windows around this, or just time warping to watch the days go by from your Duna base's perspective are both kind of fun and seems authentic. Waiting to know where the good places to land are is kind of annoying and just slows down getting to the good part. [Opinion alert! Others may find satellite management fun and that it is disappointing to handwave it away. Sorry!]

Lastly, I don't like how if you launch the large scanner on a satellite, that satellite is going to be useful for 10 seconds and then obsolete. It's more fun (obviously subjectively) to think that my scanning satellite was useful for "a long time" as it did rev after rev of scanning. And maybe it had a resonance and left patches unscanned, in the future I can decide if it's worth it to try to fix that.

Agreed. The implementation leaves out some nice gameplay possibilities for players who are interested in the challenge of 100% mapping a planetary body or who fail to get the minimum inclination orbit, but should get *some* mapping information. A flyby with a scanner should give *something* also I would think.

It's hard to tell when your hands are not on the controls, so I'm looking forward to trying the new version out to find out what seems to work and what doesn't.

[Superfluous J]

5th is the ?paid? defender of the crown. first, he didnt say those are global facts, he dont even mention anything like that. he said "I'll", not "everybody will" so you seem to be under a misconception. also when nobody really likes it but you (this topic is 3 pages of complaints telling ppl accept it but dont like it), then you count as a minority and so your preference is the preference of the minority and other than you nobody cares. get yourself together before you go out to attack others. what squad does is covering up their inability with saying: but we made it moddable. all that is done by modders could be implemented with ease, the logics are there, even codes are there, they simply dont want to invest time and work. i've told right after the announcement how much they will fail and what they did is exactly as i've predicted it, just like in the case of science.

Haha no I'm not paid. I call Squad out when they deserve it. Here is a part from what I quoted:

"it seems the best game to play is not the one SQUAD makes"

Not "I think" or "For me" no. This was set down as a fact. It happens far too often on this forum and I am merely sick of it.

[Kerbart]

I'm surprised so many of you are okay with this. Let that be a lesson that not everyone feels exactly the way I do.

And hats of for admitting that, sir!

I'm really skeptical that there's a technical reason for leaving this out as evidenced by SCANsat. Anything a mod can code the devs should be able to code at least as well if not better - leaving aside priorities and for all I know a "better" scanning mechanic is in hopper for a future update. Or maybe that's way the resource system is being advertised as super modable.

True. At the same time, I can see how the devs are more motivated to keep the save files clean and uncluttered than mod developers. Not that I'm saying mod developers are unprofessional or anything, but in the end if mod functionality doesn't get carried over from one version to another the reaction will be "meh". With stock-functionality, much less. So that would be an argument for them to keep things simple--at least for now.

The time-grindy aspect of a higher fidelity scanning simulation is a reasonable concern. But then again a big selling point of the new resource system is that it works on-rails - I don't think there's any difference between saying "You don't expect your Ore tank to be filled instantaneously when you activate the drill" to saying "You don't expect to scan the entire planet the instant you turn one sensor on". Besides, it seems like a reasonable game mechanic to encourage planning ahead; if you want to scan for resources before you drill, send a scanner first - it's likely to have large swaths scanned by the time the drilling ship is launched and arrives.

Not to mention the pleasant surprise that after three weeks of scanning you've finally located the motherlode!

In the end, this looks like a placeholder system to me and that's just crass and disappointing.

Preaching to the choir... but let's not get into that discussion here

[Joonatan1998]

how do the smaller scanners work? Do they just scan a limited area?

[Whirligig Girl]

I was a little disappointed in the scanning mechanic. The time problem of scanning shouldn't be what was held back, as it takes time to mine ore and convert it into fuel.

I like the idea of the big scanner being a flyby scanner, and the smaller one being used in a polar orbit to scan the planet in its entirety (Or an equatorial orbit to scan the planet on the equatorial ring)

I'm sure modders will be able to implement it. Heck, maybe they will even fix it for 1.1.

I'm still wishing you couldn't even properly see planets in the tracking station in high quality unless you have flown by it, and then it's still fuzzy. You should have to use the scanner to get height data for the map view. A camera part would allow the ability to produce high quality maps in the map view of the planets (and perhaps a 2D cylinder map as well).

I really want all map view data to have to be gathered by science stuff. Atmosphere analysis gives the atmospheric composition, barometer gives the scale height and surface pressure, thermometer gives the temperature of the planet, gravimeter gives the mass and gravitational parameter. We might also be able to get the mass if we could observe the orbit of the planet's moons? Seismic Accelerometer would give surface gravity.

Maybe even the planet descriptions could be updated with information.

Also, give Moho back its superheated atmosphere, especially since we have the new heat system!

[RayneCloud]

So wait, you're ok with time warping a scansat satellite around the planet rather than just having to get a probe out in to a polar orbit and pressing the button? I..this blows my mind. I love scansat, I do. But you're going to timewarp anyway, so you comp[lain about it being instant? This is the definition of "makes no sense"

[klgraham1013]

So wait, you're ok with time warping a scansat satellite around the planet rather than just having to get a probe out in to a polar orbit and pressing the button? I..this blows my mind. I love scansat, I do. But you're going to timewarp anyway, so you comp[lain about it being instant? This is the definition of "makes no sense"

There's something to be said for time based mechanics. Take Civ 5. Sure, a farm could be built in one turn, but does it not add something to the game that it takes time? The down fall of KSP is that it lacks background processing. In Civ 5, there's always something to do while you're waiting for that farm to be built. In KSP, you have to watch the satellite scan.

[Superfluous J]

There's something to be said for time based mechanics. Take Civ 5. Sure, a farm could be built in one turn, but does it not add something to the game that it takes time? The down fall of KSP is that it lacks background processing. In Civ 5, there's always something to do while you're waiting for that farm to be built. In KSP, you have to watch the satellite scan.

Actually that explains something that I've been trying to figure out: Why instascanning doesn't bother be, yet I like how drilling and processing takes time.

For scanning, I just want the info. Drilling and processing I do at a surface base while I'm setting up the orbital base and then sending ships out. I don't mind that it takes time because I'm doing other stuff anyway.

Plus I hate missing 2% of the planetary surface even though I don't need to know it.

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Yeah... it's magical. I understand that scanning ala ScanSat was sort of "wasted time", because all you had to do was pretty much wait and alter the orbit a little to cover the gaps... but still, right now its kind of immersion breaking to me. Maybe an option somewhere so people can change to their likings? Like fighter pilots would say when they don't understand how some gadget works: the new scanner works by FM.

The M is for magic. The F... well.

[nholzric]

So wait, you're ok with time warping a scansat satellite around the planet rather than just having to get a probe out in to a polar orbit and pressing the button? I..this blows my mind. I love scansat, I do. But you're going to timewarp anyway, so you comp[lain about it being instant? This is the definition of "makes no sense"

If you try a little harder I'm sure you'll understand. KSP has a lot of details concerning orbital mechanics. Scanning a planet's surface is highly dependent on the particulars of an orbit - over time. Why hardcode an orbital parameter and then make the scan instant when there's precedent (ie it's not impossible to code) for a model that is driven by: orbital mechanics and time. That's the discontinuity and I think it looks cheap.

Concerning play styles, no I don't just "timewarp anyway". I launch a scanning missions. While the scanner is being useful, there's other things to do and by the time a mission arrives that needs the scanning data I can evaluate if the data's sufficient or if I need to wait longer or if I need to change orbits. But the reason I think the way scanning works should change is not dependent on how I play, or anyone else.

[pizzaoverhead]

Instant scanning is a lost opportunity for the discovery-based gameplay that KSP prides itself on and won us all over with. Having played KSP, we know why a scanning satellite should be in a polar orbit, but we may not have known this initially.

New players often place their first SCANsat satellites in equatorial orbits. They observe that the ground track prevents the coverage they want and think about how to change it, coming up with the solution of an inclined or polar orbit by themselves. They learn something in the process, and the discovery is theirs to call their own. They can play with it, modify the orbit, see how it maps to a 2D representation of the surface and get a feel for how the 2D projection and 3D body correlate. It also gives a very visual sense of progression, and an ongoing purpose for satellites. You might do an initial scan at a relatively low inclination to find a landing target, move to a polar orbit, and then go create your lander while leaving the scanner to fill out the rest of the map.

This gameplay is all lost via the instant scan method. The player never discovers why the orbit has to be polar, only that they aren't allowed to see the results unless they fulfil this requirement. This leads to the feel of an "artificial limitation" already expressed in this thread. I'd rather see methods of removing the wait time than removing the partial scan. We have "warp to waypoint" and "warp to sunset", how about "warp to one full rotation"? Failing that, make progressive scan a difficulty/realism option and retain the current behaviour.

[Farex]

I also like SCANsat works better, because if you are from the RolePlay Type than time is of the essence.

It is a little bit disappointing that you can Insta-Scan with Stockscanner - but hey, Jean Luc Picard could also Insta-Scan every Planet they ever came across! so why not a little bit of StarTrek technology inside our KSP?

Fortunately Squad gives you the choice which scannersystem you prefer - and now go and boldly scan where no one has scanned before.

[RoverDude]

Despite the kinda rude title to this post, I'm actually going to cross post from the general discussion forum, because it seems a lot of folks are grabbing the wrong scanner for their analogues.

I think the majority of the confusion is trying to compare the orbital survey scanner with the scanners from mods, and you're comparing apples and bananas at that point - i.e. the resolution is incredibly low, and it's a wholly different beast entirely.

So probably a better way of viewing the orbital survey scanner is that it takes data from observations coupled with more localized data to make a 'best guess' as to where stuff will be. It's really the surface scanner and the narrow band scanner that refine that detail and put you at a level comparable to a Kethane map or SCANSat big map. This, again, was a design choice.

I was not a fan of the all seeing eye that mod scanners had, and wanted to do a slow reveal - not in the sense of progressive detail scanning, but in terms of dialing in the resolution, with different technical challenges for each layer. For example, the very best data requires ground truthing with rovers or probes, but in turn enables the other scanners to have more accurate data. And your fine grained area detail has a limited FOV, and requires manual flybys (and also incorporates terrain data for planning landings).

This is what I mean when I say you really have to take the system as a whole, yet folks are fixated on one bit (the least significant, actually) because, in fairness, it appears to be the closest analogue to what they are used to.

What I've found is that once folks are shown all of the pieces in their proper context and get a feel for the entire scanning experience as a series of interrelated (and very different) mechanics, things 'click' and they get it.

[Joonatan1998]

I think the main reason to complain about it isn't its effects on balance, having to wait a bit wouldn't really change anything.

It's a realism thing, people accept unrealistic things from KSP, but "scans trough a planet" just doesn't make any sense for many players, no matter how low the resolution of those scans is.

The only other clearly "magic" parts are reaction wheels (and parachutes because of bugs).

If it had been "scans 49.999% of the planet at once from high orbit", less people would complain.

If the "magic free rotation" reaction wheels were added now, there would be many complaints.

(I'm not really sure if KSP would still exist without the reaction wheels... But if it did, the players wouldn't like rotation control suddenly becoming meaningless.)

Adding "magic" parts = complaints.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Joonatan1998

[klgraham1013]

If it had been "scans 49.999% of the planet at once from high orbit", less people would complain.

This small change would make it tolerable for me. Simply scanning what's in the field of view of the satellite. Magically scanning all the planet instantly feels to artificial.

edit: Also, if we're scanning the field of view of the satellite, orbital inclination shouldn't matter.

[nholzric]

Despite the kinda rude title to this post, I'm actually going to cross post from the general discussion forum, because it seems a lot of folks are grabbing the wrong scanner for their analogues.

Thanks RoverDude. I apologize for the rude title - I was purposely trying to calibrate some passion into the title because I believe that dry titles cause good ideas to go unnoticed. [sarcasm] and naturally all my ideas deserve the best and most attention [/sarcasm] But seriously, I'm a big fan of civility and I may have missed the mark with the title, sorry.

Although I would prefer a narrower ground trace, a large FOV scan that takes 99%, 80%, 70% or some large percent of the visible planet at once would be pretty good too. Although with this type of scan you wouldn't need a highly inclined orbit.

[RoverDude]

So my point remains. Of the folks that are complaining about that first scanner, which is more about visualizing an educated guess based on limited data to render a realtime display than an actual full-on scan ala Kethane/SCANSat...

Have you actually gone through and used the rest of the scanners? Specifically, ground truthing with the surface scanner, followed by your flybys with the narrow band scanner?

I think that's a pretty legitimate question given you're judging an aspect of a system by comparing it to something that it really is not.

[Joonatan1998]

So my point remains. Of the folks that are complaining about that first scanner, which is more about visualizing an educated guess based on limited data to render a realtime display than an actual full-on scan ala Kethane/SCANSat...

Have you actually gone through and used the rest of the scanners? Specifically, ground truthing with the surface scanner, followed by your flybys with the narrow band scanner?

I think that's a pretty legitimate question given you're judging an aspect of a system by comparing it to something that it really is not.

No matter how inaccurate, it is silly.

You can't look at an apple from one side, and say "it seems there is a hole dug by a worm on the other side"

Even less can you tell even the approximate place of that hole.

To do even basic guessing about the deposit locations, you have to see the other side first.

The existance of other scanners doesn't make the magic scanner in any way more realistic.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Joonatan1998

[nholzric]

So my point remains. Of the folks that are complaining about that first scanner, which is more about visualizing an educated guess based on limited data to render a realtime display than an actual full-on scan ala Kethane/SCANSat...

Have you actually gone through and used the rest of the scanners? Specifically, ground truthing with the surface scanner, followed by your flybys with the narrow band scanner?

I think that's a pretty legitimate question given you're judging an aspect of a system by comparing it to something that it really is not.

No, I've started a career, made it to orbit, and messed around with puddle jumpers in the new aero. So, good point, I haven't scanned for resources yet. But when you're coding something, and you're about to code a limit - like a minimum inclination before a scanner will work - you have to ask yourself if that limit is appropriate to set or if it should be an emergent property. For a game that has so much to do with orbital mechanics I think it's the wrong decision to code an inclination limit on the scanner, I think that's indicative of something missing.

[RoverDude]

So you're judging a mechanic, and rudely so, that is part of a system that you have never used.

@Joonatan1998 - we do this all the time in the real world. We have rough ideas on what planets were made of before we even visited them, and can make educated guesses based on a very limited set of observable data. And as above, the question stands. Because what I find 'silly' is that folks are condemning something they have not even used.

- - - Updated - - -

Now. If anyone wants to discuss concerns with the scanning system once they have in fact actually used the entire scanning system soup to nuts, then I would welcome a much more productive conversation.