Thoughts on stock communication system in ksp 1.1

[regex]

because it has no challenge like RemoteTech does so it seems pointless to me.

RemoteTech doesn't really offer "challenge", it offers floppy, dying fish (I suppose you could call that a challenge...) and tons of busy work. The RSS config for it makes it playable, I only have to launch maybe three relay sats, two of those for launching.

And seriously, time delay for Eeloo would be like, eight minutes. IMO that's not really worth the bother of a command system. This addition seems like a good compromise and is just realistic enough.

All that said, I do like the new models, they are very nice

Totally disagree on that one as well, they look way too "clunky" and the textures are just ... off. RemoteTech has some very nice, clean antennas.

E: AHAHA, I thought Alshain was the OP...

vOv

Edited July 24, 2015 by regex

[keeper]

I like what I've read about it so far, seems like a good mix of features without so much complexity or tedium to turn off less experienced players. It does seem to be a lot of parts to support this element, we'll have more antennas than we have rover wheels, or landing legs, for example.

One thing I've noticed about Squad implementing features that were previously done by mods: The heavy users of those mods are never satisfied. New stock aero didn't satisfy most FAR enthusiasts. Stock ISRU didn't seem to satisfy the Kethane/Karbonite/ScanSAT crowd. Better stock spaceplane parts didn't satisfy the B9 people. I expect I'll be one of these people when/if a stock delta-V meter is implemented, it will likely be simpler than KER (or alternatives) so I'll stick to the mod.

The thing is, these implemented features make a good core for those who don't use mods and make those aspects of the game better for a majority of players (I don't think any single mod is used by the majority of the playerbase, I'd be surprised if the majority uses mods at all). Players can then pick and choose where the stock game doesn't satisfy them and use mods to enhance those aspects. Best of all, the new features added lately seem to be made with ease of moddability in mind, so they should make it easier to have mods that are robust and fully featured without reinventing the wheel.

Every word, well said. All true. Bravo. (i bet the majority of players add mods)

I also hope i dont need to restart my career save for the updates.

[Coga19000]

My opinion is that SQUAD basically admits officially that they rushed too much on the official release of KSP; not that I don't like that new things still be added, but they said that the transition to Beta meant that all the major features were there. And now, both for 1.0 and 1.1, they added some of the biggest changes in the game as we know it since 0.1, with complete lack of subtlety and the latest of warnings.

[MoeKitsune]

I want it to die in a fire. A FIRE I SAY! *Storms out of room*

[DMagic]

The thing is, these implemented features make a good core for those who don't use mods and make those aspects of the game better for a majority of players (I don't think any single mod is used by the majority of the playerbase, I'd be surprised if the majority uses mods at all). Players can then pick and choose where the stock game doesn't satisfy them and use mods to enhance those aspects. Best of all, the new features added lately seem to be made with ease of moddability in mind, so they should make it easier to have mods that are robust and fully featured without reinventing the wheel.

That's something that I don't think a lot of people consider. The most popular mods generate something like 30-50k downloads for any given version (the total download count is a more a reflection of how many versions of an addon exist, rather than just popularity), and how many of those downloaders actually use the addon is a different question. Given the numbers for KSP sales that have been thrown around this suggests that mods aren't nearly as popular as forum users like to think.

So having a relatively user-friendly version of a popular addon incorporated into the stock game is a good thing. Complaining that it doesn't provide all of the features of a given addon, or isn't hard enough doesn't make much sense to me. Just continue using addons if you want those features.

[mid0r]

Dont they have more important stuff to code?!?

[mikegarrison]

I'm playing a RemoteTech game for the first time. There are two things I have liked about it: 1) designing the network of relay satellites was an interesting challenge, 2) it gives me something to do with all those "launch a satellite with power and an antenna" contracts.

I can see how item #1 could get boring upon lots of replays, though. Just like item #2 reflects that putting satellites into specific orbits got boring after a while, too.

[Superfluous J]

Dont they have more important stuff to code?!?

Pick your favorite answer:

Yes. That's why an outside contractor is doing this.

No. It's a video game. None of it is particularly more or less important than any other part.

[mid0r]

Pick your favorite answer:

Yes. That's why an outside contractor is doing this.

No. It's a video game. None of it is particularly more or less important than any other part.

Like the underlying game engine vs. data transmitting? I am not complaining, it just seems kind of odd.

[Red Iron Crown]

Like the underlying game engine vs. data transmitting? I am not complaining, it just seems kind of odd.

It's not either/or. As I understand it the data link stuff is mostly RoverDude's work, the primary KSP devs are working on the Unity 5 port.

[razark]

Please share your thoughts!

You started the thread. Why don't you share yours?

My thoughts:

I'm not sure about it. I liked RemoteTech when I tried it, but I didn't use it for long. It seemed to be doing a lot of processing in the background, so it bogged my computer down. The lack of some way to handle maneuvers during LOS detracts from it. I'd like to see the ability to have probes execute maneuver nodes. (Of course, pilots should also be able to execute nodes.)

[juanml82]

I want it to die in a fire. A FIRE I SAY! *Storms out of room*

Dont they have more important stuff to code?!?

I agree with both of this. I don't see the gameplay enhancement this feature provides nor it looks like realistic, unless you can send commands to the probe to execute when it's occluded - something like KOS (I guess) or MJ's autopilot, and I don't see either becoming stock.

I think this ties in the long discussion of "realism vs. gameplay vs. difficulty" which isn't always a versus, and in which sometimes, realism makes for better and easier gameplay. This isn't really realistic (come on, does anyone think that NASA, in a mission where the probe would need to do stuff while out of sight of the DSN, won't make sure the probe is able to do stuff anyway?), it doesn't make gameplay easier and, frankly, it doesn't make it funnier or better, it's just tedium.

I guess two satellites in a polar solar orbit would be the minimum required grind to have LoS with everywhere in the kerbol system at least... sighs...

[Jett_Quasar]

I like the idea of building a communication network, I think it will be a great addition to game play. The only problem is that the game really doesn't do a great job of supporting a lot of separate flights so I think once you've placed the communications satellite in a proper orbit you shouldn't need to leave it there. Sort of like how the resource mapping works - once you've established a polar orbit the scan is done and the satellite is no longer needed. To me that was the reason behind the orbital contracts but to have a specific requirement to set up a communications network is a great idea.

JR

[Dunbaratu]

One of the things that can make RemoteTech tedious is that you can't make self-correcting station-keeping satellites in KSP. No amount of knowledge of autopilot coding, no amount of expertise with C# or kerboscript, will help fix the fact that KSP itself cannot have multiple vessels all being "active" at once, all self-correcting themselves like a realistic set of satellites can do. Again, it's not a player limitation, nor a thing a mod can fix. The base game itself demands that the only part of the universe that can currently operate with the full simulation environment is a small sphere within a near distance of the camera. Everything else is frozen on rails. You can write all the station-keeping code you feel like in something like kOS and it doesn't do a bit of good unless you occasionally interrupt yourself every few days of gametime to re-focus the camera on the satellites so the KSP game engine will actually allow them to get off rails and do adjustments.

It would be handy if the main game allowed you to sync a few satellites in orbit to each other and lock them on rails TOGETHER as a locked SET, to simulate the stationkeeping that the game engine's limitations currently makes impossible. It could have tight narrow tolerances and say that before you tie them together into a locked set, you must first put them within very closely the same orbit, just differing by phase angle only - then it could put them all on the "same rail" - remembering their phase angle offsets and locking them all to one satellite (i.e. remember that satellite C is 120 degrees behind B, which is 120 degrees behind A, and then just calculate A's position on rails, and derive B's and C's positions as being locked at 120, and 240 degrees off from wherever A is.)

[Pixel Kola]

I'd prefer they work on a logical, more in-depth contract system so that THIS comm system has more purpose and not just 'hey, look its Remote Tech Lite and you can already do this stuff with half a dozen mods and even better'.

Contracts should be their #1 priority. Contracts should take you from your first probe to Mun all the way to landing a base on Eeloo. Give the game purpose. Playing in the sand is fun until you realize that you are just playing in sand.

[OddFunction]

Dont they have more important stuff to code?!?

Important is a subjective word. To me this is important

[rkman]

Honestly, i'm frustrated.

If you're going to add a feature, add a complete feature which would satisfy the people who use that modded feature to begin with.

This particular feature is similar to the Antenna Range mod, which many people use.

[pandaman]

What this feature seems to be doing is continuing a trend by squad of introducing 'features' that address/represent genuine RL considerations, but in a simplified form.

eg. reentry heat, aero and thermal stuff is there, but not as complex or critical/deadly as RL. The same for ISRU.

And I think it's a good thing. It increases the educational aspect by at least making players aware that such issues and potential problems exist IRL and need to be considered, even if 'in game' it may not matter too much if you forget a radiator for a simple space station or a heat shield for a LKO capsule reentry.

The 'stock' game needs to remain playable for a wide range of different players so many of these things need to be simplified for that reason.

Space flight is hard, and there are lots of things to consider, and this game is in a prime position to at least introduce these concepts, if not cover them in detail or completely accurately.

On that note, I would not be surprised to see a crude life support feature too at some point as this fits the same theme.

I'm looking forward to seeing it in action.

[r4pt0r]

What this feature seems to be doing is continuing a trend by squad of introducing 'features' that address/represent genuine RL considerations, but in a simplified form.

On that note, I would not be surprised to see a crude life support feature too at some point as this fits the same theme.

I'm looking forward to seeing it in action.

Sums up my thoughts on all this as well. should be interesting.

[WOODY01]

I already assumed/imagined:

1. That a global network existed.

2. When I maneuver probes with no LOS of Kerbin it is planned for and the probe was programed to perform the maneuver with no input from ground control needed. Actually all my interplanetary missions maneuvers are planned at least several months in advance.

3. Transmitting data when blocked by a planet or moon a probe is just preprogrammed to transmit the data when contact is made. For manned missions I just assume basically the same thing. The crew transmits the data when they make contact again I just get the science a little earlier.

I did enjoy playing with remote tech but once I set up a network a couple of times I just lost interest in playing with it installed.

I have not tried Antenna Range but from what I read it seems it will be similar to what Squad will introduce into the game.

I am assuming choosing antennas will no longer be mainly based on aesthetics. At least that is my main reason for selecting one antenna over another. Which I am looking forward to.

[Kegereneku]

[Personal & Biased opinions]

- I am not the slightest bothered that SQUAD prioritize completing a Feature that was underdelivering for years.

- The features itself sound interesting and well balanced for best enjoyments and gameplay (without catering to a vocal minority of masochist hardmod players)

- Reacting to other comments : I never wanted RemoteTech stock, I wanted AntennaRange. And I find absolutely stupid the logic that SQUAD should have gone for the "complex one" and dumbed down the game to insult all other players.

I now hope SQUAD continue on the logic of "finishing unfinished features" and continue with :

* Refiltering Contracts, making them more reliable & enjoyable.

* Rebalancing Administration-Strategy into something not pointless.

* Reworking the R&D into giving meaningful choices for the players (though at least it is now very easy to OpenTree mods)

Basically finishing Career-mode

(now that all major feature are in, praying they don't try to add Lifesupport next and just complete the frigging game)

Repeating for emphasis : This new feature is all well and nice, but now that KSP is 1.0+, I hope SQUAD complete at least one version into something stable, balanced and playable before adding new features.

[/Personal & Biased opinions]

[Hobbes Novakoff]

Playing in the sand is fun until you realize that you are just playing in sand.

Yes, but while playing in the sand, you make this:

[Kermunist]

One of the things that can make RemoteTech tedious is that you can't make self-correcting station-keeping satellites in KSP. No amount of knowledge of autopilot coding, no amount of expertise with C# or kerboscript, will help fix the fact that KSP itself cannot have multiple vessels all being "active" at once, all self-correcting themselves like a realistic set of satellites can do. Again, it's not a player limitation, nor a thing a mod can fix. [...]

It would be handy if the main game allowed you to sync a few satellites in orbit to each other and lock them on rails TOGETHER as a locked SET, to simulate the stationkeeping that the game engine's limitations currently makes impossible. It could have tight narrow tolerances and say that before you tie them together into a locked set, you must first put them within very closely the same orbit, just differing by phase angle only - then it could put them all on the "same rail" - remembering their phase angle offsets and locking them all to one satellite (i.e. remember that satellite C is 120 degrees behind B, which is 120 degrees behind A, and then just calculate A's position on rails, and derive B's and C's positions as being locked at 120, and 240 degrees off from wherever A is.)

Soo... I was actually thinking of writing a mod to do this. I was going to call it the orbital correction device, or OCD for short. I don't have time to do it now, or anytime in the near future, I don't even have a C# environment on my computer at the moment. But I don't think it should be too complicated. I don't feel any ownership of it and most certainly would not object to someone else making it based on the approach below.

KSP stores orbital information as Semi-Major axis, eccentricity, inclination, longitude of PE, longitude of ascending node, mean anomaly at epoch and epoch. Of these, only the semi-major axis has any affect on orbital period. Vessels with the same orbital period maintain station relative to each other, and this is represented accurately by the patched conics used in KSP. There is no need to maintain a list of other satellites in the constellation or fix phase angles, it is sufficient to give them all the same SMA.

The code would execute every time a vessel is unloaded, and would look like this:

a = semi major axis of orbit of the vessel being unloaded
Make a list of other vessels orbiting the same body
For each vessel in the list
    b = semi major axis of orbit of the vessel from the list
    if |a-b|/a<0.0001 then
        a=b
        Break from loop

There are probably a few other useful features, like syncing SMA with that of celestial bodies as well as vessels (this would make stable quasi-lagrange points at L3, L4 and L5). It might also make sense to tune the 0.001 threshold above to different celestial bodies and altitudes to make sure it is always neither trivial nor impossible to achieve. A simple GUI indicating what changes would be made on unloading might also be good.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Kermunist

[Bev7787]

I like the antennas. Finally able to make a stock voyager

[xtoro]

Looking forward to it and hoping that there's a "hard mode" where you really need to setup a proper comms network to control probes.