[1.11] RemoteTech v1.9.9 [2020-12-19]

[SpacedInvader]

1 minute ago, Steven Mading said:

I stopped using RT after the new stock comms was out because of one small thing about RT that really ticked me off, that stock comms fixes, and that's this:

In the real world, you don't need a high powered massively battery-straining strong transmitter on BOTH sides of the communication.  You can compensate for a low powered system on one end by having a much more high powered system on the other end.  We put the high powered antennas on Earth, not on the little probes where all mass has to be conserved.  Stock comms models this but RT didn't.  In RT you needed to have a massive amount of power on an interstellar probe.   Stock also models the idea of having partial spotty communications (although the effect of partial connections in stock comms is backward - you have immediate manual control but not computer-assisted control when you have partial communication, which is the opposite way around to how it should have been done - you should have been required to do only computerized control).  Anyway,  RT is entirely Boolean.  Either you have a perfect connection or nothing.   I just got so tired of dealing with this.  If there was a variant of RT that worked with the stock comms connectivity model, but had the distance delay of RT, I'd consider using RT again.  When the first RT to work with 1.2 came out, it was nothing more than a pure replacement of stock comms - you just disable stock comms and use RT's comms system instead.  If there was a version of it that worked WITH stock, rather than INSTEAD of stock, I'd definitely look into using it again.

 

First of all, the connectivity model you're describing is almost literally what the ROOT range model does in the remote tech settings. It allows you to have a massive dish on one end and a tiny dish on the other and as long as their additive range (approximately, there is some math) is enough to cover the distance, you've got a connection. As for working with the stock system as opposed to instead of it, it looks like that is in the cards for the future, just no idea when.

[HereComesTheBoom]

2 hours ago, kcs123 said:

There was debate in this thread when KSP 1.2.0 is released. Somewhere around page #20. You might need to read few pages before/after, I no longer recall exact spot.

RT is similar, but yet different in some aspects. I will note a few, as much as I can recall from top of my head, so take this with a bit of grain of salt.

- stock antennas - no need to adjust specific dirrection where antenna is pointed. You need to do that in RT on both end of communication node.

- there is no signal delay in stock comm - you can choose to have signal delay or not in RT

- there is no flight computer in stock as there is no need for it - you have flight computer in RT that you will need for proper node execution if you have enabled signal delay. Either that or you might prefer kOS autopilot

- there is much more diversity of antennas in RT and they were more balanced for career gameplay (mass EC consuption, etc.), just my personal opinion

- many other differences that you can only notice once you start using RT that I most probably forgot about because it was blended in game quite well

 

If you just want some comm system that will give you need for launching comm sats/probes and don't want complex system that RT provide, then stick with stock game. However if you want some more chalange in game and don't mind learning a bit more of everything then give RT a try.

Thanks kc. I've been an avid user of RT for a long time. I guess when the stock comm net came out in 1.2 I was too used to RT to notice the differences.

[kcs123]

Well each user have to weight out pros/cons for each, stock comm and RT system.
Someone might like things that were better done in stock, while other stuff were better in RT.

Mostly depends what each user wish/expect to experience in his playtrough.

I was short in time for KSP playing sessions, also early versions of RT for KSP 1.2.2. were still in development, slightly bugged, so in last career game playtrough I was using stock comm system. Can't say it is way too simplified or bad. Just have to be aware of differences.

Looking forward to see how RT would look like builded over stock comm system, for next career game. Hopefuly I will have more time for games at that time.

[cyberpunkdreams]

My own two pennies are that I would find KSP unplayable without RT or an equivalent, and that going to stock comms would be tough! However, that's only because I started with RT (I think I installed it within a few days of first playing KSP, after KCT). If I started playing now, I'd like to think I'd switch to RT for the increased realism and challenge, but who knows? Whether or not it's "better" (whatever that means) it is definitely more realistic.

All that said, there are some stock comms features that would be nice in RT too, but all the relevant ones are already on the roadmap I guess.

[MarsLoucetios]

I'm new to KSP so just a quick question here. 

Kill rotation doesn't disable the SAS like the stock SAS when pressing wasd. Is this on purpose?  I have to click "off" when I want to manually control the vessel, then press "kill" again to re-enable. 

[TaxiService]

1 hour ago, MarsLoucetios said:

I'm new to KSP so just a quick question here. 

Kill rotation doesn't disable the SAS like the stock SAS when pressing wasd. Is this on purpose?  I have to click "off" when I want to manually control the vessel, then press "kill" again to re-enable. 

It is correct. It has to be done to avoid the fight between RT's Flight Computer and KSP's autopilot for the vessel control. If I recall correctly, in KSP 1.1, both SAS and autopilot were merged into the single and stronger SAS, and this caused issues of the newly-reformed SAS messing with the RT's Flight Computer when SAS was active.

[Dunbaratu]

On 1/31/2017 at 3:04 PM, SpacedInvader said:

First of all, the connectivity model you're describing is almost literally what the ROOT range model does in the remote tech settings. It allows you to have a massive dish on one end and a tiny dish on the other and as long as their additive range (approximately, there is some math) is enough to cover the distance, you've got a connection. As for working with the stock system as opposed to instead of it, it looks like that is in the cards for the future, just no idea when.

I literally never heard that RT has configurable settings in a file, and had no idea that this ROOT mode existed until you mentioned it which let me google for it and find out about that config file.  Thank you for pointing it out to me.  It's definitely a lot more realistic and less punishing.

I'll still probably wait for the release of RT that works with stock comms though before getting back into RT.  (essentially, my ideal preference would be that stock handles connectivity, and RT adds signal delay on top of that).  I'm glad to hear that this is in the plans, and understand that it must be a major messy overhaul of a large part of RT's core code to support it.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Steven Mading

[TaxiService]

7 hours ago, Steven Mading said:

I literally never heard that RT has configurable settings in a file, and had no idea that this ROOT mode existed until you mentioned it which let me google for it and find out about that config file.  Thank you for pointing it out to me.  It's definitely a lot more realistic and less punishing.

I'll still probably wait for the release of RT that works with stock comms though before getting back into RT.  (essentially, my ideal preference would be that stock handles connectivity, and RT adds signal delay on top of that).  I'm glad to hear that this is in the plans, and understand that it must be a major messy overhaul of a large part of RT's core code to support it.

Psst, RT 1.8 has the in-game setting window at the KSC scene where you can switch a lot of the mechanisms of the RT, included the standard and root range models.

[Plecy75]

something weird is going on with my rt. when i leave Kerbin's SOI i lose connection. period. it doesn't matter if i have 2 GX-128s pointed at each other, it just drops out.

[TaxiService]

On 2/8/2017 at 2:06 PM, Plecy75 said:

something weird is going on with my rt. when i leave Kerbin's SOI i lose connection. period. it doesn't matter if i have 2 GX-128s pointed at each other, it just drops out.

Hi,

Although I would like to get a bug report on this, we have previously received multiple reports on the connection loss involving the GX-128 antenna. The usual cause behind these reports is the antenna' extreme narrow cone (0.005 degree) that is too narrow to maintain connection at so close distance to Kerbin or its com sats. This GX-128 antenna is suited to be positioned at extreme distance from Kerbin (say Eeloo orbit). I recommend you to include a shorter-range antenna (KR-7 or RA-2) for the close-distance connections with Kerbin.

Edited February 9, 2017 by TaxiService

[Plecy75]

actually i just figured out that my relay network in LKO was not connecting to my deep space relay, causing the signal loss. it has been remedied (by replacing my entire LKO comsat network)

[cyberpunkdreams]

2 hours ago, Plecy75 said:

actually i just figured out that my relay network in LKO was not connecting to my deep space relay, causing the signal loss. it has been remedied (by replacing my entire LKO comsat network)

That's on my to-do list too ;). For fluff, if nothing else.

And on a related note, I know people object to having to have a LKO network, as opposed to ground stations, as it's not realistic for deep space missions. However, that are various comm networks in low earth orbit for talking with science satellites, Hubble, ISS, etc. So it's still the right thing, even if it's for the "wrong" reason.

[Nathair]

1 hour ago, cyberpunkdreams said:

people object to having to have a LKO network, as opposed to ground stations

I always set up both ground stations and a LKO constellation.

[Calvin_Maclure]

I havent yet updated to the latest KSP version, still on 1.1.2. Long story short, waiting for mod updates, then 1.1.3 arrived, then 1.2.0... anyways, I use RT and do not plan on leaving it behind. What's the relationship between the new stock comm system and RT? What's all this I hear about relay networks and all??

Cheers!

[Akira_R]

1 hour ago, Calvin_Maclure said:

I havent yet updated to the latest KSP version, still on 1.1.2. Long story short, waiting for mod updates, then 1.1.3 arrived, then 1.2.0... anyways, I use RT and do not plan on leaving it behind. What's the relationship between the new stock comm system and RT? What's all this I hear about relay networks and all??

Cheers!

Not to be a bit of a prick, but you've been around around enough you should know....

If you actually read a few posts up you will find this already being covered, if you actually read a few pages back you would once again find this already being discussed, so maybe try reading the thread before posting?

Edited February 9, 2017 by Akira_R

[Calvin_Maclure]

42 minutes ago, Akira_R said:

Not to be a bit of a prick, but you've been around around enough you should know....

If you actually read a few posts up you will find this already being covered, if you actually read a few pages back you would once again find this already being discussed, so maybe try reading the thread before posting?

You know, sometimes just pointing someone in the right direction (as in page number, if you happen to know it) is all it takes. I have no issues with doing the reading myself, I usually do, but is asking for a pointer really asking for too much?

[Plecy75]

6 hours ago, cyberpunkdreams said:

That's on my to-do list too ;). For fluff, if nothing else.

And on a related note, I know people object to having to have a LKO network, as opposed to ground stations, as it's not realistic for deep space missions. However, that are various comm networks in low earth orbit for talking with science satellites, Hubble, ISS, etc. So it's still the right thing, even if it's for the "wrong" reason.

I designed my sat network because my uncrewed launches always lost connection before they could circularize, not for deep space communication. that's what the deep space relay is for. I find it much faster and easier to deploy a network of minisats with Communotron 32s than to set up ground bases. i even deployed 2 of the satellites in an orbit that was about 1km higher than intended -- of course the drifted out of alignment -- and the sat network can still connect as if they were still there! ah, the beauty of grossly overdesigning your launch comms network!

[Nathair]

9 minutes ago, Plecy75 said:

of course the drifted out of alignment

I strongly recommend, once they are all in place, editing the persistence file to give all the sats in a constellation the exact same SMA. If there was station keeping capability I'd use it but until that time comes a little Notepad++ magic handles the drift.

[Calvin_Maclure]

7 hours ago, Nathair said:

I strongly recommend, once they are all in place, editing the persistence file to give all the sats in a constellation the exact same SMA. If there was station keeping capability I'd use it but until that time comes a little Notepad++ magic handles the drift.

I just used Hyperedit to reajust the positions of the sats that have drifted. In actuality, most of my comm sats have fuel (though not all of em... )so I could go through the trouble of manually going through a series of burns, reasjusting the orbits and blah blah but, too long. Hyperedit, WAY easier than adjusting the persistent files. 

[mtpatane]

Hmm, I never found actually getting the orbital period of my satellites within .001s of one another.  I usually just keep a tiny engine or RSC on like 0.5% Thrust for the fine adjustment at the end.  Once the orbital periods are synced If the Ap and Pe are close I don't typically see a drift issue for many, many years.   Might sound tedious, but I find it satisfying to get it up there myself.  I'm also a huge fan of single launch networks (1 craft 3-4 Sats).

[Nathair]

19 minutes ago, mtpatane said:

 Might sound tedious, but I find it satisfying to get it up there myself.  I'm also a huge fan of single launch networks (1 craft 3-4 Sats).

In the past I have had a couple of incidents where constellations that were assembled with painstaking fussiness went wonky without warning. It's irritating when the crew finally arrives at Sarnus only to discover that their comm-links have bunched up or wandered away during the years of transit. Perhaps things in 1.2 aren't as drifty and vague as they have been in the past but for belt and suspender reasons I habitually "get up there myself", as you put it, and then cement everything into place in the persistence file.

[Plecy75]

6 sats per launch, 4 launches, 25 operationsal sats with 5 on-orbit spares. all but the two drifters in the exact same orbit. no hyperedit or persistence editing. then again the sats were tiny. they don't even have reaction wheels. they were cheap as hell though

Edited February 10, 2017 by Plecy75

[Nathair]

15 minutes ago, Plecy75 said:

6 sats per launch, 4 launches, 25 operationsal sats with 5 on-orbit spares.

You have 30 sats in your LKO constellation?!

[Plecy75]

1 minute ago, Nathair said:

You have 30 sats in your LKO constellation?!

yep, 25 operating, 5 are strapped to a propusion module in a slightly higher orbit.

[Nathair]

37 minutes ago, Plecy75 said:

yep, 25 operating, 5 are strapped to a propusion module in a slightly higher orbit.

Are they in an icosapentagon? I would love to see a screenie of that! The most I've ever thrown up into a single net was one launch into a hexagonal constellation. Usually I just throw up a square for LKO and then pairs or triplets for specific deeper relay applications.