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

[strudo76]

5 hours ago, etheoma said:

I don't suppose it's possible that in the next version we could get something simmlar to how you can control unmaned space craft with manned craft closer than KSC sometime, even if it requires a pretty heavy module in return it would be beneficial outside of the kerbal system so for example I can land my supply ship to Mars with only a probe controlling it with kerbals in orbit etc, or if you are not playing real scale solar system Duna.

Isn't that the command stations function listed in the manual?

http://remotetechnologiesgroup.github.io/RemoteTech/#command-stations

[funkcanna]

Hi Just a quick question.  If I have a normal command pod (manned), do I also need to add a probe core so that my ship has a signal processor, or do normal manned pods also have a signal processor?  Reason being I have a ship on the way to duna now, the relay is connected but the icon says Local and is Yellow.

 

EDIT: To clarify, the word "local control"is written in Green but the icon next to it is Yellow

Edited September 27, 2017 by funkcanna

[TaxiService]

5 hours ago, funkcanna said:

Hi Just a quick question.  If I have a normal command pod (manned), do I also need to add a probe core so that my ship has a signal processor, or do normal manned pods also have a signal processor?  Reason being I have a ship on the way to duna now, the relay is connected but the icon says Local and is Yellow.

 

EDIT: To clarify, the word "local control"is written in Green but the icon next to it is Yellow

Yup, a (manned) command pod doesn't have signal processor by design so you need to add a probe core in order to utilize this processor (as well as flight computer). The "local control" text means the local control by your crewed pod. Your relay is just ready for a remote connection should your crew be out of command pod.

[funkcanna]

1 hour ago, TaxiService said:

Yup, a (manned) command pod doesn't have signal processor by design so you need to add a probe core in order to utilize this processor (as well as flight computer). The "local control" text means the local control by your crewed pod. Your relay is just ready for a remote connection should your crew be out of command pod.

Thanks!

[funkcanna]

Is it possible to have my 1 satellite on my probe to automatically switch connections to another of my Kerbin Relays when it loses the connection to one?  I.e. I have 3 sats around Kerbin, obviously some times each sat is out of my probes line of sight.  Lets say I set my probe to point at Kerbin Satellite A, when A goes on the far side of Kerbin, is there a way for my probe to automatically swap to B, or do I need to have 3 satellites on my probe also, each pointing at a different Kerbin Satellite?

[strudo76]

On 9/30/2017 at 4:47 PM, funkcanna said:

Is it possible to have my 1 satellite on my probe to automatically switch connections to another of my Kerbin Relays when it loses the connection to one?  I.e. I have 3 sats around Kerbin, obviously some times each sat is out of my probes line of sight.  Lets say I set my probe to point at Kerbin Satellite A, when A goes on the far side of Kerbin, is there a way for my probe to automatically swap to B, or do I need to have 3 satellites on my probe also, each pointing at a different Kerbin Satellite?

Ideally, you'd point your satellite at Kerbin rather than Kerbin A,B or C. That way it con connect to whatever satellite happens to be available as long as they are in the visibility cone. If the Kerbin satellites aren't in the zone when pointed at Kerbin, you've probably put a too powerful antenna (too much range, not enough cone) on your satellite.

[Squall124]

Hi there !

Can we have some info about the ETA for Remote Tech 2.0 ?

 

No urge, just a question to have an idea of when it can be available.

 

Thank you !

[TaxiService]

21 hours ago, Squall124 said:

Hi there !

Can we have some info about the ETA for Remote Tech 2.0 ?

No urge, just a question to have an idea of when it can be available.

Thank you !

Hi,

Sorry, we have no ETA on RT 2.0 because neitsa and yamori are not online for some time. I am porting the non-infrastructure parts of RT1 to the CommNet layer as the first step towards RT2.

[Squall124]

I'm quite disappointed, I didn't expect the porting to CommNet layer to be "only" at the first step since CommNet appeared in the game quite a time ago...

I think I will stop waiting for RT2.

 

Thank you anyway.

[lemmenes]

Hey TaxiService, are you the only person currently working on RT 2.0? I could help out if you need it. I have worked as an RF communications engineer in the past, so I definitely know how comm systems work in real life. I'm not exactly proficient with C# yet, and my programming experience is mostly MATLAB with some C++, python, and VHDL. I'm starting to get the hang of how it all works after digging through the RT source code for the last few days, but I will likely have a lot of questions in the beginning.

I also have an idea for a new range model. It's pretty similar to the one proposed in Issue #116, except I would want it more realistic. It would change the antenna attributes to be gain, cone angle (dependent on gain), and max power. Range would be dependent on the gain and power of the antenna on each end of the link, just like in real life, no hard and fast magic antenna "range". Antenna gain would be an intrinsic value of the antenna, but power could be adjusted, even during mission, up to a max supported by the antenna. Obviously this level of realism and added difficulty in designing a comm network would only be desirable to some, so there would be the option to use the standard CommNet range model or the legacy RT models. We could even get real crazy and tie the frequencies of your Constellation mod to actual frequencies and have the frequency choice affect the range too, especially in atmosphere.

Let me know, I'd love to help out.

[Akira_R]

@TaxiService @tomek.piotrowski

I tried searching but wasn't able to find anything on this here:

 

Can the locking/unlocking of resources be made to either be schedule-able in the FlightComputer or to not require a connection?

Here is the situation and why I think this is a very big quality of life improvement:

Early career low tech Mun lander probe, it only has enough battery life for about 10 minutes of operation, or 5 minutes and a few science reports beamed back. I would like to be able to lock the batteries, effectively powering the probe down after the transfer burn has been completed, it'll then power back up for it's capture/de-orbit burn, maybe power off again until it needs to perform it's landing burn, collect some science, beam that stuff home and then die.

However currently when you lock the batteries you obviously end up with no connection and then cannot unlock the batteries to restore power. Any chance this could get added to the current version of RT instead of having to wait for something like this until RT2?

Git issue: https://github.com/RemoteTechnologiesGroup/RemoteTech/issues/739

Edited October 10, 2017 by Akira_R

[SilverlightPony]

@Akira_R  Is there a particular reason you don't have a solar panel on that probe?

[Akira_R]

14 minutes ago, SilverlightPony said:

@Akira_R  Is there a particular reason you don't have a solar panel on that probe?

Yes, none are available this early, there is a panel integrated with the dish I am using but it doesn't even fully offset the power needs of the dish itself, which is all by design, this is a very low cost low tech probe modeled after the surveyor probes that is meant to land blast back some data and be done. I fail to see what that has to do with the feature request?

Does it not make sense that you should be able to power down a probe and have it reactivate after a period of time?

Edited October 10, 2017 by Akira_R
i can english

[strudo76]

4 hours ago, Akira_R said:

Yes, none are available this early, there is a panel integrated with the dish I am using but it doesn't even fully offset the power needs of the dish itself, which is all by design, this is a very low cost low tech probe modeled after the surveyor probes that is meant to land blast back some data and be done. I fail to see what that has to do with the feature request?

Does it not make sense that you should be able to power down a probe and have it reactivate after a period of time?

Would putting the probe core into hibernate be sufficient? That should be able to be scheduled in RT. You'd have to get your order correct to power down after turning off comms, and resuming power before restarting comms, but it might be doable with the amount of power that is available.

[TaxiService]

On 10/9/2017 at 11:54 AM, lemmenes said:

Hey TaxiService, are you the only person currently working on RT 2.0? I could help out if you need it. I have worked as an RF communications engineer in the past, so I definitely know how comm systems work in real life. I'm not exactly proficient with C# yet, and my programming experience is mostly MATLAB with some C++, python, and VHDL. I'm starting to get the hang of how it all works after digging through the RT source code for the last few days, but I will likely have a lot of questions in the beginning.

I also have an idea for a new range model. It's pretty similar to the one proposed in Issue #116, except I would want it more realistic. It would change the antenna attributes to be gain, cone angle (dependent on gain), and max power. Range would be dependent on the gain and power of the antenna on each end of the link, just like in real life, no hard and fast magic antenna "range". Antenna gain would be an intrinsic value of the antenna, but power could be adjusted, even during mission, up to a max supported by the antenna. Obviously this level of realism and added difficulty in designing a comm network would only be desirable to some, so there would be the option to use the standard CommNet range model or the legacy RT models. We could even get real crazy and tie the frequencies of your Constellation mod to actual frequencies and have the frequency choice affect the range too, especially in atmosphere.

Let me know, I'd love to help out.

Hi lemmenes,

Indeed, I am the only person still working in the RT cleanup and development after one year.

You are welcome to join us if you feel you can tackle the technical challenges of building an usable (and self-sufficient) antenna system in RT2. I can help to bring you up to date on RT aspects, development and C#. 

I am requesting one developer on board for document/sketch on his comm theory on the antenna system to be passed to next developers/saved for near future (there are some past messages on this in the RT chat channel I can pull out). I am not really familiar with the RF communication theory and applications.

Let me know if you want to join us.

 

13 hours ago, Akira_R said:

@TaxiService @tomek.piotrowski

I tried searching but wasn't able to find anything on this here:

 

Can the locking/unlocking of resources be made to either be schedule-able in the FlightComputer or to not require a connection?

Here is the situation and why I think this is a very big quality of life improvement:

Early career low tech Mun lander probe, it only has enough battery life for about 10 minutes of operation, or 5 minutes and a few science reports beamed back. I would like to be able to lock the batteries, effectively powering the probe down after the transfer burn has been completed, it'll then power back up for it's capture/de-orbit burn, maybe power off again until it needs to perform it's landing burn, collect some science, beam that stuff home and then die.

However currently when you lock the batteries you obviously end up with no connection and then cannot unlock the batteries to restore power. Any chance this could get added to the current version of RT instead of having to wait for something like this until RT2?

Git issue: https://github.com/RemoteTechnologiesGroup/RemoteTech/issues/739

5 hours ago, strudo76 said:

Would putting the probe core into hibernate be sufficient? That should be able to be scheduled in RT. You'd have to get your order correct to power down after turning off comms, and resuming power before restarting comms, but it might be doable with the amount of power that is available.

Currently, hibernating the probe core will reduce the core's power consumption but its antennas' power drain is not affected. I think extending this hibernation to the antennas' power drain would mean a reduction in communication ranges, something requested for RT2 (https://github.com/RemoteTechnologiesGroup/RemoteTech/issues/272). 

Akira, two new buttons to put the whole probe to sleep (no communication and probe-core hibernation) and wake it up (like the sleep button of a computer) in Flight Control are doable for the current RT. Obviously, care is required in scheduling these sleep and wakeup commands or say hello to the eternal sleep. Is this correct?

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by TaxiService

[Akira_R]

3 hours ago, TaxiService said:

*snip*

Currently, hibernating the probe core will reduce the core's power consumption but its antennas' power drain is not affected. I think extending this hibernation to the antennas' power drain would mean a reduction in communication ranges, something requested for RT2 (https://github.com/RemoteTechnologiesGroup/RemoteTech/issues/272). 

Akira, two new buttons to put the whole probe to sleep (no communication and probe-core hibernation) and wake it up (like the sleep button of a computer) in Flight Control are doable for the current RT. Obviously, care is required in scheduling these sleep and wakeup commands or say hello to the eternal sleep. Is this correct?

 

That is in essence what I am looking for yes.

Just to make sure, you are suggesting to add two buttons to the flight computer, one that shuts down the probecore and all antennas and one that reactivates them. This would allow you to set your time delay for some point in the future, click the wake up button to schedule a wake up call. Then clear the time delay and click the sleep button to put the probe into a super low power state.

If that is your plan then yes that is exactly how I envision this working, might not be a bad idea to have a big warning, or have the sleep command pop up a window saying "make sure to schedule wake up command BEFORE putting probe to sleep" with confirm and cancel buttons lol.

[Ginlucks]

Hi all, 

I was trying to plan an all automated mission to orbit a planet but I am not able to execute  multiple nodes, is it possible or I can plan only the burns and directions? 

[lemmenes]

5 hours ago, TaxiService said:

Hi lemmenes,

Indeed, I am the only person still working in the RT cleanup and development after one year.

You are welcome to join us if you feel you can tackle the technical challenges of building an usable (and self-sufficient) antenna system in RT2. I can help to bring you up to date on RT aspects, development and C#. 

I am requesting one developer on board for document/sketch on his comm theory on the antenna system to be passed to next developers/saved for near future (there are some past messages on this in the RT chat channel I can pull out). I am not really familiar with the RF communication theory and applications.

Let me know if you want to join us.

Sign me up! What is the preferred way to communicate with the team (you)? I have never done software development that wasn't making a tool for my own team's use, so I will need help with things like GitFlow and the development practices I should be following. I have no problem documenting how the current or proposed comm system/range models work.

I'm out of work for a few weeks due to an injury, so I currently have a lot of time on my hands. I've been looking through the RT code, and I think I could pretty easily get my range model working in the current version of RT as a proof of concept.

[TaxiService]

16 hours ago, Ginlucks said:

Hi all, 

I was trying to plan an all automated mission to orbit a planet but I am not able to execute  multiple nodes, is it possible or I can plan only the burns and directions? 

You should be able to set up multiple maneuver nodes and click EXEC button on Flight Computer in RT 1.8.8. What is stopping you from doing so? If possible, please provide a screenshot and the output_log.txt in the folder KSP_x64_Data of your KSP installation.

[Ginlucks]

4 hours ago, TaxiService said:

You should be able to set up multiple maneuver nodes and click EXEC button on Flight Computer in RT 1.8.8. What is stopping you from doing so? If possible, please provide a screenshot and the output_log.txt in the folder KSP_x64_Data of your KSP installation.

Simply it doesn't add the next maneuver... I'll check it better the version asap!

[Astraph]

I might be stupid, but I can't make remote probe control from a manned ship work...

I am using the following setup as testbed:

  -

Using K.R.A.S.H. I set up a test floght to Eli orbit (I am playing New Horizons), activate the relay antenna, detach probe - but even though I have 2 pilots onboard (Val and Jeb), the probe does not respond to commands...

[TaxiService]

On 10/13/2017 at 3:29 AM, Astraph said:

I might be stupid, but I can't make remote probe control from a manned ship work...

I am using the following setup as testbed:

 Using K.R.A.S.H. I set up a test floght to Eli orbit (I am playing New Horizons), activate the relay antenna, detach probe - but even though I have 2 pilots onboard (Val and Jeb), the probe does not respond to commands...

Ah no, you miss out couple requirements for a manned command station. This vessel must have at least six kerbals and has the big probe core in order to qualify for a command station.

[tomgle]

Hi! Thanks for the mod! Just two questions -

1. What can the flight computer do and not do?

2. Does this work with 1.3.1?

 

[Voodoo8648]

2 hours ago, tomgle said:

Hi! Thanks for the mod! Just two questions -

1. What can the flight computer do and not do?

2. Does this work with 1.3.1?

 

When coupled with MechJeb it can do A LOT. Better to if you can think of it, you can probably do it. You can replicate the Voyager missions for example without having to have a connection. You could even send a probe to another star system if you're using Kerbal Star Systems (which I highly recommend). You should probably increase the number of your patched conics if you plan to do some complex maneuver sequences.

[HeyThisIsntFallout]

Quick question: I'm trying to create a rocket with a first stage that lands similar to the Falcon 9, but when I plug a circularize maneuver into the second stage's flight computer, so that I can land the first stage manually, the second stage doesn't actually execute the maneuver. Do you have to be focused on the craft in order for the FC to execute planned nodes? If so, then, i'm pretty sure that makes a Falcon-esque first stage recovery impossible.

So, I actually stayed focused on my second stage until the FC took over and started the burn and sure enough when I switch back to the first stage, I see the second stage engine cut off in the distance, immediately. Is there anyway to have the FC execute a burn without being focused on it?

Edited October 15, 2017 by ItsSeanBroleson