Satellite contract not completing.

[christes]

(Before anyone comments, I am orbiting in the correct direction!)

I've got a mission to put a satellite into an eccentric polar orbit around the Mun.  I've matched the orbit pretty well (far better than has been needed for other contracts).

However, the contract just won't complete.  Before I complete it with ctrl+alt+f12, can someone tell what might be going wrong?

Pictures:

[Plusck]

Have you tried looking in persistent.sfs using a text editor to see what it says.

Basically if you search for "SpecificOrbitParameter" you should find something like this:
                {
                    name = SpecificOrbitParameter
                    state = Incomplete
                    disableOnStateChange = False
                    values = 0,0,0,0,0
                    TargetBody = 3
                    deviationWindow = 7
                    orbitType = 2
                    inclination = 90
                    eccentricity = 0.0128815098108706
                    sma = 278455.716134532
                    lan = 122.047609203517
                    argumentOfPeriapsis = 249.015044039686
                    meanAnomalyAtEpoch = 5.26605027190547
                    epoch = 0
                }

Then search for your ship and see what its orbit is described as.

[bewing]

Well, it would help if you right clicked on those Ap and Pe and Dn markers so we could see the values -- and maybe opened the Notes on the contract so we could check that this is the right contract . Your orbit looks pretty good by eye. Sometime all that a contract needs to complete is one last tiny burn at .01% power for 1 second -- just so it recalculates that you are already where you need to be. Different satellite contracts require different amounts of precision, you know? "Marginal" deviation is supposed to be a fairly loose standard, though.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

Are all the parts there, eg the antenna?

[christes]

 

Quote

 

Have you tried looking in persistent.sfs using a text editor to see what it says.

 

Interesting idea.  Here is the target orbit:

                    name = SpecificOrbitParameter
                    state = Incomplete
                    disableOnStateChange = False
                    values = 0,0,0,0,0
                    TargetBody = 2
                    deviationWindow = 5
                    orbitType = 2
                    inclination = 90
                    eccentricity = 0.399937051572763
                    sma = 367816.15871336
                    lan = 141.426403215819
                    argumentOfPeriapsis = 220.091448305217
                    meanAnomalyAtEpoch = 0.35221092499006
                    epoch = 0

 

Here is the orbit for my satellite:

 

                SMA = 367048.685465159
                ECC = 0.401704947391939
                INC = 90.1174354445312
                LPE = 220.631314846
                LAN = 141.38853821622
                MNA = 6.20989001870143
                EPH = 3832284.15006641
                REF = 2

Quote

Are all the parts there, eg the antenna?

Yep.  All the boxes are checked except the one for getting in the correct orbit (see top-right of the screenshot)

 

Quote

Well, it would help if you right clicked on those Ap and Pe and Dn markers so we could see the values -- and maybe opened the Notes on the contract so we could check that this is the right contract . Your orbit looks pretty good by eye. Sometime all that a contract needs to complete is one last tiny burn at .01% power for 1 second -- just so it recalculates that you are already where you need to be. Different satellite contracts require different amounts of precision, you know? "Marginal" deviation is supposed to be a fairly loose standard, though.

I posted the exact numbers above.  Does the game give any feedback about the tolerance?  If not, that's horribly designed.

Edited May 21, 2016 by christes

[FancyMouse]

1 hour ago, christes said:

I posted the exact numbers above.  Does the game give any feedback about the tolerance?  If not, that's horribly designed.

# of stars of the contract. They have different adjective of the deviation (I don't remember the exact words), and there are indeed different requirements. From your number my feeling is it should be fine for 1 star contract but not so confident for 3 stars.

[Plusck]

53 minutes ago, christes said:

 

Interesting idea.  Here is the target orbit:

                    name = SpecificOrbitParameter
                    state = Incomplete
                    disableOnStateChange = False
                    values = 0,0,0,0,0
                    TargetBody = 2
                    deviationWindow = 5
                    orbitType = 2
                    inclination = 90
                    eccentricity = 0.399937051572763
                    sma = 367816.15871336
                    lan = 141.426403215819
                    argumentOfPeriapsis = 220.091448305217
                    meanAnomalyAtEpoch = 0.35221092499006
                    epoch = 0

 

Here is the orbit for my satellite:

 

                SMA = 367048.685465159
                ECC = 0.401704947391939
                INC = 90.1174354445312
                LPE = 220.631314846
                LAN = 141.38853821622
                MNA = 6.20989001870143
                EPH = 3832284.15006641
                REF = 2

Cool.

I've noticed that a few different satellite contracts have different "deviationWindow" values, mostly 5 or 7 iirc. No idea how that translates to tolerance for completing the contract.

The biggest discrepancy here seems to be the SMA. It's almost 1% out... so maybe if you increased both Pe and Ap by a smidgeon it would complete?

To give an example, I was worried about the tolerance for an extremely distant (well beyond Eeloo) sun orbit contract which I thought might pose accuracy problems. The details were:

PARAM
                {
                    name = SpecificOrbitParameter
                    state = Incomplete
                    disableOnStateChange = False
                    values = 0,0,0,0,0
                    TargetBody = 0
                    deviationWindow = 3
                    orbitType = 6
                    inclination = 137.953352978668
                    eccentricity = 0.282586232783991
                    sma = 82732527667.4258
                    lan = 44.7047618984733
                    argumentOfPeriapsis = 261.679914281224
                    meanAnomalyAtEpoch = 1.23995231370812
                    epoch = 0
                }

And it completed when I got the satellite to here:

ORBIT
            {
                SMA = 80564098008.6279
                ECC = 0.280250098110281
                INC = 138.013060573492
                LPE = 256.363881094295
                LAN = 44.7447721897462
                MNA = 1.27526734895157
                EPH = 113816769.53474
                REF = 0
            }

Comparing figures, it looks like I was much further out from the parameters than you are here. The only real difference is the mean anomaly, which frankly I don't understand because as I understand it, mean anomaly is merely an indication of where you are in the orbit, and therefore I don't understand why a contract would specify a particular point on the orbit. Maybe someone more knowledgeable than me might shed some light on that.

So yes, if a minor increase in Pe/Ap doesn't work, I really don't see why the contract isn't completing. It's bound to be a disappointment to go the alt-F12 route, but at least you know it's justified.

[FancyMouse]

Well, I suggest to fix inclination first - based on OP's number it should be even a visible 0.1 degree AN/DN in map view. That's the biggest reason why earlier I felt not confident in the case of 3 star contract.

[christes]

31 minutes ago, FancyMouse said:

That's the biggest reason why earlier I felt not confident in the case of 3 star contract.

This is a 2-star contract for what it's worth.

But I got it to work by adjusting both the inclination and the semi-major axis.

Thanks everyone!

Edited May 22, 2016 by christes

[Plusck]

54 minutes ago, FancyMouse said:

Well, I suggest to fix inclination first - based on OP's number it should be even a visible 0.1 degree AN/DN in map view. That's the biggest reason why earlier I felt not confident in the case of 3 star contract.

Yeah, I must admit I was a bit blind there and didn't notice that it was more than 0.1 degree out. The example that I gave was less than 0.06° out when it completed.

Still, I think the comparison of raw numbers is interesting...

[bewing]

4 hours ago, FancyMouse said:

Well, I suggest to fix inclination first - based on OP's number it should be even a visible 0.1 degree AN/DN in map view. That's the biggest reason why earlier I felt not confident in the case of 3 star contract.

Starting in 1.1.0, the on-screen display for target satellite orbits only shows integer degrees for nodes. So no possible reasonable contract requirement can ever ask for tolerances tighter than that. Certainly not 0.1 degrees.