Stock Communications System: What's the Word Now?

[Nathair]

4 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

That way, folks who want to play with obsolete, dumb probes can while those who prefer more modern equipment can do their thing, too.

 

Could you give a few examples of these modern probes that operate so independently? Philae, just for example, operated very much like the probes I run under RT right down to the use of Rosetta as a signal relay station.

[Geschosskopf]

1 minute ago, Nathair said:

Could you give a few examples of these modern probes that operate so independently? Philae, just for example, operated very much like the probes I run under RT right down to the use of Rosetta as a signal relay station.

Oh I don't know, maybe the thousands of autonomous drones flying themselves around right now, some dozens (and soon to be thousands) of autonomous ships and boats, and of course Google's fleet of autonomous cars, the technology for which will soon become widely available.  The car thing is the most telling, the complexity of city traffic being orders of magnitude greater than anything a spacecraft has to contend with.  Space probe problems are more on the order of what the boats deal with in the open sea with no traffic, and we have the technology for that.

Rosetta was launched in 2004 but its design goes back to the 90s.  It took 10 years to reach the comet.  Would you play KSP on a computer from the 90s?

To put Rosetta in obsolescence in perspective, the 1st DARPA Grand Challenge for autonomous vehicles was also held in 2004.  The goal was to 150 miles of cross-country travel.  None of the entrants made it past 7 miles.  But in 2005, 22 out of 23 went further than that and 5 actually finished the course.  In 2007, the contest moved to urban streets with all their obstacles, traffic, and laws to obey, and 6 out of 11 finished that.  Now it's 2016 and Google's autonomous cars have logged about 1.5 million miles on city streets with only a few accidents, only 1 of which was even partly the fault of the car.  The system will probably become available to the public in about 2020.

That's the problem with the probe missions currently in the news.  They were designed years before they launched, then took many years to reach their targets.  Meanwhile, technology back at home has advanced by leaps and bounds.  I daresay that probes being designed right now for future missions will be much more autonomous than Rosetta.

Now granted, all the Earthly autonomous vehicles rely on GPS to tell their position and velocity, and spacecraft have similar needs.  But a variety of systems, both onboard and external, do that for them.  However, and this is the key point, that information is all an autonomous vehicle needs.  It makes its own decisions based on its general orders and its knowledge of its position and velocity.  It does not need to be "flown" by a human pilot, it flies itself.  Therefore, the whole concept of needing a continuous, uninterrupted communications link the vehicle to be able to control the vehicle is simply not applicable to an autonomous vehicle.  At most you might need a brief interval to tell the vehicle "Land at position X", and the vehicle would then do the rest all by itself.  Because KSP has no stock autopilot, the only way to model this sort of probe behavior is to put zero limits on the player's ability to control the probe, regardless of LOS.

[FungusForge]

I've been happily using Antenna Range, and I'm hoping the stock communications system isn't too different from that.

[razark]

1 hour ago, Geschosskopf said:

Because KSP has no stock autopilot, the only way to model this sort of probe behavior is to put zero limits on the player's ability to control the probe, regardless of LOS.

I find it amusing that the best way to simulate an autonomous vehicle is to make sure there is always a human in control of it.

[Nathair]

7 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

Oh I don't know, maybe the thousands of autonomous drones flying themselves around right now, some dozens (and soon to be thousands) of autonomous ships and boats, and of course Google's fleet of autonomous cars, the technology for which will soon become widely available.  The car thing is the most telling, the complexity of city traffic being orders of magnitude greater than anything a spacecraft has to contend with.  Space probe problems are more on the order of what the boats deal with in the open sea with no traffic, and we have the technology for that.

 

1

Thanks, I understand now why you're so snarkily disappointed in RT.

[p1t1o]

9 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

Oh I don't know, maybe the thousands of autonomous drones...etc.

Gee i bet none of them use GPS...

Edited June 3, 2016 by p1t1o

[Nathair]

1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

Gee i bet none of them use GPS...

In his defence he does say " Now granted, all the Earthly autonomous vehicles rely on GPS to tell their position and velocity, and spacecraft have similar needs "

[Bloody_looser]

13 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

See, this is the type of attitude I really hate to see in the community.  What folks do in their own games is no concern of anybody else, yet there are folks here who think their personal way of playing is superior to everybody else's and want to force their ways on others "for their own good".  I find this such self-righteousness highly offensive.  You do your thing and let everybody else do their things.

That goes both ways. Opposing new features since they are 'breaking' your gameplay is exactly the same attitude. It's Squads game after all.

[p1t1o]

5 minutes ago, Nathair said:

In his defence he does say " Now granted, all the Earthly autonomous vehicles rely on GPS to tell their position and velocity, and spacecraft have similar needs "

Dagnabbit, too quick on the draw. Sorry, my bad. Still register my general disagreement though, driverless cars are not spaceprobes, by quite a long chalk. 

 

[Nathair]

Just now, p1t1o said:

Dagnabbit, too quick on the draw. Sorry, my bad. Still register my general disagreement though, driverless cars are not spaceprobes, by quite a long chalk.

I absolutely agree. I think he's completely got the wrong end of the stick as far as that goes. I also think KSP very intentionally emulates (somewhat loosely perhaps) the earlier days of various space programs and that's the way I like it. I was just interested to hear what his reasoning, such as it is, was when he kept snarkily referring to "obsolete" "1940's probes" and such.

[RoverDude]

Oh my! So much to reply to! Preface: The probe and antenna changes are very much alive and well (as noted in the last devnotes). When it was delayed from 1.1 at the time I made it pretty clear I 100% supported the decision not to add it into the mix at that time, and I expect everyone sees the 'why' of that now

20 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

Personally, although I've been using either RT or AntennaRange in all my games for the past couple years, I wish Squad would make this an official mod like Asteroid Day instead of an unavoidable stock feature.  Or at least include an option to disable this feature entirely.  This is because previous attempts to make so-called "realism" mods stock have not made anybody happy.  

There is also the little matter that implementing a stock communications network requirement will likely break ALL existing saves.  It will certainly break those of everybody who doesn't currently have a network.  And it will probably break those who do have networks because the stats of antennae they're currently using will certainly change, and their models will probably change and no longer fit their vehicles (rather like what happened with wings and the Mk1 cockpit).  So once again, nobody will be happy.  In fact, because I see game breakage as a near-certainty, I'm already unhappy because I see no point in starting a serous 1.1.x game with the knowledge the communications system will destroy it in 1.2.

This is a stock feature.  It has a toggle, so you can turn it off.  Your saves will be fine.  Even if you have a ship with no antenna stuck somewhere on Eeloo, it will not be bricked.  You will have options.  Note also that stock does not have the same artificial reliance on relay networks that some existing mods do.  In real life, sometimes we use relays (i.e. Curiosity to the MRO).  Sometimes we don't (like New Horizons).

Saying that the stock changes to aero and reentry 'have not made anybody happy' is completely false.  Asserting that once this feature is implemented, 'once again, nobody will be happy' is again completely false.  Conversations are welcome, dialogue is awesome.  blanket assertions, especially false ones, do not move the conversation forward.

20 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Especially now that RT has finally an on/off button (so your career isn't wrecked when RT stops working after an update). I hope they implement the delay as well, that's half the fun for me about RemoteTech. But I'm under the impression they won't. 

Still, I would welcome it in stock; it would remove a lot of the "heavy lifting" away from RT (which is always good for a mod; less code means less bugs)

There is no signal delay planned for the stock system.

20 hours ago, Starhawk said:

Hmmm.  I was under the impression that it might still appear for 1.1.3.  I suppose that all depends on how the bug-squashing goes.

I expect big problems for my save since I have never got into the habit of installing antennae on my remote-controlled craft.  I suppose if I start swapping the ships out now, I might get them all decommissioned and replaced before that feature is added. 

Happy landings!

Not 1.1.3, 1.2.  And your save will be fine, this was a major consideration when building out the system.  There will be ways to sort this.  Tho your options will be enhanced if you have some kind of antenna already on said vessel.

20 hours ago, pandaman said:

I expect this will be 'on' by default, but I would be very very surprised if it didn't come with an on/off toggle and 'difficulty' settings.  Actually I do seem to recall an article saying that this would be the case

It does.  There is a toggle.

19 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

Whatever floats your boat.  Personally, I set my space program in the near future, not the distant past, so my probes are hugely autonomous, needing nor more than an occasional general order.  Therefore, I don't use signal delay.  I sincerely hopes that if the stock system imposes some sort of delay or otherwise impaired control of probes, that it makes this an option like it is in AR.

I doubt putting antenna on your ships will help.  Any sort of communications system necessarily must impose some limits on the ranges of various antennae.  Last I heard, the new system was going to include some huge new antenna parts for interplanetary relays.  This implies that none of the existing antennae can talk that far.  Thus, even if you put 88-88s or Hi-Gains on all your ships, they might not be able to phone home from Duna.

Well, if the system is all about transmitting science like AR, then this won't be a problem anyway.  But if it's about controlling probes like RT, then I don't want it at all.  Why force everybody to use probes left over from the 1940s instead letting them set their games in the present or future?

No signal delay.  Existing antennas work, so having them on your craft is not a bad idea (it buys more options).  The relay antennas are separate, but not required (think New Horizons vs Curiosity+MRO).  Pro-tip:  If you drop an 88-88 on your vessel, you will be fine to Eeloo (again, think New Horizons).  The system covers science as well as probe control.

16 hours ago, keeper said:

I started on KSP again since i heard the new engine. Lovely stuff. I did briefly remember what they were saying regarding the antenna when i was building stuff. I guess that was a load of talk over nothing. I was kind of relieved actually. But was mostly looking forward to setting up relays here and there.

It was a lot of talk over a feature that's pretty much code complete, but was written in Unity 4 and I'm buttoning up (as noted in the Dev Notes) for Unity 5.

15 hours ago, SorryDave said:

My understanding was that the feature being added will be used to give a science buff, not using a relay will not impact probes.

 

This is incorrect.  It will not only add a science buff, but will also impact probes and how probe control works.

11 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

I'm not being "doom and gloom".  KSP is still limping along and I suspect it will manage to survive a stock communications feature.  I'm just saying that nobody will like the results any more than they have the other stock implementation of so-called 'realism" features.  Those who don't want any of it will have it forced upon them anyway, and those who love that sort of thing will be dissatisfied with the inevitable watered-down, mass-market version that Squad will produce.  And it will certainly introduce yet more bugs, and will very likely break your save no matter how you're playing right now, so it will annoy everybody regardless of their personal tastes on the underlying subject matter.  This all seems the exact opposite of engendering good customer relations so I think the best business decision for Squad would be to forget the whole idea, or at most make it an official mod.

You are being doom and gloom.  It may surprise you that some folks like stock features,even if you do not.  It's a missing part of the game as right now, there's not much point of having more than one antenna, and certain mission profiles cannot be adequately reproduced in the stock game.  As noted, it will not break saves (in some extreme cases there might be an inconvenience, but nothing will be 'bricked'), and no, the idea is not being 'forgotten' or made into a mod (not much point there really).  If you dislike it, toggle it off.

[tater]

If it's calculating LOS, it would be cool if there was a new "target" mode to point the directional antenna to where it is calculating LOS to.

While I like the idea if even more serious restrictions on comms, I always found RT to be pretty awful, particularly in stock were Eeloo is less far away that Venus actually is (comms would never be a problem in the Kerbol system, aside from LOS, it's far too tiny for even delay to be of much concern). As was said above, we really need some control autonomy instead of having to pilot manually, that should be a trade off with probes, if you want a maneuver out of LOS, then you program it, and see what happens when/if the probe is back in communication with you.

[RoverDude]

Stock antennas are omnidirectional, there is no pointing.

(or rather, any pointing involved is inferred and not done by the player)

Edited June 3, 2016 by RoverDude

[Geschosskopf]

8 hours ago, razark said:

I find it amusing that the best way to simulate an autonomous vehicle is to make sure there is always a human in control of it.

You miss the point.  No matter what we PRETEND is flying the ship in the game universe (Jeb in the cockpit, an autonomous probe core, or some intern with a joystick back at KSC), it's up to the player actually to do it.  The question, therefore, is about what we're PRETENDING is really going on in the game universe.  Communications systems that require constant contact with home only envision Kerbals controlling ships, either in person or remotely.  But that's sooooooo 20th Century.  These days, probes can think and act for themselves.

What  I find amusing is that RT users long ago implemented autonomous vehicles themselves in the form of kOS.  Want to land a probe at a specific spot on the far side of Mun before you've got network coverage there?  No problem, just write some Kerboscript or download somebody else's.  Then just tell the probe to "land at position X" and let it do the rest.  Which is, at the bottom line, exactly the same as using MJ for the same purpose, with the possible exception of maybe having to write the landing script yourself instead of downloading it.

So, RT users have side-stepped the RT problems of signal delay, lack of LOS, and unstable satellite orbits by making their own autonomous vehicles so they don't need much of a network at all.  Which forces the question, why even bother with the network in the 1st place if you can so easily circumvent the need for it?  I mean, apart from the personal satisfaction of writing kOS scripts that actually work.  But you can do that without actually needing a network.

And if you accept the concept of autonomous probes in the context of RT, what's the problem with accepting them in general?  You create a problem with RT, you solve it with kOS, and the net result is the same as if you'd just played the game without either one.  IOW, you just PRETEND the probe is autonomous and fly it yourself.

 

Just now, p1t1o said:

Dagnabbit, too quick on the draw. Sorry, my bad. Still register my general disagreement though, driverless cars are not spaceprobes, by quite a long chalk. 

 

You've got it backwards, actually.  Spacecraft have no traffic to contend with unless they seek it out intentionally, have no laws to obey except Newton's, only really have 1 viable route to choose from, and can go for months / years / decades without having to make a decision or take an action at all.  Autonomous spacecraft navigation is thus a much simpler problem to solve than driving in city traffic.  In fact, it's so easy that many members of this forum have written kOS scripts to do it.

 

1 hour ago, Nathair said:

Thanks, I understand now why you're so snarkily disappointed in RT.

My main disappointment in RT is that it's so high-maintenance due to KSP issues and a lack of automatic antenna switching, which amplifies the effects of the KSP problems.  This all puts a fairly low ceiling on the size of the space presence you can have, due to the time required to keep the network functioning as desired.

 

1 minute ago, Bloody_looser said:

That goes both ways. Opposing new features since they are 'breaking' your gameplay is exactly the same attitude. It's Squads game after all.

Um, no.

You want to impose your beliefs on others.  You don't like what other people are doing in their own games and want the game changed so they can't do that anymore.  I OTOH believe that everybody should be able to play the game however they want and don't care what others do in the privacy of their own games.  That's kinda the exact opposite of your attitude.

In the situation where the stock game lacks a feature but mods provide it, everybody gets what they want.  Those who don't want that feature don't have to use the mod, and vice versa. . But once the feature becomes stock, everybody has to use it, even those who didn't want it in the first place.  That seems rather harsh to me, which is why I oppose such things.

[Nathair]

3 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

In the situation where the stock game lacks a feature but mods provide it, everybody gets what they want.

 

Assuming, of course, that the mod in question a)exists, b)is maintained, c)isn't repeatedly broken as the game updates, d)etc. In other words, your "in a perfect world" argument doesn't necessarily apply to the real world.

[razark]

1 minute ago, Geschosskopf said:

You miss the point.

No, I did not.  I was merely amused by the irony.

 

3 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

You create a problem with RT, you solve it with kOS, and the net result is the same as if you'd just played the game without either one.

I find those two situations to be quite different.  One provides the player with a challenge that must be solved, the other abstracts away that challenge.

Some people do enjoy solving a problem like that.  Obviously, you are not one of those people.

[jlcarneiro]

21 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

[...]

Personally, although I've been using either RT or AntennaRange in all my games for the past couple years, I wish Squad would make this an official mod like Asteroid Day instead of an unavoidable stock feature.  

[...]

 

I know this is a little(!?) off-topic, but are there any news on Asteroid Day on 1.1.2?

Edited June 3, 2016 by jlcarneiro

[p1t1o]

10 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

You've got it backwards, actually.  Spacecraft have no traffic to contend with unless they seek it out intentionally, have no laws to obey except Newton's, only really have 1 viable route to choose from, and can go for months / years / decades without having to make a decision or take an action at all.  Autonomous spacecraft navigation is thus a much simpler problem to solve than driving in city traffic.  In fact, it's so easy that many members of this forum have written kOS scripts to do it.

Well those are all excellent reasons why driverless cars are not spaceprobes, so i dont know what I got "backwards".

Here's some more:

If a driverless car makes a 0.05^o steering error, it isn't going to end up thousands of kilometers off course.

If a driverless car makes course mistakes, or other errors, which lead to it running out of fuel, it won't take millions of dollars and several more years to get back on track.

If a driverless car develops a mechanical problem, all it needs to do is navigate to the nearest garage/rendezvous point or ping its base.

A driverless car doesn't need to operate for many years without human intervention (see above point re:maintenance)

A driverless car's sole purpose is not to return data to a base millions of kilometers away.

A driverless car can stop if there is an unforseen event.

A driverless car can easily tell the difference between being "on the road" and being several thouasnd kilometres away from the road. Hell, it can tell the difference between being on the road and being 30cm off the road. In fact it knows where the road is at all times. It will also know immediately due to the presence of numerous easily visible objects and electonic references.

 

And even if all of that stuff isn't true, giving a probe a 2-way data connection *massively* expands mission options and in-mission contingencies. Launching a probe that is purely autonomous that isn't going to communicate with us means it A) has to come back (reference: the tyranny of the tsiolkovsky rocket equation) and B) will be an order of magnitude less useful than one that can.

I don't know if we are at crossed purposes here so to clarify - nobody is saying that you couldn't make an autonomous probe. What people are saying is that its generally a very good idea to have a communication link with one, and that a probe needing a comlink is so far from being "obsolete" that it is laughable.

 

[Geschosskopf]

42 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

This is a stock feature.  It has a toggle, so you can turn it off.  Your saves will be fine.

Thanks for all the info.  Glad to hear this hopefully won't break saves.

Request:  Would it be possible to have 2 toggles?  One for the systems' effects on science, the other for its effects on probes?  You know, so folks could mix and match to suit the ethos of their Kerbal universe?

 

42 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Saying that the stock changes to aero and reentry 'have not made anybody happy' is completely false.  Asserting that once this feature is implemented, 'once again, nobody will be happy' is again completely false.  Conversations are welcome, dialogue is awesome.  blanket assertions, especially false ones, do not move the conversation forward.

Hmmm.....  Well, let's have a discussion, then.  What's your counterargument to my position that nobody's happy the stock aero and reentry?  By that, I mean they see them as better than either of the previous alternatives.  I'll grant you a few folks were were only marginally in one of the previous stock or mod camps might be happier now with some sort of middle ground, but FAR and DRE retain their followings and the previous stock crowd is silent because they know there's no going back.

 

42 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

......

No signal delay.

.....

This is incorrect.  It will not only add a science buff, but will also impact probes and how probe control works.  .....

 

30 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

Stock antennas are omnidirectional, there is no pointing.

(or rather, any pointing involved is inferred and not done by the player)

Thanks again for the info.  You have done much to ease my concerns.

However, please describe how this impact on probe control will work, and what we as players can do to prevent it.

Also, again, what about 2 toggles, one for science and one for probe control?

 

10 minutes ago, Nathair said:

Assuming, of course, that the mod in question a)exists, b)is maintained, c)isn't repeatedly broken as the game updates, d)etc. In other words, your "in a perfect world" argument doesn't necessarily apply to the real world.

Hmmm.......  I think it safe to assume that RT is used by a relatively small minority of players.  Even if it's your favorite thing in the world, don't you think it's selfish to make everybody else have to use it just so you don't have to worry about mod updates?  RT has been around this forum far longer than you have.  I wouldn't worry about its staying power.

 

6 minutes ago, razark said:

I find those two situations to be quite different.  One provides the player with a challenge that must be solved, the other abstracts away that challenge.

Some people do enjoy solving a problem like that.  Obviously, you are not one of those people.

No, I've just learned that such self-created challenges are ephemeral.  Once you figure out how to solve them, you do that as a matter or routine and never think about them again.  At which point, both the challenge and its automatic solution become merely overhead.  They contribute nothing to your gameplay after that, so might as well be removed to free up system resources.  Then you just abstract them by playing as if they were still there, such as by limiting flight duration due to pretended life support requirements.

 

Just now, jlcarneiro said:

I know this is a little off-topic, but are there any news on Asteroid Day on 1.1.2?

@Arsonide said updating the "stock mods" (which hopefully includes soccer balls) was a "high priority".

[Nathair]

7 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

What's your counterargument to my position that nobody's happy the stock aero and reentry?  By that, I mean they see them as better than either of the previous alternatives.  I'll grant you a few folks were were only marginally in one of the previous stock or mod camps might be happier now with some sort of middle ground, but FAR and DRE retain their followings and the previous stock crowd is silent because they know there's no going back

1

I used to use both FAR and DRE, now I don't use either. I am pretty happy with the stock aero and reentry. I think that puts paid to your claim.

9 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

Hmmm.......  I think it safe to assume that RT is used by a relatively small minority of players.  Even if it's your favorite thing in the world, don't you think it's selfish to make everybody else have to use it just so you don't have to worry about mod updates?

 

Is there a specific term for it when someone moves the goal posts and at the same time creates a total straw man? I have never, ever even subtly hinted that everyone should have to use RT or a stock version of it. I specifically said that I love the idea of an "official mod" for it and am (sadly) quite aware that that will never happen. RoverDude has said that even the RT-ultralite they're implementing will be toggleable. Nobody is making you use RT, nobody is even thinking about making you use RT. Kindly unbunch your knickers.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Nathair said:

I used to use both FAR and DRE, now I don't use either. I am pretty happy with the stock aero and reentry. I think that puts paid to your claim.

Ol' Bullet Head up there has me on block but I'll add my voice to the "stock/vanilla is great now" choir.  Now I only use/see a need for FAR and DRE with Realism Overhaul.

[HebaruSan]

17 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

nobody's happy the stock aero and reentry?  By that, I mean they see them as better than either of the previous alternatives.  I'll grant you a few folks were were only marginally in one of the previous stock or mod camps might be happier now with some sort of middle ground, but FAR and DRE retain their followings and the previous stock crowd is silent because they know there's no going back.

I suppose I'm another member of this group you keep saying doesn't exist. I wanted more realistic aero and heating pre-1.0, but I didn't like the idea of designing my crafts around a mod. I'm as happy as a pig in excrements now that my rockets flip without fins or blow up with the wrong descent trajectory on a stock install.

I'm looking forward to the stock comm system for the same reasons. I like the idea of giving antennae a more meaningful role, and I see it creating some potential for a progression system that unfolds organically rather than being mediated by some kind of "points", but I'd rather stick with the common experience that new players would get out of the box.

17 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

No, I've just learned that such self-created challenges are ephemeral.  Once you figure out how to solve them, you do that as a matter or routine and never think about them again.  At which point, both the challenge and its automatic solution become merely overhead.  They contribute nothing to your gameplay after that, so might as well be removed to free up system resources.  Then you just abstract them by playing as if they were still there, such as by limiting flight duration due to pretended life support requirements.

Launching, getting an intercept, capturing, and landing could also be said to be such challenges. Maybe some people simply enjoy dealing with those challenges repeatedly rather than considering them overhead?

[tater]

2 hours ago, RoverDude said:

Stock antennas are omnidirectional, there is no pointing.

(or rather, any pointing involved is inferred and not done by the player)

So all the stock antenna models are changing? 2 of them are parabolic as it stands (by definition, directional). Or do you mean that they will function as omnidirectional even if the game parts are unambiguously directional?

Given that the game will be doing an LOS check, should;t it be possible to point an antenna along that LOS? Not saying it makes a lot of sense e for stock, but it would be pretty cool to watch a flyby with the dish actually pointing to Kerbin.

Edited June 3, 2016 by tater

[Guest]

1 minute ago, tater said:

So all the stock antenna models are changing? 2 of them are parabolic as it stands (by definition, directional). Or do you mean that they will function as omnidirectional even if the game parts are unambiguously directional?

They will all function as omni-directional antennas regardless of the in-game model.  Same as RT2.

Edited June 3, 2016 by regex

[tater]

Gotcha, that is what I assumed he meant, but it always bugs me when my high-gain is clearly pointed the wrong way, and the LOS calculation implies the ability to correct this visually (and possibly functionally in a mod).