Stock Communications System: What's the Word Now?

[Andem]

24 minutes ago, Violent Jeb said:

with the orbital decay bug? don't think so. Not in my save at least. It was tedious before 1.1 and i don't see it as possible now, unless you get the craft to the right period, and immediately put it on permanent rails. Either way I have orders of magnitude more fun with Scansat than I ever did with RT. But thats just me.

Antennarange, perhaps?

[Mister Spock]

I also am happy with stock aero and re-entry.  I used to use FAR and DRE, but no longer.

[Violent Jeb]

no i meant scansat, just as the comparison that a communications network does very little for me given that there is very little to communicate. RT put a bad taste in my mouth and I haven't tried AR.

I guess the jist is that this feature is not something i'm frothing at the mouth to have. I don't get much satisfaction from dead accurate orbital periods.. but thats just me. And i digress from my initial post, being that I don't think a longterm precision orbital period/network is practically viable in 1.1.2

Edited June 4, 2016 by Violent Jeb

[RoverDude]

You're still comparing apples and tractors tho  

 

Both come in red and green, but you can't eat a tractor.

[FlowerChild]

36 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

You're still comparing apples and tractors tho  

Both come in red and green, but you can't eat a tractor.

I think he means in terms of gameplay.  Both involve giving purpose to placing objects in specific orbits, even if the "story" reasons for doing so are different.

[Violent Jeb]

[redacted, done contributing]

Edited August 16, 2016 by Violent Jeb

[Nathair]

4 hours ago, Violent Jeb said:

with the orbital decay bug? don't think so. Not in my save at least. It was tedious before 1.1 and i don't see it as possible now, unless you get the craft to the right period, and immediately put it on permanent rails.

2

But once you have a commsat in the proper orbit and on rails, why would you ever need to go back to it?

31 minutes ago, Violent Jeb said:

A communications network a la RT ... is prohibitive by nature.

 

It's odd then that many of us are doing exactly that.

[Dunbaratu]

19 minutes ago, Nathair said:

It's odd then that many of us are doing exactly that.

If I get the gist of what it means, RT being inherently "prohibitive" here was used not in the sense "makes it impossible to play" but in the sense "RT's main purpose is to prohibit things stock lets you get away with, rather than to enable something new stock didn't allow before."

[Jarin]

9 hours ago, Laie said:

@Nathair @severedsolo

I'm fully aware of how to use RCS and fine controls. Still, 1/10th of a second is as good as it gets for a GEO satellite, and that requires a lot of back-and forth until I strike it just right. What I do instead is I just use hyperedit:rendezvous with a lead time that corresponds to 1/3rd orbit (or whatever, according to need). Much more convenient than hacking the savegame.

Now, 0.1s in GEO is good for a long time. One could argue that I shouldn't play with RT if I'm unwilling to look after my satellites every decade or two... but that's another topic for another day.

Turn off all but two RCS units and toggle on fine-control mode with caps lock? If all else fails, do the previous with a more massive satellite.

If you need even more precision, use an ANT engine with the thrust dialed down to minimum.

[Dunbaratu]

9 hours ago, Nathair said:

As the man said, "We are tied down to a language which makes up in obscurity what it lacks in style."

Prohibitive, according to the OED means "Preventing someone from doing something."

 

Exactly.  Preventing someone from controlling a craft that isn't reachable by antenna.  Preventing someone from having immediate feedback from a craft several light-minutes away.  Which was clearly the intended meaning, not Preventing someone from playing the game.  It was a comparison with Scansat, a mod who's purpose is to allow you to do a new thing you couldn't do before, as opposed to RT who's purpose is to prevent you from doing something you'd otherwise be allowed to do.

 

[tseitsei89]

4 hours ago, Steven Mading said:

Exactly.  Preventing someone from controlling a craft that isn't reachable by antenna.  Preventing someone from having immediate feedback from a craft several light-minutes away.  Which was clearly the intended meaning, not Preventing someone from playing the game.  It was a comparison with Scansat, a mod who's purpose is to allow you to do a new thing you couldn't do before, as opposed to RT who's purpose is to prevent you from doing something you'd otherwise be allowed to do.

 

Well obviously there has to be something in any game that "prevents" you from doing something because otherwise you could just do anything with ease and that wouldnt be interesting or challenging.

Some examples:

Not having infinite isp on engines PREVENTS you to go anywhere dith minimal fuel mass.

Reentry heat prevents too fast/too low reentry

 

As you can see these are both important game mechanics based on how stuff works in real world.

Similarly RT just adds more of these mechanics based on real world. It is not necessarily good or bad for the game. It just makes it more realistic and challenging.

[Dunbaratu]

5 hours ago, tseitsei89 said:

Well obviously there has to be something in any game that "prevents" you from doing something because otherwise you could just do anything with ease and that wouldnt be interesting or challenging.

Some examples:

Not having infinite isp on engines PREVENTS you to go anywhere dith minimal fuel mass.

Reentry heat prevents too fast/too low reentry

 

As you can see these are both important game mechanics based on how stuff works in real world.

Similarly RT just adds more of these mechanics based on real world. It is not necessarily good or bad for the game. It just makes it more realistic and challenging.

Correct.  Doesn't change my point (and in fact supports it), which is that a statement calling RT an inherently prohibitive mod in no way implies any accusation that it's somehow making the game unplayable.  My point is when Nathair assumed that this is what Violent Jeb was claiming and tried to hold him to that interpretation, that was a strawman fallacy, that was all I was pointing out.

 

[technicalfool]

We done arguing about semantics? Because I'm fairly certain that's not what this thread is about.

Posts snipped. Please keep to the subject, thanks.

Edited June 6, 2016 by technicalfool
Posts snipped.

[Nathair]

18 hours ago, Steven Mading said:

when Nathair assumed that this is what Violent Jeb was claiming and tried to hold him to that interpretation, that was a strawman fallacy, that was all I was pointing out.

 

Sorry, but that is not what I did and I certainly was not attempting to deceive or distort anyone's position.

[Dunbaratu]

6 hours ago, Nathair said:

Sorry, but that is not what I did and I certainly was not attempting to deceive or distort anyone's position.

The evidence speaks for itself.  Since it's off topic I'll stop there.

 

Edited June 6, 2016 by Steven Mading

[Nathair]

Just now, Steven Mading said:

Then in subsequent posts you kept trying to defend that the interpretation necessary to make that comment must have been the intended meaning.

There is a vast difference between explaining how I read (or misread) something and demanding that it was therefore what the author intended.(I even quoted Stoppard on the obscurity of English.) Your accusing me of setting up a strawman was uncalled for.

[JoeNapalm]

 

All I know is that making something more realistic does not necessarily make it more fun.

I use probes and drones a lot -- which, for me, is fun. I have absolutely zero desire to have to run a half dozen missions setting up relays, or having my time wasted with a "realistic" lag for the signals to cross the distance. Because those things are not fun.

Sure, if you want those things, knock yourself out -- install the mod. But I can think of a lot of stuff that could be made stock that pretty much 99% of players want, that ought to be in line ahead of this. Even with a toggle in the options.

You can have your fun with space ham radio. I'll be over here with my fully autonomous probe cores.

Now if KAL would just open the pod bay doors...

 

-Jn-

[regex]

13 minutes ago, JoeNapalm said:

All I know is that making something more realistic does not necessarily make it more fun.

The converse is also true.  It's a matter of taste.  All we can do is express our desire for the "taste" of the game to match ours, and there is nothing wrong with differing opinions.

[JoeNapalm]

21 minutes ago, regex said:

The converse is also true.  It's a matter of taste.  All we can do is express our desire for the "taste" of the game to match ours, and there is nothing wrong with differing opinions.

Which is pretty much what I said in the rest of that post.

-Jn-

[regex]

9 minutes ago, JoeNapalm said:

Which is pretty much what I said in the rest of that post.

You did, true.  I suppose my hackles raise whenever I see someone saying "install the mod" when discussing a more realistic new feature that others are pretty excited about; reminds me of all the arguments about a better non-placeholder aerodynamic simulation back in the day.

[RoverDude]

6 hours ago, JoeNapalm said:

 

All I know is that making something more realistic does not necessarily make it more fun.

I use probes and drones a lot -- which, for me, is fun. I have absolutely zero desire to have to run a half dozen missions setting up relays, or having my time wasted with a "realistic" lag for the signals to cross the distance. Because those things are not fun.

Sure, if you want those things, knock yourself out -- install the mod. But I can think of a lot of stuff that could be made stock that pretty much 99% of players want, that ought to be in line ahead of this. Even with a toggle in the options.

You can have your fun with space ham radio. I'll be over here with my fully autonomous probe cores.

Now if KAL would just open the pod bay doors...

 

-Jn-

Good thing relays are not required, and there's no signal delay.

 

[JoeNapalm]

12 hours ago, RoverDude said:

Good thing relays are not required, and there's no signal delay.

 

 

18 hours ago, JoeNapalm said:

Sure, if you want those things, knock yourself out -- install the mod.

 

I'm addressing more the faction that seems to think that realism should be the end-goal for stock KSP.

The proposed stock comms sound great, and I appreciate that they won't push the slider too far toward one end of the bell-curve on the "realism vs playability" scale.

There's mods for the edge cases. Usually pretty good ones.

-Jn-

 

PS - Thanks for all the amazing mods. You make my favorite game better in every way.

PPS - That made it weird, didn't it?

PPPS - But still. Those mods!

 

Edited June 7, 2016 by JoeNapalm

[mekaerwin]

12 hours ago, RoverDude said:

Good thing relays are not required, and there's no signal delay.

 

RD, ever get tired of saying the same things? And did anyone catch that one fellow complained that nobody likes these changes then asked for two toggles to be able to fine tune his (or anyone's) use of unwanted changes. I won't argue about why it was asked for (but feel free to defend it anyway) but I thought it was hilarious. Sometimes I just read forums like a sitcom. Nobody's really like this in real life, right?

[AbacusWizard]

On 6/4/2016 at 3:10 PM, Nathair said:

But once you have a commsat in the proper orbit and on rails, why would you ever need to go back to it?

Might need to aim a directional antenna at a different target.

[Terwin]

I realize I'm a little late to the party, but the whole autopilot discussion wanted me to reference Curriosity and it's sky-crane

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory#Entry.2C_descent_and_landing_.28EDL.29  "During the entire landing phase, the vehicle acts autonomously, based on pre-loaded software and parameters."

And I must say that a sky-crane has got to be at least on-par with the difficulty of any landing I make in KSP, so I consider autonomous probes to be quite adequately capable as of 2012.

 

Now, that said, I have a communicatron on each of my scansats outside of the Kerbin system, and have generally considered it an appropriate part to put on anything that leaves the neighborhood since before 1.0, so I am quite interested to see how the antenna range feature changes game-play, and I suspect I will be leaving it turned on once I have tried it out.

 

(the only RoverDude mod I have uninstalled is USI-LS, and that is mostly because I don't plan my missions in enough detail to handle the home-sickness time-frame well.  (I generally do a gender-paired crew with 3-5 seats per kerbal including at least one 'privacy' pod for long missions, and that seems like it should be enough for a year or three with proper selection of the individuals involved, then again, there was a time I was working from home and when I was calling in to my weekly meeting, I realized I had not spoken a single word since the same meeting the previous week, so my perceptions of normal human needs may not be very accurate))