Kerbin Elcano (TACLS, no Solar, no GPS, Supply Drops & overnight camping)

[The_Rocketeer]

*WIP* - I am updating this post as my mission plan takes form. Please be patient - if you read this post and it doesn't make sense, I am probably rewriting parts of it as you read.

I have been making plans for a wheeled-rover Elcano mission for a few weeks now. I see full-stock as the blue-ribband of the Elcano challenge, but after taking a long hard look at it I've decided I want a little more from the experience than stock is offering, particularly the ability to pack emergency spares and make field modifications, as well as scenery mods to make the trip a little less monotonous. In some ways I wish the mods to do this didn't exist - the stock challenge is the ultimate endurance test by my book - but I think the extra flavour certain mods are offering is just too attractive to pass up on. To check myself for being a bit cheaty (by no-one's standard but my own), I'm going to impose additional restrictions that I hope will prove even more challenging.

TACLS

Spoiler

1. The rover will carry 4 crew
2. They must be kept supplied with food, water and electricity
   1. See Supply Drops and S&R below
3. The rover will carry a maximum supply of ~11 Kerbal days of food and ~16 Kerbal days of water
4. The rover will have a maximum EC storage sufficient for 1 Kerbal day.
   1. See No Solar below

 

 

No GPS

Spoiler

1. No in-game maps of any kind will be used during the mission by any vessel
   1. this includes the map view, ScanSAT's main window
2. The F4 key will also be used to disable GUI craft indicators and labels
   1. This will allow me to use the Tracking Station to switch vessels without seeing my current position on Kerbin
3. Navigation will depend entirely on visual observation and dead-reckoning, as well as
   1. Trigonometry/orienteering (map and compass/navball)
   2. Celestial navigation
   3. Dumb luck
4. The believed route will be charted by me on a paper print-out map of Kerbin, which I will scan and upload periodically.
5. The rover will be fitted with a BTDT scanner to show the true course at journey's end.

 

 

No Solar

Spoiler

1. The rover will not carry or use any solar panels at all.
2. The rover will be fitted with a single Fuel Cell Array for primary EC generation
   1. In case of damage, two reserve single Fuel Cells will be carried in a storage container as back-up generators
   2. The rover will also carry a single OSCAR-B fuel tank in a storage container as a final reserve
      1. this will only be used in the event that all other fuel sources are exhausted and the crew will soon die for lack of EC.
3. Four TR-2L rover wheels will provide primary propulsion
4. Two Juno jet engines will provide auxiliary thust and water-crossing propulsion
   1. in the event of Oxidiser depletion with remaining Liquid Fuel, the Juno's alternators may be used for emergency power generation
   2. inefficiency demands that the use of jet-power on land be kept to a minimum - see Supply Drops and S&R below
5. The rover will *provisionally* have sufficient storage capacity for 1260 Liquid Fuel and 440 Oxidiser
   1. See Supply Drops and S&R below

 

Supply Drops and S&R

Spoiler

Supply

1. The rover will be resupplied by periodical air-supply drops
   1. Every 3rd Kerbal day a supply of 360 LF and 440 Oxidiser will be delivered by parachute.
   2. Every 3rd Fuel drop will include a food and water package sufficient to fully re-stock the rover
   3. Any excess is discarded
2. Supply missions will take place at night so as not to delay the rover's progress
3. Supply missions will not land, but will drop a parachute package near the campsite and circle until it lands, before returning to base
4. Supply drop flights will be conducted on the same navigational basis as the core mission
   1. Visual location of the mission campsite is the flight's primary goal, supplying it is secondary
5. In the event of an accident in which equipment is critically damaged in some way, the supply package may also include critical replacement parts, e.g. TR-2L wheels

S&R

1. In the event that a supply flight is unable to locate the mission rover, a S&R exercise will begin
   1. The rover must decide whether to attempt to reach a KerbinSide facility for resupply, or remain in position
      1. If attempting to reach a facility, the rover moves on until it reaches supply or its populsion resources are exhausted.
   2. If the rover stays put or fails to reach a facility, S&R flights commence to sweep the area in search of the rover
      1. S&R missions will take place successively regardless of day or night until the mission is found and supplied.
2. If the rover is not discovered and supplied before the crew die, the mission is over.

 

 

Overnight Camping

Spoiler

1. The crew will drive for no more than 4 hours per day/night cycle (or 6 hour interval in polar regions)
2. Before the end of the fourth hour, the crew will park the rover and erect a Pathfinder Ponderosa tent
   1. The camp will also include a Gaslight to aid visual identification by supply flights
   2. The Ponderosa will be attached to the rover for purposes of resource supply
3. The entire crew will remain in the Ponderosa for not less than 90 minutes before striking camp.
4. In the event of S&R, the crew will first pitch camp and remain in the Ponderosa until discovered.
   1. This will happen after the supply mission has landed before the first S&R flight takes off.

KerbinSide Facilities

Spoiler

1. KerbinSide facilities serve primarily as major progress checkpoints and landmarks of verified location
   1. They will be marked on the paper-map before the mission begins
2. *The below are contingent on Claw's approval regarding compliance with the Elcano Challenge rules*
   1. In addition
      1. They count as launching points for S&R and Supply aircraft
      2. They count as major repair workshops (where a damaged rover can be replaced with a new one)
      3. The count as major supply depots, allowing the rover to replenish all supplies without the necessary air-mission.

Mods I intend to use (will add to pending suggestions):

Spoiler

KIS/KAS - spares, tools and storage
Pathfinder - overnight camping
TAC LS - food and water supplies will NOT be recycled
Firespitter - pontoon parts, also possibly supply drop aircraft
Kerbin Side - major route checkpoints, 'major repair workshops' (replacement vehicle), supply depots and supply-drop launch points
ScanSAT - BTDT scanner only, to review on mission completion for purposes of comparison only
A bunch of scenery mods (Scatterer, SVE, Distant Object Enhancement, etc)

Mods I don't intend to use (but feel free to try and change my mind with good reasons )

Spoiler

Additional parts packages
Remote Tech

Thoughts, questions and suggestions very welcome.

Edited August 6, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[LordOfMinecraft99]

Oooh sounds challenging! I once tried something like this in realism overhaul........ I cringe just thinking about how i spent an hour with my hand on W before i just put a small rock on it.

[Claw]

If you don't want to use map mode (I also prefer navigating by zooming out a bit in the stage view), then consider taking a copy of the map with you. Keep an electronic map of your planned route handy, and refer to it while driving and see if you can manually keep track of where you are.

And I also understand the strange compelling feeling of going pure stock. I wanted to as well, though it doesn't gain any extra points or anything.

Enjoy the drive. Kerbin is still my favorite in terms of terrain variety. Good luck!

 

23 minutes ago, LordOfMinecraft99 said:

I cringe just thinking about how i spent an hour with my hand on W before i just put a small rock on it.

Haha. By the way, ALT+W is your friend.

 

[The_Rocketeer]

@LordOfMinecraft99 yup, challenging challenges are my favourite type of challenge also, Claw ninja'd me on the alt-w - trimming works for rovers in all respects

@Claw yes I'm with you here. I'd been trying to get my head around whether ScanSAT can be used in a limited fashion for a more in-game solution, but I don't want to make it too easy on myself to pinpoint my position (I might have to stick a 'NO' post-it on the 'm' key ). A digital map or even a printout is probably ideal though. I might actually drop ScanSAT from the modlist - it's an awesome mod, but I don't want the temptation to cut this particular corner

Also, does anybody know if there's a way to disable labels and hud reticles without disabling the whole hud? I'd prefer to have to really use my eyes when I'm looking for a Kerbin Side location rather than just have it pop up on my display as a target when I'm still kilometers away.

[damerell]

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I'd be really interested in any guidance or suggestions here - I'm pitching for a realistic motorised land-endurance challenge. My rover will have EAS-1 seats for four, powered by LFO Fuel Cells only (no solar at all) and no cockpits or interior spaces. The crew will have to pitch camp every night and strike it every morning, maximum of 4 hours driving per day/night cycle.

I suppose I find myself asking "why" on some of these. Can a realistic electric vehicle not use solar power, or have a crew cab? I was happy driving steadily around the kerbal clock since the Karibou cab has three seats and depicts sleeping bunks at the rear with appropriate weight and volume allocated - although, to be honest, stopping at night will probably make your life easier.

[The_Rocketeer]

@damerell the answer to your 'why' is in this sentence:

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

To check myself for being a bit cheaty (by no-one's standard but my own), I'm going to impose additional restrictions that I hope will prove even more challenging.

You're absolutely right that there's nothing to stop anybody from driving their KSP rovers on batteries right thru the night or covering their vehicle in solar panels - that just isn't what I'm doing. I am creating the opportunity to experience a facsimile of a RL off-roading adventure, based on the RL limitations I conceive would apply to myself attempting something similar on Earth with 3 of my buddies. I'm far too poor and lowly to ever do such a thing in my lifetime, but in KSP I have everything I could need. Perhaps some would say that makes me a rather sad individual.

[Geschosskopf]

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I'd be really interested in any guidance or suggestions here -

Hmmm.....  Well, I have to wonder why not use solar panels?  And also, is it within the rules to get replacement vehicles from KerbinSide bases instead of all the way back at KSC?

Anyway, as to navigating without the map view....  I think you have to use the map to show your progress with flags all around the world.  It would definitely help with the narrative if you plan on doing a mission report with updates, too.  If readers can't see your progress, they'll really wonder what's going on.

SCANsat, of course, has 2 types of radar.  If you use low-res radar, the zoom view is all pixelated and is really only good for showing the general locations of major features like coastlines and mountain ranges.  It won't show rivers, it won't mountain passes, etc.  You have to spot them yourself from the vehicle.

With KerbinSide, I believe one of the options turns off base markers in the vehicle view.  In fact, that must be the default (unless it's changed lately) because I've NEVER seen markers except on the map view.

Your biggest problem, however, is that right now, wheels freak out if you use much (or even any) physical warp.  This means you're stuck driving pretty much in realtime, so the trip will take about as long in real life as it does in the game.  IOW, this is will be a very long-term project and a vast timesink.  I think this is why you see so many boat attempts right now instead of rover attempts.  They say this will be fixed in 1.2 but I'll believe that when I see it.

[The_Rocketeer]

@Geschosskopf some really good thoughts here.

I did start out with a simple all-solar rover idea, that then became a solar-rover with a LFO+FC reserve (for transiting the polar circles), which has since evolved into an LFO+FC-only rover. IRL I would be dependent on gas stations for fuel supplies. Since those don't exist in KSP, the closest I can come is to manually place checkpoints along my route. Well, if I'm going to place them I'd prefer not to waste time dropping them where they really aren't needed, and so I might as well be dropping them on demand instead of in advance. Since that feels a bit cheaty, I choose to use Kerbin Side for must-stop-here style checkpoints (which extends my route off the optimal some) and use airdrops for auxiliary resupplies in between (there are some very long gaps between KS locations on my polar route). This is really no different than planning city-stops in a RL road trip, and arranging for people to meet u with jerry-cans in between, except on Kerbin the 'supply party' will come from the air.

You raise a fair point about replacement vehicles coming from Kerbin Side locations... except that really doesn't matter to me since I already have the Kerbin Elcano under my belt from my 24-hour hydrofoil trip I'm just doing a land-based follow-up for fun (and cause doing it so fast by boat I sort of cheated myself of the full experience). But, fair call, I could build a delivery aircraft with replacement vehicles inside that could be flown out to said locations anyway - that actually suits my realism-style better than on-the-spot spawns.

Regarding 'evidence', well again I don't really have anything to prove now, but also I was kinda thinking of using fraps (or similar) to take regular screenshots for me so I could put them together into flick-book style youtube videos. I've done a little bit of video-editing before, but this would still be fairly new ground for me so I guess something else to look into. I'm pretty sure I can use the Tracking Station and turn off the rovers tab to show the major checkpoints, and the in-between stuff should be fairly clear from the changing scenery (if I can get the vids to work).

Edit: also, I would plant flags at every 'camp site', so in theory there would be a complete ring of flagpoles that I could get a screenshot of at the end. What I really don't want is for the map-view to give me too clear an idea of where I am on the surface - avoiding getting lost should be a question of reading the terrain rather than frequently using God's eye to correct my course.

Regarding the hud issue, it's less the bases themselves and more the possibility of supply trucks or S&R planes parked there that bothers me. It would really suck to be driving on on fumes with the sun going down, desperately hunting for my safe destination and then have it pop up on the HUD and rob me of my moment. I realise this isn't strictly necessary, it would just be nice to be able to just turn if off somewhere and give it no further thought.

Lastly, concerning rover wheels, personally I have had very little trouble with them - they certainly seem to have very few issues compared with landing gears, and I've found the new tweakables and sliders to be a huge improvement - no more sideways-and-die, now you can actually get a proper drift on. As for time investment... well, yes that's really part of the point. My boat run was so extremely fast that it has really pushed me to the opposite extreme with this outing - I intend to absolutely take my time and savour the experience as far as possible. To misquote myself, the finish line is, after all, just a flagpole in a place you've already visited many times. It's all the things from here to there that make the trip worthwhile.

p.s. I have edited the top post slightly since the suggestion of 'realism' may have been giving folk the wrong idea about what exactly I'm wanting to do.

Edited August 1, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[damerell]

My mistake, I just misinterpreted the sort of mission you wanted to run - as you said, I think the word "realism" gave the wrong impression. But do give the poor kerbals a rollcage. :-)

As regards evidence, you could use ScanSAT with a BTDT scanner - then (if you use the Blizzy toolbar) remove the ScanSAT map buttons altogether, so that you have no way of checking your position during the trip but you can review it afterwards.

Are your kerbals allowed a compass and sextant? If so, you could install the NavHUD mod and use it to take observations of the position of the sun and the time of sunset / sunrise / midday. With Kerbin's lack of axial tilt and orbit precisely on the ecliptic, the arithmetic to determine latitude and longitude from these observations is quite straightforward.

ETA: especially at sea. On land, the midday observation is useful but the other two are not so much.

ETA Again, since with Kerbal Foundries on hiatus I am reduced to enjoying other Elcano missions vicariously, sigh: you also might be able to set options on the ScanSAT big map such that you can't see your own position, but can review topographical data in any level detail. Dunno, though - I didn't make much use of it, since my approach was to build a rover that could drive over anything then drive it straight up the Equator and damn the terrain.

Edited August 1, 2016 by damerell

[The_Rocketeer]

15 minutes ago, damerell said:

Are your kerbals allowed a compass and sextant?

Compass is basically the navball, and sextant I wouldn't rule out, but... how can I measure the noon zenith accurately in KSP? I'm not aware of any mod that has this functionality (I've use NavUtils with RPM for it's ILS function, but otherwise I'm not particularly familiar with it). I love the idea of celestial navigation in KSP - it's a niche in the mod market I'd love to see filled - but as much fun as it could be I don't think it would be very simple to adopt at the moment. Fabricating a sextant could be an interesting experiment, but I doubt it would be portable enough to be of use to me. In any event, simple trigonometry should be enough to choose the right mountain passes, and if it isn't... well, that's the kind of crisis that makes this adventure exciting

BTDT is a good idea, tho I'm pretty inexperienced with it - used it once for a racing challenge yonks ago. I think I'll do some testing of my options with ScanSAT before I decide whether to keep or ditch it.

Using ScanSAT for detailed topography feels a bit too easy too. If I get to a place where I'm so worried about my route I don't want to chance it, I guess I could launch a recon flight and check it out before proceeding. That feels a bit 'fairer'.

[damerell]

The NavHUD mod superimposes a celestial globe (and navball markers) on your view of the game. You'll see it a lot in my pictures; you can adjust it to show quite a fine grid. Of course then it is easy to observe the elevation of the sun when it is due South or North.

 

[Geschosskopf]

7 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Regarding the hud issue, it's less the bases themselves and more the possibility of supply trucks or S&R planes parked there that bothers me. It would really suck to be driving on on fumes with the sun going down, desperately hunting for my safe destination and then have it pop up on the HUD and rob me of my moment. I realise this isn't strictly necessary, it would just be nice to be able to just turn if off somewhere and give it no further thought.

Well, you can always hit F2 to turn all the interface off, but then on compass or speedometer, either.

 

6 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Compass is basically the navball, and sextant I wouldn't rule out, but... how can I measure the noon zenith accurately in KSP? I'm not aware of any mod that has this functionality (I've use NavUtils with RPM for it's ILS function, but otherwise I'm not particularly familiar with it). I love the idea of celestial navigation in KSP - it's a niche in the mod market I'd love to see filled - but as much fun as it could be I don't think it would be very simple to adopt at the moment. Fabricating a sextant could be an interesting experiment, but I doubt it would be portable enough to be of use to me. In any event, simple trigonometry should be enough to choose the right mountain passes, and if it isn't... well, that's the kind of crisis that makes this adventure exciting

Sextants just tell you latitude and that's easy enough to eyeball.  The hard part is determining longitude, which you can only really do by either triangulating off known landmarks or by measuring very accurately both your E-W speed and the time you spend doing it, when starting from a known point.

If you really want a sextant, however, you can easily DIY..  Put a pole antenna on the CoM of your rover determine how tall it is when extended. Also get the Camera Focus Changer mod so you can focus the camera on this antenna.  As you're driving during the day, note which directions you're going so you know which way north (if you're in the southern hemisphere( or south (if you're in the northern hemisphere) is relative to your heading.  Then watch the shadow of the antenna.  When it's pointing north or south as need be, it's local noon.  Stop and EVA a Kerbal, and have him walk to the end of the antenna's shadow, and note how far it is between the Kerbal and the rover.  Now you have 2 sides of a triangle so can determine the angle sun above the horizon.  Of course, this doesn't account for the slope of the ground , changes in the rover suspension (unless you lock it, I guess), and such things, but it should be accurate within a few degrees to determine your latitude.  Close enough for government work, anyway.

But really, how lost can you get on Kerbin?

 

 

[Claw]

11 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

(I might have to stick a 'NO' post-it on the 'm' key ).

You might be able to remove the key binding, if you really want to be hardcore about it.

 

11 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Also, does anybody know if there's a way to disable labels and hud reticles without disabling the whole hud?

F4, I think (if it still works).

 

10 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

Anyway, as to navigating without the map view....  I think you have to use the map to show your progress with flags all around the world.

I guess that's why I was thinking of having an electronic map, and trying to figure out where it's actually at. Maybe even plant flags along the way and mark on the eMap where those are believed to be planted. Then, maybe when it's all over (or you're at an absolutely certain checkpoint, like a specific island, peninsula, or the pole), compare it to the flags on the real map for everyone to see how it's going.

 

9 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Using ScanSAT for detailed topography feels a bit too easy too.

If you're really wanting to avoid getting too much help in-game with the map, then I still really recommend going with a digital copy.

 

10 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Edit: also, I would plant flags at every 'camp site', so in theory there would be a complete ring of flagpoles that I could get a screenshot of at the end.

And you ninja me.

 

 

[The_Rocketeer]

12 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

The hard part is determining longitude

Yes, I perceive a major issue issue heading away from the poles, particularly at the south pole, where I'll want to reach a specific-but-ubiquitous part of the shore to make a water crossing to an over-the-horizon headland - misjudging my position here could be disastrous. This needs some serious consideration.

12 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

But really, how lost can you get on Kerbin?

Haha, well I guess I'll let you know but seriously, I think old-fashioned map-and-compass work will do for most of the route. The issues will arise if and when I do get lost and need to get myself un-lost.

10 hours ago, Claw said:

remove the key binding

Another good idea.

10 hours ago, Claw said:

F4, I think (if it still works)

Yes I've heard this from another source. I'll try it out later today when I get some KSP time in.

Edit: yup, exactly what I wanted.

10 hours ago, Claw said:

I still really recommend going with a digital copy

I'm still leaning somewhat towards the pencil-and-paper approach here, mostly because I don't possess a tablet and I only have one desktop display atm (but for mission reports I do possess a scanner  ). While I could alt-tab to a digital map on desktop, that could make the triangulation process a bit complicated. However... @Claw perhaps you're aware of advantages with a digital map that I'm not? I imagine we're just talking about an image file in an editor, but perhaps you mean a mini-app of some kind with additional features or displays? I'm not even particularly familiar with KerbalMaps, but I could be quite easily sold on any map offering an ordnance-survey level of elevation detail, for example. Currently the map I tend to work from is this one but the resolution isn't ideal for my needs here.

Edited August 2, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[Claw]

3 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

However... @Claw perhaps you're aware of advantages with a digital map that I'm not?

Nope. No secret advantage except that it would also document your thoughts electronically for later uploading. Pencil-and-paper is also oldschool, and maybe you could scan/photograph it for upload.

 

[The_Rocketeer]

4 minutes ago, Claw said:

No secret advantage except that it would also document your thoughts electronically for later uploading.

Emphasis mine.

How? Consider me a total noobish numpty with no conception of electronic mapping at all, let alone in relation to KSP (not so very far from reality). I don't understand how an electronic map would enable me to document anything. Are u suggesting the means exist to create google-earth style annotated pins on some electronic map of Kerbin? If this is a thing I'm very interested - such a tool would be excellent for logging and plotting the route - but perhaps I'm just chasing wild geese. Don't mean to come off like the inquisition here, I'm expressing enthusiasm rather than scorn. I wouldn't want my own ignorance to deprive me of such an asset

In other news, I've modified my rover quite extensively - it's now a twin-axle crew-cab pickup like this with a large LFO tank built into the chassis, a pair of Fuel Cell Arrays under the hood, storage containers for supplies and equipment, and a KAS winch on the front bumper - still needs fine-tuning, but I get better power over inclines with the extra wheels, plus a bit of redundancy if any of them breaks irreparably. I'm currently testing many different things, including the Pathfinder inflatable parts I'm planning to use for camping, and trialling different ideas for propulsion over water - Firespitter's swamp fans look pretty hopeful, tho they get a bit warm! And I've added a new skybox that might also prove an aid to navigation.

[The_Rocketeer]

First TAC LS test mostly reveals that I don't really know what I'm doing. I have Hex food and water containers in a storage container, but my kerbs in the command seats still seem to be using their own EVA supplies (which I read elsewhere would not be the case). It could be that I'm doing something wrong, like storing containers in containers or something. Either way this isn't a big drama, it just means that the camp-stops will become more than simply a matter of RP - if the Kerbs can't be resupplied on the go, the 'tent' will be the only times+place where they can. Suits me fine.

Test drive round the hills behind KSC has shown that my fully-fuelled rover doesn't like inclines much over 1:20. Disappointing considering I'm using the chunkier wheels, but most of the weight is fuel so this should be much less of a problem as I start to eat into the reserve - the worst times will be just after refuelling. Need to do another test to see how much better it is with the tank getting low.

[Geschosskopf]

7 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

First TAC LS test mostly reveals that I don't really know what I'm doing. I have Hex food and water containers in a storage container, but my kerbs in the command seats still seem to be using their own EVA supplies (which I read elsewhere would not be the case). It could be that I'm doing something wrong, like storing containers in containers or something. Either way this isn't a big drama, it just means that the camp-stops will become more than simply a matter of RP - if the Kerbs can't be resupplied on the go, the 'tent' will be the only times+place where they can. Suits me fine.

Kerbals in lawn chairs are treated as fuel tanks so you should be able to transfer supplies into them from the vehicle tanks, either manually or automatically with TAC Fuel Balancer.

 

7 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Test drive round the hills behind KSC has shown that my fully-fuelled rover doesn't like inclines much over 1:20. Disappointing considering I'm using the chunkier wheels, but most of the weight is fuel so this should be much less of a problem as I start to eat into the reserve - the worst times will be just after refuelling. Need to do another test to see how much better it is with the tank getting low.

Be sure to turn the wheels' Traction Control down to zero.  Otherwise, you'll never climb a hill.  Traction Control in KSP works like in real life.  If the game thinks the wheel is slipping, it reduces power to it to avoid drifting and spinning.  But because, mathematically under the hood, wheels in KSP don't actually turn but are instead a type of lander leg that slides along the ground, the game has no independent RPM value from which to judge if the wheel is really slipping.  And the algorithm that infers wheels slip from various dependent variables isn't smart enough to realize that the vehicle will slow down due to gravity when going up a hill.  So if Traction Control > 0, the game interprets the reduction of speed when going up a hill as the wheels slipping and reduces power to them.  Which makes the vehicle go slower while you're still got it floorboarded, so it thinks even more slip is happening and reduces power further, until the wheels are drawing zero power and you come to a halt.

[The_Rocketeer]

Since it's just happened, and I'm feeling a need to vent, some plucking punt has just stolen my car right off my GD drive. If this guy had horns and fangs and was red instead of green, he still wouldn't be angry enough >

But, thanks @Geschosskopf, filling in a lot of blanks for me there I had tried tweaking the TC and friction settings but didn't appreciate what u've said. Reading your kind advice has marginally restored my faith in my fellow man.

[Geschosskopf]

23 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Since it's just happened, and I'm feeling a need to vent, some plucking punt has just stolen my car right off my GD drive. If this guy had horns and fangs and was red instead of green, he still wouldn't be angry enough >

Geez, that sucks!  Best of luck recovering from that, either the vehicle in good condition or something better and newer.  And of course, seeing the perp strung up by the tender bits and roasted over a slow fire..

 

23 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

But, thanks @Geschosskopf, filling in a lot of blanks for me there I had tried tweaking the TC and friction settings but didn't appreciate what u've said. Reading your kind advice has marginally restored my faith in my fellow man.

I have no faith in humanity as a whole, just certain subsets like this forum.

 

 

[Claw]

11 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

How? Consider me a total noobish numpty with no conception of electronic mapping at all, let alone in relation to KSP (not so very far from reality). I don't understand how an electronic map would enable me to document anything.

I think maybe I'm overselling it, or not explaining myself properly. I just meant that if you use an electronic map (such as captured from a place like kerbal maps), you could use that as your navigation aid and mark on it as you drive ("I planted a flag here!"). Then you could post that as "I think this is my progress." When hitting a known checkpoint, or maybe at the end, you could then show a screenshot of all the planted flags and see how close reality is to what you marked on the map.

 

2 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

Be sure to turn the wheels' Traction Control down to zero.  Otherwise, you'll never climb a hill.  Traction Control in KSP works like in real life.

I tend to switch over to motor control and put it up all the way to 100% (no slip, and maximum EC sent to the motors). Then I use the friction slider to find the right balance of drift vs. too grippy. For Eve, I had to turn the motor control down from 100% because it was killing my batteries.

 

*yes, "grippy" is a real word!

[The_Rocketeer]

On 03/08/2016 at 5:28 AM, Claw said:

I think maybe I'm overselling it, or not explaining myself properly.

No that's what I assumed u meant, but then I had this feeling that I was just being old-mannish (< also a real word ) and not understanding properly. But the steps you outline are more or less exactly what I intended to do anyway. The only downside I see with a paper-map is you lot will have to put up with my dodgy handwriting (and occasional doodle!). Anyway, thanks for your patience with me, ur time must be very valuable

Regarding traction, despite getting really close to a green-light on the mission, I've decided to take the rover back to the skunkworks and change my whole approach. I've realised in testing that an original design (rather than a replica) will simply work better in the KSP universe - my rover was about 30t dry (with all the ornamentation), and frankly that was going to make things unnecessarily laborious. What I really want is a rock-hopper, and my development had built a rail-locomotive. Hill climbs, even using your suggested approaches, were dreadful. This is the main factor in the Rover Mk2 project.

However, what I've done till now has served as a pretty good proof-of-concept and acid-test of my utility-storage, supply-rate and camping plans.

[Maverick_aus]

Very interesting to see your thoughts and plans develop here @The_Rocketeer.
I'm very sympathetic to this style. I think if I had my time again, I'd do something very similar to this - TACLS, driving out 'in the dark'. I'll be very interested to see where you decide to go with it. 

WRT The mapping qn. You plan on flying aircraft missions to drop fuel or supplies right? If I'm going with the flow of your thought, your rover is 'discovering' Kerbin for the first time, more or less? That is, it's not documented already. However, if you're using planes, it's conceivable that your aircraft has the necessary navigation capability to track progress as it flies (I don't mean a mod, I mean conceptually, in the game world)? If so, how about if as part of the air drop, the cargo plane drops an updated map to the Kerbals in the rover? 

This is what I mean:
 1. You use the ScanSat mod, but you do not 'unlock' the entire map by an orbital scan like most people do at the beginning. You start with a black map (with a map of Kerbin hiding underneath). (As others have said, the BTDT will show progress on the ScanSat small map, but I don't think it actually removes the shroud, revealing the terrain. You need another sort of scanner).
2. Your delivery aircraft takes off from Kerbin with the ScanSat survey scanner on board (one or more of the survey scanners works from low altitude eg >5km I think it might be).
3.As it flies to the rover, the aircraft maps the path it flies.  You could justify this in game however you like depending on how you imagine their technology level. Hand written cartography using eyeglasses, or terrain radar or laser scanner or whatever. I think due to the very sub-optimal altitude, this revealed strip on the map would be quite narrow. So there's no risk of over-exposure. It's a few degrees beamwidth pointed at the center of Kerbin, from the scanner. 
4. Once back in the rover you look at the ScanSat map, and all you will see is a squiggly line of Kerbin's terrain revealed against the black background, starting at KSC and winding to the rover's location. (note the rover's path is not revealed, except these touch-points where the cargo-drop happens)
5. Then subsequent trips will show the next bit of progress. etc

It would show you some aspect of progress, but only occasionally at  landmark points (where the rover path intersects the aircraft's). And only in a limited way. You would be having a peek at your overall location. And you could have a sense of progression and revealing as you discover more and more where you are after each flight. But you've earned it. There would be a sense of satisfaction in that perhaps.

I'm trying to remember if ScanSat's maps show flags. It shows ships and landers etc. I'm not sure about flags. If not, then this wouldn't be a progress map of flags.But it might be a way to show partial updates of progress in a limited way to suit the style you've chosen and get a progressive sense of where you are on the globe, proportional to your effort. 

Furthermore, another idea you may like, is for the rover to carry a limited number of disposable UAVs. These would be very small, and launchable (yes, it's a word!) from the rover. These could have the survey scanner attached, as above. This would further expand the visibility of the map at your choosing and at your effort, locally around the rover, in a limited way. You would have to choose when and where to use them, as they are limited in number which would add an interesting tactical decision making aspect. 
Further, perhaps every time you use a surveying UAV, you're allowed a peek at the M map?

Anyhoo. Choose whatever you like. I'll be interested to see where you end up whatever you do. 

EDIT: Also, recommend RT. Fantastic idea for this. I've used it extensively on my career save. Adds a depth to the gameplay. Every time you remote control something, man you've earned it and appreciate the ability at every control signal you send. It will definitely be adding some realism/difficulty to your Elcano! 

Edited August 4, 2016 by Maverick_aus

[The_Rocketeer]

I've spent a lot of time tweaking and reworking the rover for this mission in the last couple of days. I think I've now reached a point where I have a dependable vehicle. I've also started working on search and supply aircraft.

So now I'm starting to pin down my plans and limitations with a view to setting out in the near future.

@Maverick_aus, thanks for your enthusiastic ingenuity. I read through your suggestions a few times, but I've more or less decided not to use ScanSAT at all during the journey, except for @damerell's suggestion of BTDT as a 'blind' route-tracker that I can use at the end for comparison/reference. Even the supply-drop flights will be a case of visually identifying the rover from where I think it is from my own chart and observations. If I can't find it for the drop, the crew won't get one - I'll/they'll have to make a call between proceeding on their remaining reserves (if they're close to a major checkpoint) and staying put and hoping for an S&R craft to find them before they die (at least they'll have power for a little longer while the hunt goes on).

Also, regarding RT... I was actually pretty resigned to abandoning it as useless - the rover mission will be manned at all times, as will all the supply and search aircraft. The realism of RT is right in the spirit of what I'm trying to do, but I haven't come up with a serious application for it in this context. If u can, let me know and I'll reconsider

@Claw, I want to stay within the rules of the Elcano Challenge as far as possible, so where do you stand on this:

On 01/08/2016 at 7:12 PM, Geschosskopf said:

is it within the rules to get replacement vehicles from KerbinSide bases instead of all the way back at KSC?

and also, what about supply drops/search aircraft - must they originate from KSC or can they launch from KerbinSide bases too? I can deal with whatever, it's just a question of whether I can use short-range aircraft only or have to go for faster/high-altitude jets.

[Geschosskopf]

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

and also, what about supply drops/search aircraft - must they originate from KSC or can they launch from KerbinSide bases too? I can deal with whatever, it's just a question of whether I can use short-range aircraft only or have to go for faster/high-altitude jets.

There are several good questions for @Claw regarding using KerbinSide for an Elcano attempt..

As a past participant, I don't have a problem with using KerbinSide bases to refuel existing vehicles.  Needing to refuel at all is a difficulty level above not needing to, yet all-solar vehicles are acceptable (I did one myself).  Using KerbinSide to refuel is therefore somewhere between all-solar and having to launch refueling missions at all (whether from KSC or some KerbinSide base), but OTOH not all KerbinSide bases have refueling capabilities, so using them exclusively might entail detours or building more endurance into the vehicle than desirable from other directions.  Either way, I see refueling at KerbinSide bases as being in the spirit of the challenge and am totally cool with it.  Besides, it can be a great narrative hook, good advertisement for a great mod, etc.

Now, as to the questions about the port of departure for replacement vehicles and non-base refueling missions.....   As a wimpy all-solar boat guy who neither wrecked nor needed refueling, I defer to those who had to engineer more complex solutions to the Elcano challenge.