Antenna Range Diagram (stock / OPM /JX2 / GPP / GPO)

[Kergarin]

Hello,

I felt like i need to visualize antenna ranges for all DSN levels compared to the planets distances to Kerbin, so i can clearly see which and how many antennas i need without any calculating.

 

Update V1.2 for KSP1.4:

-stock game: no changes
-OPM: added level 4 DSN, introduced in OPM v2.2.0
-GPP: no changes
-OPM + GPP: no changes
-GPO: new!

 

 

Here are some great Planet Pack extensions  made by @wile1411

OPM  (including the new Level 4 DSN introduced in OPM v2.2.0)

Spoiler

OPM + JX2 Antenna  (JX2 disables the new Level 4 DSN introduced in OPM v2.2.0)

Spoiler

GPP

Spoiler

GPP + OPM

Spoiler

GPP+GEP+OPM

Spoiler

GPO

Spoiler

 

For more detailed calculations please see @Poodmunds CommNet Signal Strength Calculator & Antenna Selector:

 

Old versions

Spoiler

Version 1.1
-including Mun and Minmus
-less hieght by using a non linear scale

Old Version:

Spoiler

 

 

Here are some great extensions made by @wile1411

OPM (including the boost for stock antennas and DSN, which OPM adds by default)

Spoiler

please note:

• With a default install, OPM adds x4 to the range for anything with a 'ModuleDataTransmitter' module and adds x8 for the Lvl 3 DSN

  this chart includes these changes

   

  

 

OPM (with deactivated antenna boost and JX2 Antenna mod)

Spoiler

please note:

• With a default install, OPM adds x4 to the range for anything with a 'ModuleDataTransmitter' module and adds x8 for the Lvl 3 DSN.
  • (Default OPM ranges not shown on chart)
• @Snark / @steedcrugeon mod for the JX2 antenna adds a 1000G antenna to KSP (and a few 300G antenna alternatives - not show on chart)
  • Importantly, for this chart (and OPM) the JX2 mod removes the x4 antenna range that OPM adds.
  • OPM also boosts the power of the level-3 tracking station from 250G to 2000G, JX2 restores it back to 250G

 

GPP

Spoiler

GPP + OPM (without OPM antenna boost)

Spoiler

GPP + OPM (with OPM antenna boost)

Spoiler

 

See this post for details on versions from @wile1411

 

 

 

 

Edited May 17, 2018 by Kergarin
new version

[linuxgurugamer]

Looks nice, but isn't it rather tall?

Try putting it horizontally rather than vertically and see how it looks.

[Kergarin]

Thanks! Yes it's verry tall, but it has to be tall to make all values fit 

I do zoom in and scroll up an down to the distance I need.

I think it is still readable, if you rotate it to the right. Will have to check this later, thanks for your opinion!

Edited October 10, 2017 by Kergarin

[Archgeek]

Hmm, such an aspect ratio.  Perhaps make the y-axis logarithmic?

[Kergarin]

46 minutes ago, Archgeek said:

Hmm, such an aspect ratio.  Perhaps make the y-axis logarithmic?

Would be an idea, maybe it could even fit Mun and Minmus then. But it would be harder to compare the distances and hard to realize in mspaint. 

 

[Snark]

That's a nice visualization idea.  Well done, @Kergarin!

I actually like it vertical rather than horizontal-- I find that vertical scrolling is friendlier than horizontal scrolling, in a lot of contexts (especially on mobile browsers).

A very strong endorsement of @Archgeek's suggestion of a logarithmic Y axis-- was just about to suggest that myself.  After all, the antennas have a more-or-less exponential progression, so it would fit very nicely that way.

Yes, it would be more of a pain to produce.  But it would look awesome.  And I gotta say that this is by far the nicest, most intuitive & original way I've seen for visualizing antenna powers.  This is a fantastic idea, and IMO worth doing, even if it's a lot of work.  (Especially since it would be someone other than me doing the work...) 

This is the kind of graphic that I suspect has "legs"-- I could see people referring to this for years.  Put a logarithmic scale on it, and it should be the reference for antenna ranges.

So my advice:  bite the bullet, do the logarithmic thing, and go to town on it.  (One nice thing is that you only have to do the fiddly get-each-tick-mark-in-the-exact-spot for one order of magnitude.  Once you've done that, you can cut-and-paste it for each subsequent order of magnitude, so hopefully it won't be too much of a pain.)

Anyway, well done!

[nobodyhasthis2]

10 hours ago, Kergarin said:

Hello,

if felt like i Need to visualize antenna ranges for all DSN levels compared to the planets distances to Kerbin, so i can clearly see which and how many antennas i need without any calculating.

What do you think about it? Is it understandable?

I think it is creative and useful. Thank you very much.

2 hours ago, Snark said:

This is the kind of graphic that I suspect has "legs"-- I could see people referring to this for years.  Put a logarithmic scale on it, and it should be the reference for antenna ranges.

Agreed there is huge potential here. I am kind of seeing this now being added in to the game via Image Viewer at the very least.

 

[MoarBoostersRUS]

This is awesome! Bookmarked for future use

[Kergarin]

Thanks for all your input 

I will see what I can do and optimize it, as soon as I find the time.

 

If someone is verry bored, you could test if my antenna suggestions for Hohmann transfers to Eve and Duna are ok. I think these are verry important values for the early game.

You should be able to break into a parking orbit or land safely at the arrival from a Hohmann transfer before loosing contact. And you should regain contact early enough to return from these planets using a Hohman transfer.

Other planets than Eve and Duna are too far away or have too irregular orbits to make usable predictions.

 

Edited October 12, 2017 by Kergarin

[Freshmeat]

Just adding to the heap of praise others have given. The graphic is clean, informative and very fast to consult, everything you could wish for on a chart. I too would love a logarithmic version, but for now, this one goes into my folder of relevant KSP stuff.

[B-STRK]

A KSPedia of this would be something much wished for in a stock install, I'll bet. I know I would were I new to the game (or at least CommNet). 

[Dman979]

Congrats on TOTM!

[Kergarin]

Thanks a lot! What an honour!

That was unexpected 

Edited November 2, 2017 by Kergarin

[John FX]

Very nice visualisation and now I have a good idea of what upgrading the DSN will do.

These days though I play in RO and this makes me want an image just like this but for RO.

[wumpus]

On 10/10/2017 at 4:53 PM, Snark said:

A very strong endorsement of @Archgeek's suggestion of a logarithmic Y axis-- was just about to suggest that myself.  After all, the antennas have a more-or-less exponential progression, so it would fit very nicely that way.

dBells are logarithmic.  Expect every chart you see about radio frequency to be done in log format.  On the other hand, the signals should decay quadratically (the inverse square and all that), so I'd expect the chart to work better if you scale by the square of distance.

(Oddly enough, when somebody nearly explicitly asked for a log chart and I explained how neatly it fit, I was corrected that the *standard* use was quadratic: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/165778-useful-metric-for-high-relativistic-velocities/&tab=comments#comment-3178867 )

[Snark]

23 minutes ago, wumpus said:

On the other hand, the signals should decay quadratically (the inverse square and all that), so I'd expect the chart to work better if you scale by the square of distance.

The fact that the signal decays quadratically isn't the relevant thing here:

• The antenna powers have an exponential progression
• The distances to the planets have an exponential progression

This diagram would fit beautifully with an exponential Y axis.  Not only would stuff fit much more nicely and uniformly, but it would allow adding Mun and Minmus to the chart, as well as the low-end antennas at 5M and below.

[wumpus]

1 minute ago, Snark said:

The distances to the planets have an exponential progression

I'd really have to tip my hat to Harvester (or whoever) if the planets really did fit the perfect solids that Kepler strove to fit them into (especially appropriate since they obey Keplarian physics but not Newtonian).

[GoSlash27]

Kergarin,

 A quick method for log scaling: Distance of 1 is 0 units. 10x the distance is +10 units. twice the distance is +3 units. Conversely, half a distance is -3 units and 1/10th of a distance is -10 units.

 You can populate a chart very quickly this way.

Start with 0 through 20 units on your chart.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Populate the initial distances where 10x the distance is units +10

0 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 100

Move up 3 units and double

0 1
1
2
3 2
4
5
6 4
7
8
9 8
10 10
11
12
13 20
14
15
16 40
17
18
19 80
20 100

Move backwards 3 units and halve

0 1
1 1.25
2
3 2
4 2.5
5
6 4
7 5
8
9 8
10 10
11 12.5
12
13 20
14 25
15
16 40
17 50
18
19 80
20 100

Continue backwards from the 11 unit, halving every 3 units.

0 1
1 1.25
2 1.56
3 2
4 2.5
5 3.13
6 4
7 5
8 6.25
9 8
10 10
11 12.5
12
13 20
14 25
15
16 40
17 50
18
19 80
20 100

Take the resulting distances, multiply them 10x, and move them +10 units.

0 1
1 1.25
2 1.56
3 2
4 2.5
5 3.13
6 4
7 5
8 6.25
9 8
10 10
11 12.5
12 15.6
13 20
14 25
15 31.3
16 40
17 50
18 62.5
19 80
20 100

You are left with a rough log scale. Not precisely accurate, but good enough for display purposes. A lot of old-school engineering types use this quick- hand method to generate log based charts.

HTHs,
-Slashy

[OhioBob]

14 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

0 1
1 1.25
2 1.56
3 2
4 2.5
5 3.13
6 4
7 5
8 6.25
9 8
10 10
11 12.5
12 15.6
13 20
14 25
15 31.3
16 40
17 50
18 62.5
19 80
20 100

You are left with a rough log scale. Not precisely accurate, but good enough for display purposes. A lot of old-school engineering types use this quick- hand method to generate log based charts.

And if you want it more precise,

0	10^0	1.00
1	10^0.1	1.26
2	10^0.2	1.58
3	10^0.3	2.00
4	10^0.4	2.51
5	10^0.5	3.16
6	10^0.6	3.98
7	10^0.7	5.01
8	10^0.8	6.31
9	10^0.9	7.94
10	10^1	10.00
11	10^1.1	12.59
12	10^1.2	15.85
13	10^1.3	19.95
14	10^1.4	25.12
15	10^1.5	31.62
16	10^1.6	39.81
17	10^1.7	50.12
18	10^1.8	63.10
19	10^1.9	79.43
20	10^2	100.00

 

[GarrisonChisholm]

How difficult would it be to extend this for OPM?  I realize if you try to include *every* mod it would be an unending task, but I think OPM is still the most used...

[Kergarin]

Sorry for the late reply, got a lot to do at the moment...

On ‎02‎.‎11‎.‎2017 at 8:21 PM, John FX said:

Very nice visualisation and now I have a good idea of what upgrading the DSN will do.

These days though I play in RO and this makes me want an image just like this but for RO.

Sadly I will not find time for this, but i don't mind if someone does a version for RO.

 

On ‎08‎.‎11‎.‎2017 at 12:52 AM, OhioBob said:

And if you want it more precise,

0	10^0	1.00
1	10^0.1	1.26
2	10^0.2	1.58
3	10^0.3	2.00
4	10^0.4	2.51
5	10^0.5	3.16
6	10^0.6	3.98
7	10^0.7	5.01
8	10^0.8	6.31
9	10^0.9	7.94
10	10^1	10.00
11	10^1.1	12.59
12	10^1.2	15.85
13	10^1.3	19.95
14	10^1.4	25.12
15	10^1.5	31.62
16	10^1.6	39.81
17	10^1.7	50.12
18	10^1.8	63.10
19	10^1.9	79.43
20	10^2	100.00

 

Thanks to both of you! I will see what i can do, but it would take some time.

 

On ‎09‎.‎11‎.‎2017 at 9:28 PM, GarrisonChisholm said:

How difficult would it be to extend this for OPM?  I realize if you try to include *every* mod it would be an unending task, but I think OPM is still the most used...

It would not just be an extension, OPM changes all antenna powers, so even the values for the standard planets don't fit.

[Kergarin]

But even with a log scale, I still don't see a way to add Mun and Minmus without breaking the scale or having huge gap.
They are at 0.012 and 0.047 Gm.

Any ideas? I could do a sperate scale for the Kerbin SOI.

 

Edited November 19, 2017 by Kergarin

[Kergarin]

Here is a (verry ugly and rough) example how a log scale and adding mun and minmus would look like:

[GoSlash27]

9 minutes ago, Kergarin said:

Here is a (verry ugly and rough) example how a log scale and adding mun and minmus would look like:

Kergarin,
 I'd add a few more steps at the low end to get all the way back down to Kerbin's surface.
 Personally, I think the big gap is helpful. Even though there are no targets in that area, there are antennae and antenna combos that wind up there. It provides a good visualization of what can and can't be done.

 Best,
-Slashy

[Kergarin]

Hi @GoSlash27,

thanks for your opinion. Thats right, but i see two problems in this version:

We now have again a verry tall scale.
The log scale could be verry iritating, especially to new players, as it does not show the distances 1:1.