How might the Tracking Center and tracking/comms capabilities work?

[mcwaffles2003]

22 hours ago, Master39 said:

We were talking probes but still

As things stand, what's the difference anyway? Probes can't plant flags and collect surface samples... that's about it.

22 hours ago, Master39 said:

 if you count manned as one of the options you're still just removing 1/4 of the gameplay without adding any significant new gameplay element. 

It's apparently a significant element if it's worthy of having an argument about. Also, I'd argue the case right now is that half of the gameplay is already gone since the functionality of probes and crewed craft are no different when they could be. So instead of having 2 different options with different pros and cons worth weighing against one another and fitting to the necessary task at hand we have 2 of the same options where choice is effectively arbitrary.

Adding a delay isn;t incorporating new gameplay elements? Also, adding and subtracting gameplay elements aren't the only relevant aspects of game design. I'm talking about balancing the existing gameplay elements. Currently, what purpose do I have of bringing a kerbal into space? Genuinely, can you make a good argument for me to bother launching kerbals into space? Cause so far, to me, they're just dead weight, which is the last thing you want on a rocket and even more so on the final stage of a rocket.

At best in KSP 2, so far, I have to bring a kerbal into space whenever I want to:

• Establish a new colony (very niche)
• Plant a flag
• Retrieve a soil sample
• Show caution incase I lose signal at a critical moment (only real purpose imo)

That's about it...

Conversely, why would I avoid bringing a kerbal into space? 

• They add substantial mass to my ship in the worst place
• They serve no special function in flight that gives any advantage to my ship
• I'm rarely ever building a colony
• I rarely need to plant a flag and I'll do that the same mission I build the colony
• I don't need a surface sample (job will probably be taken by things like the new resource scanner anyway)

22 hours ago, Master39 said:

If you use an autopilot then the difference is minimal, you just have to plan things beforehand by stacking orders and maneuvers and, since it's on a pre-programmed autopilot, you don't even have to have signal to execute them, just make it so that it's all deployed and safe after everything is in position to send the next programmed actions.

The difference come into play only if you are actually programming your own probe systems, but if that's the level of detail you're into I'm sure it will be no problem to just write a simple function that adds delay given the distance from the nearest crewed mission control station..

Unless you somehow didn't plan your entire trip absolutely perfectly and the very unlikely scenario of anything on your ship has gone wrong or didn't function as expected. /s

Also, this comes off as assuming there is no fun in actually trying to plan a trip out fully ahead of time...

22 hours ago, Master39 said:

For something to be OP you need a gameplay that has something more than self-imposed challenges. I'm not saying that the only goal is to fill the tech tree, I love to play and roleplay my own space program with my own set of rules, I'm just saying that there's no relevant gameplay loop in which probes are OP compared to crewed missions in KSP

No, something becomes "OP" when choosing anything other than it is obviously/intentionally putting the chooser at some overall disadvantage. And currently, attaching a kerbal to a rocket makes the rocket perform worse while adding pretty much nothing of benefit.

22 hours ago, Master39 said:

a Kerbal on a seat can go all the way to Eeloo and back, it doesn't weigh that much more than a probe core and the difference in weight can be worth it if you consider the Kerbal just another set of scientific experiments. 

That's the thing though, I want kerbals to be more than just another science experiment that I've attached to a rocket... I want kerbals to matter beyond head-canon. I feel that probes have stolen the place where kerbals could have shined the brightest... as pilots flying the ship, even without a stock autopilot the kerbals have had their jobs stolen by automation.

23 hours ago, Master39 said:

Spare parts and cargo can't build bases and start a colony, if a Kerbal is useful at the destination you still have a clear reason to bring it with you for the mission and if something like the Commnet is still a thing in KSP2 then a Kerbal pilot is still useful for those missions in which you have occlusion problems or are exploring beyond your Commnet covered area.

Commnet has never been an issue for me since I always establish a satellite network at my destination before doing anything where occlusion can be an issue and I'm happy commnet was introduced to the game since it has given me a purpose to bother establishing space infrastructure. That said, how often are we going to be starting a colony? and if the only time I need a kerbal is when Im starting a colony, then yes they are effectively just a single part like any other. 

23 hours ago, Master39 said:

As I said multiple times in the autopilot thread the core of the game is "Build and fly cool rockets" and it's fun to see how a lot of people can't even see the problem in removing the possibility of manually controlling half of the crafts to replace it with a mandatory use of an autopilot just to slightly increase realism and feel less bad about using an autopilot instead of learning how to manually fly.

If you want that additional bit of realism that Delay provides you can easily roleplay it or mod it in, but if that's stock than the whole game will be designed around not being able to manually control most of the crafts most of the time like in KSP1, making manually flying just an option buried somewhere in an "hardcore options" panel and not one of the main gameplay elements of the game.

I'm not trying to take flying out of the game. Just bring a kerbal if you want to manually fly far from a comms center... I don't get why this is so difficult, especially as you've been trying to convince me that bringing a kerbal isn't that big of a disadvantage anyway. I'm just trying to expand our gameplay options as opposed to having effectively 2 identical ones.

Option 1:

Bring a kerbal and manually fly craft. They require a bit more weight which limits delta V a bit, but they're fun to fly with and it's a simpler and more approachable

Option 2:

Use probes and design automated flight profiles through a VPL. They are more efficient but require the user to learn basic programming skills and practice thorough planning.

It's not like everyone is going to want to pick up programming to ensure they never have to manually fly a craft and I really don't understand the apprehension to having this style of play available in stock. If simple rockets, a game much smaller than KSP, can incorporate its own VPL then I see no reason why KSP with a new big fancy studio and plenty of experienced devs can't.

17 hours ago, t_v said:

This is what I think determines that people should have the option to control their probes directly without any downsides. Personally, I would be fine if things had to be preprogrammed, but I know a lot of people who would be turned off by the difficulty of creating a working landing script. This is not a problem that can really be circumvented, because there isn't really a way to make the coding system both highly customizable and easy to use. More inputs, outputs and math abilities adds more complexity and having a magic "land this thing" function destroys the whole point of the system. KSP 2 is not going to compromise on the physics, but is going to try to let people experience that physics with as much ease as possible, which means that the average person who has little interest in even simple coding should be able to play the game and not miss out on major parts of it, such as probes. So, if you want the option to have preprogrammed landings, then great and I agree with you, but the option to directly control probes should be kept in, for the rest of the player base. 

If you dont want to use programming... then just bring a kerbal.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I'm not trying to take flying out of the game.

Yes you are, and that's the crux of the argument.

You say it here:

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Just bring a kerbal if you want to manually fly

"Just do 'X' if you want to manually fly" and just like that you turn a game based around building and flying stuff into one in which you sometimes get to fly stuff.

There are a thousand of ways to make Kerbals more useful, you could reduce the science you get from probes by a tenfold and tweak the comnet to make obtaining complete coverage just slightly more difficult and you would get the same result, but for some reason the only options always seem to be the one that brings KSP away from being a flying-focused game the most.

 

BTW, I really really want programming in KSP (even beyond just a VPL), but unless by VPL you mean "attach the 'magically get the position and terrain info' block to the 'automagically land there' block" most people aren't going to be able to make a basic landing script, let alone something able to manage a precision pinpoint landing and that means that yes, at the end of the day this is just going to force a lot of people who enjoys to fly manually to use an autopilot.

[mcwaffles2003]

7 hours ago, Master39 said:

"Just do 'X' if you want to manually fly" and just like that you turn a game based around building and flying stuff into one in which you sometimes get to fly stuff.

How? 

Kerbals are always there. You literally always have the opportunity to fly.

[t_v]

After thinking for a bit, the probe system might actually work, but only if there are options to allow unskilled and uninterested players to be able to execute landings easily. Having probes control differently than crewed craft where you plot a trajectory using maneuver nodes and the craft burns when it hits those nodes would be pretty cool, and it would add new and engaging gameplay elements, not remove them, because now you have multiple different control styles (and you can watch the probe as it executes those maneuvers) but the problem with landing and surface operations  needs to be resolved in a way that allows anyone to land and do things (like deploy science and change biomes, which is why I think it won’t work to have a delay) without compromising on the coding system. I don’t think this is a resolvable problem, but if you have a solution for both technical and tech-phobic people that is not just to not use probes because everyone should be able to use every system in the game (please no “oh, this system isn’t designed to be used easily? Just use X if you want to play the game/ just use kerbals is you want to manually fly”)

so the problem is to design a system that will appeal and be accessible to everyone 

[Pthigrivi]

13 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Establish a new colony (very niche)

I sort of hope establishing and populating colonies is pretty central to the game's goals. Granted though if you only built one or two colonies and you did it all in one big drop your set-up missions would be relatively few. And as discussed even planting a flag or setting up an experiment probably only requires a crew of 1 or 2, when it be nice if there were some incentive to bring 5 or 6 even on your first big mission to Duna. Buffing pilots by making probe landings a hassle doesn't really fix that problem. Im not against it as an optional difficulty setting I suppose but it isn't something I think needs to be in scope. 

I brought this up in the science thread but a big problem is there's just too much science out there. Why bother collecting surface samples when you can max out everything in KSOI with probes? Experiments only kerbals can do should account for like 50% of all available science, so the extra mass is worth it because you're doubling your returns. I agree with you about the nature of OP though--there should be situations where both are applicable. 

Another thing I'd love to see to encourage players to send more than 2 kerbals in MK1 lander cans all the way to Eeloo would be some sort of habitation or happiness rating that improved science returns and mining rates and could be increased with nicer quarters and more company. You wouldn't want it to be mandatory, but for a lot of players a 25% bonus to science returns would be worth sending a few more kerbals and a rotating hab ring on long journeys. 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I sort of hope establishing and populating colonies is pretty central to the game's goals. Granted though if you only built one or two colonies and you did it all in one big drop your set-up missions would be relatively few. And as discussed even planting a flag or setting up an experiment probably only requires a crew of 1 or 2, when it be nice if there were some incentive to bring 5 or 6 even on your first big mission to Duna. Buffing pilots by making probe landings a hassle doesn't really fix that problem. Im not against it as an optional difficulty setting I suppose but it isn't something I think needs to be in scope. 

I brought this up in the science thread but a big problem is there's just too much science out there. Why bother collecting surface samples when you can max out everything in KSOI with probes? Experiments only kerbals can do should account for like 50% of all available science, so the extra mass is worth it because you're doubling your returns. I agree with you about the nature of OP though--there should be situations where both are applicable. 

Another thing I'd love to see to encourage players to send more than 2 kerbals in MK1 lander cans all the way to Eeloo would be some sort of habitation or happiness rating that improved science returns and mining rates and could be increased with nicer quarters and more company. You wouldn't want it to be mandatory, but for a lot of players a 25% bonus to science returns would be worth sending a few more kerbals and a rotating hab ring on long journeys. 

I also hope that Colonies aren't the only form of useful settlement, manning science collection and resource mining should totally be the main multiplier and not just a marginal efficiency bonus. Bot overall that's the idea, if the point is that kerbals are useful the goal should be to buff them, not to nerf probes and shove the need for an autopilot down the throats of players that enjoy to be able to manually fly everything.

[mcwaffles2003]

8 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

I sort of hope establishing and populating colonies is pretty central to the game's goals. Granted though if you only built one or two colonies and you did it all in one big drop your set-up missions would be relatively few. And as discussed even planting a flag or setting up an experiment probably only requires a crew of 1 or 2, when it be nice if there were some incentive to bring 5 or 6 even on your first big mission to Duna. Buffing pilots by making probe landings a hassle doesn't really fix that problem. Im not against it as an optional difficulty setting I suppose but it isn't something I think needs to be in scope. 

I expect establishing colonies to also be central to the games goals not only to create new launching points but also to develop resource acquiring infrastructure. That said, I still don't expect colony establishment missions to take up a large proportion of the total missions though. I doubt we'll be seeing 1 colony per planet and am instead expecting 2 or 3 probably per star system. Also, as I've said, if someone doesn't want to use probes due to landing difficulties then why not just make it a manned mission? I keep asking this and no one answers.

I made a thread a while ago where I ask how central people think kerbals are to the game:

The response was very clear that the vast majority felt they were absolutely essential and to my surprise over 20% of people chose "Absolutely essential, they are the core focus of the game and without them KSP is utterly worthless"

And now I keep suggesting people just bring a kerbal and the only response I am hearing is something like "but now probes are impractical" when a "probe" is just a spacecraft absent of a kerbal. Just add the kerbal... I thought these little green dudes were the heavens mana of the game but apparently using them in a craft is akin to witchcraft.

8 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

I brought this up in the science thread but a big problem is there's just too much science out there. Why bother collecting surface samples when you can max out everything in KSOI with probes? Experiments only kerbals can do should account for like 50% of all available science, so the extra mass is worth it because you're doubling your returns. I agree with you about the nature of OP though--there should be situations where both are applicable. 

As I've discussed in other science threads I hope to see science experiments to be useful in a practical manner, along with or aside from tech tree advancement mechanics. This said, I also expect if the tech tree still exists and is anything like that in KSP 1 it will be more appropriately balanced as I'm sure the devs are aware this is a genuine concern.

8 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Another thing I'd love to see to encourage players to send more than 2 kerbals in MK1 lander cans all the way to Eeloo would be some sort of habitation or happiness rating that improved science returns and mining rates and could be increased with nicer quarters and more company. You wouldn't want it to be mandatory, but for a lot of players a 25% bonus to science returns would be worth sending a few more kerbals and a rotating hab ring on long journeys. 

Didn't you just say science returns were already excessive?

I feel like if we want people to bring more kerbals  that they would need more purposes for kerbals to fulfil. With the current attitude of the community though I don't see this happening.

• Pilots would be useful if they weren't just heavier probes so currently there's little purpose to bring them.
• Engineers would be useful if ships required maintenance, but the community is largely against having parts demonstrate wear-and-tear or have "random" failures.
• Scientists are useful in that the multiply science gains from experiments, but as you've just mentioned, that's actually a problem. Though they're also useful in resetting single use experiments.
• Having medical kerbals or gardener kerbals would be nice jobs for crew members to have but the community is mostly not in favor of any form of life support being included in the stock game.

I'm sure there are plenty of other jobs that kerbals could fill but making those jobs worth while would require making the lack of a kerbal in those positions comparatively detrimental since if that was not the case no one would be incentivized to use them. And with the majority of the attitude, as I'm hearing it on this thread, is that isn't what people say they want. So I doubt we'll see people bringing many kerbals along for any reason beyond showing that they can as is currently the case.

7 hours ago, Master39 said:

not to nerf probes and shove the need for an autopilot down the throats of players that enjoy to be able to manually fly everything.

You keep saying this but have yet to justify it... You are someone on this forum who I respect and genuinely believe to argue honestly. So please, tell me how my proposition shoves autopilot down peoples throats and takes away peoples ability to manually fly. I've asked multiple times and have yet to hear a direct response. I don't mean to nag and won't ask again.

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

You keep saying this but have yet to justify it... You are someone on this forum who I respect and genuinely believe to argue honestly. So please, tell me how my proposition shoves autopilot down peoples throats and takes away peoples ability to manually fly. I've asked multiple times and have yet to hear a direct response. I don't mean to nag and won't ask again.

Right now in KSP1 whatever I build I can fly, it's the base of the game, I build something, I fly that something to the destination. What this proposal asks is to add a whole range of situations in which flying manually becomes impossible.

Like flying probes like Ingenuity? You're out of luck, it either flies itself, you have to have a Kerbals nearby making it just a toy instead of an exploration asset or you have to be able to write a flying autopilot on your own, quite the different experience and gameplay compared to the "Just build and fly" that was expected.

That probe was part of a bigger mission (which I continue to bring up since it was the biggest effort I ever put in a single program in KSP), I needed that probe to see if I could safely fly in Eve atmosphere with an electric plane and to make some practice in doing it before sending Kerbals, basically a tech demonstrator. Then there was a second, bigger one with a return rocket to bring back experiments results (and test the idea of an orbital rocket as part of a flying probe) and at last there was an ever bigger one that was used to return a Kerbal to orbit but even that one was sent before Kerbals and landed empty, a whole launch window before the Kerballed mission was even launched from Kerbin (the Kerbal then landed in a simple capsule).

And with those probes there was the Hab (just a hitchhiker with landing legs and some hardware) a rover, and some other stuff I don't remember now to land at the same place, to prepare the mission for the Kerbal to come.

 

I'm not saying that's impossible to write scripts and make all those crafts work, but even as someone that wants to play with programming in KSP that's way beyond what I would want to do, and people able and wanting to spend their KSP time coding are a niche within the niche, you can't make that the main gameplay, and thus the need for a "automagically land there button" that goes hand in hand with the delay proposition.

 

You can say that it's useless to land a Kerbal on Eve, that I could do it with way less effort and just stick an external seat in a service bay, that I need to have a kerbal on board each probe of that mission but all of that wouldn't be a realistic mission profile, and the same goes if you want to do a "the martian" Ares mission replica (14 presupplies and the MAV landed before the crew even leave Earth) or even just a Perseverance Replica with the skycrane and Ingenuity.

That mission was the most fun I ever had in KSP, the most complete and realistic mission I've ever played and lasted between 50 and 100 of hours between planning, building, practicing with flying on both Kerbal and Eve and executing everything and now you're just saying to me that I should either have a Kerbal probe babysitting station in orbit around every single celestial body or just accept that I have to use an autopilot instead of manually fly my flying probes around other bodies.

[mcwaffles2003]

14 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Right now in KSP1 whatever I build I can fly, it's the base of the game, I build something, I fly that something to the destination. What this proposal asks is to add a whole range of situations in which flying manually becomes impossible.

Like flying probes like Ingenuity? You're out of luck, it either flies itself, you have to have a Kerbals nearby making it just a toy instead of an exploration asset or you have to be able to write a flying autopilot on your own, quite the different experience and gameplay compared to the "Just build and fly" that was expected.

Why would having kerbals nearby make it just a toy instead of an exploration asset? Just have the kerbals in orbit of the planet. The drone is still an effective exploration asset and the lag is gone. 

16 minutes ago, Master39 said:

That probe was part of a bigger mission (which I continue to bring up since it was the biggest effort I ever put in a single program in KSP), I needed that probe to see if I could safely fly in Eve atmosphere with an electric plane and to make some practice in doing it before sending Kerbals, basically a tech demonstrator. Then there was a second, bigger one with a return rocket to bring back experiments results (and test the idea of an orbital rocket as part of a flying probe) and at last there was an ever bigger one that was used to return a Kerbal to orbit but even that one was sent before Kerbals and landed empty, a whole launch window before the Kerballed mission was even launched from Kerbin (the Kerbal then landed in a simple capsule).

I just want to say... that craft... dope.

18 minutes ago, Master39 said:

And with those probes there was the Hab (just a hitchhiker with landing legs and some hardware) a rover, and some other stuff I don't remember now to land at the same place, to prepare the mission for the Kerbal to come.

I'm not saying that's impossible to write scripts and make all those crafts work, but even as someone that wants to play with programming in KSP that's way beyond what I would want to do, and people able and wanting to spend their KSP time coding are a niche within the niche, you can't make that the main gameplay, and thus the need for a "automagically land there button" that goes hand in hand with the delay proposition.

There would be new constraints to work with (bring a kerbal) but that isn't getting in the way of any of this... Just have a kerbal in orbit that has comms with the probe. Is it as easy as what you've shown? No but it's not much harder either, it adds another factor, but you can still complete the same exact mission, no automation required. If you can get a probe to do all this you can put a kerbal in orbit nearby, probably on the same trip.

22 minutes ago, Master39 said:

You can say that it's useless to land a Kerbal on Eve, that I could do it with way less effort and just stick an external seat in a service bay, that I need to have a kerbal on board each probe of that mission but all of that wouldn't be a realistic mission profile, and the same goes if you want to do a "the martian" Ares mission replica (14 presupplies and the MAV landed before the crew even leave Earth) or even just a Perseverance Replica with the skycrane and Ingenuity.

That mission was the most fun I ever had in KSP, the most complete and realistic mission I've ever played and lasted between 50 and 100 of hours between planning, building, practicing with flying on both Kerbal and Eve and executing everything and now you're just saying to me that I should either have a Kerbal probe babysitting station in orbit around every single celestial body or just accept that I have to use an autopilot instead of manually fly my flying probes around other bodies.

What is so bad about putting a kerbal in orbit? Also, you're making an argument for realistic mission profiles while including fly by wire space probes...

Furthermore, you're arguing to take away an entire genre of possible play style when including it make your play style just marginally more difficult. I'm here arguing for us both to be able to play our styles and your saying my play style shouldn't even be included in the game while yours is. Would it really have taken all the joy you've spoken of to have also included putting a kerbal in orbit in your mission profile or could it have instead added to it?

I just want a simple toggle to allow for time delay.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

What is so bad about putting a kerbal in orbit? Also, you're making an argument for realistic mission profiles while including fly by wire space probes...

That's not how real space mission works, that way you're adding a realism element (maybe, the "player POV" argument still stands untouched) but reducing the overall realism of the game (not debatable, Ingenuity is a thing and we don't have a babysitting crew in Mars orbit).

It's easy if you're thinking about Eve or Duna to suggest to just bring a crew, but what about the Jool system exploration? One thing is to send a probe there, another entirely different one is setting up a 20 years round trip with a crew, let alone setting up a permanent settlement to deal with early exploration.

Unless you're proposing to just start clipping pilots on seats in probes, or abandon them in a minimum requirement station and call it a day, that's even more immersion breaking.

13 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Furthermore, you're arguing to take away an entire genre of possible play style when including it make your play style just marginally more difficult.

Nope, autopilots and programming works just fine without delay, you can automate a full mission without having to have delay, there's nothing intrinsically added by delay, it just forces you to not fly manually or design around it by making the mission profiles unrealistic.

What does delay add that isn't already doable with just programming and autopilot on their own? Maybe just some random edge cases and it just makes a crew useful but in a way that is even less realistic and immersion breaking than doing a full Kerbolar system tour on an external seat.

 

I just think that the problem resides in not seeing manual flight as central to the gameplay experience as I think it is, to me it's just like you're proposing to remove plane parts and replace the spaceplane hangar with a small number of fixed plane models and then telling me "you can still build planes if you really want! You just have to use rocket parts and engines, launch them from the launch pad and then taxi them all the way to the runway!".

[Pthigrivi]

7 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I expect establishing colonies to also be central to the games goals not only to create new launching points but also to develop resource acquiring infrastructure. That said, I still don't expect colony establishment missions to take up a large proportion of the total missions though. I doubt we'll be seeing 1 colony per planet and am instead expecting 2 or 3 probably per star system. Also, as I've said, if someone doesn't want to use probes due to landing difficulties then why not just make it a manned mission? I keep asking this and no one answers.

Well the answer to this is pretty simple. Of course we want to bring kerbals along on missions, but we don’t necessarily want to bring kerbals along on every mission. Both crewed and uncrewed missions should have their place, and we shouldn’t need to write a script and just fold our hands on our heads and watch for one or the other. As a toggle? Sure why not, but adding a scripting language isn’t trivial either (fun as it would to use) and Id be happier to see it as an expansion or mod. But thats just me. 
 

I was also thinking about this kerbal classes question and ended up writing a whole thread about LS haha. Its OT here, but I actually think with potentially dozens or hundreds of kerbals managing even 3 classes let alone 6 or 8 seems like a lot of fuss for an omelet. I thought multiple kerbals could act as a habitation modifier, in which case you could just have one class or maybe two (kerbalnauts and ground crew) and everyone can do everything so you’re not worrying about individually training them. 

Oh and PS: yeah @Master39 that Eve plane is effing awesome

Edited January 11, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[shdwlrd]

Just to add my 2 cents into the conversation. Depending on the mission type, you may or may not need a Kerbal present. You should have the same control whether or not a Kerbal is present. The argument is about a rather trivial point. As I have said before, KSP is a game, not a true simulator. So annoyances like signal delay can be ignored and you still have the same game play. If you want harder game play, use either self imposed restrictions or a mod that makes things harder.

Basically at a certain point, Intercept has to have a cutoff on options. Signal delay is a no brainer, there's a massive change in gameplay with no easy ways around it. There's no positives that can be added to the gameplay by adding signal delay, only negatives. So why include it at all, optional or not. Signal delay is mod territory and shouldn't be stock.

Edited January 11, 2022 by shdwlrd
Clarifying point

[Doc]

On 1/8/2022 at 11:45 AM, Master39 said:

Let's be practical here, let's ignore realism for a moment and focus on the final gameplay the player has access to.

For the example let's pick a game with both kOS and MJ (or whatever programming mod there will be in KSP2) and no signal delay and see what option the player has for a Jool mission:

1. Manually landing the probe using your flying skill.
2. Letting the autopilot land the probe using your clicking skill to press the "land there" button
3. Letting the kOS script land the probe using either your programming skill or just downloading someone else's auto-land script.

Now, what happens if we introduce signal delay? Just one thing, option 1 is no longer available, for the sake of "realism" we just removed more than a third of the gameplay options. 

 

And lets go a *tiny* bit further - programming an auto-land routine accurately via kOS is something that is going to beyond a *significant* chunk of the player base. So then we're down to actually 1 option

[SciMan]

How about this? Signal delay applies to data transmission only, not to craft control.

So for instance, if you want to send a craft out to Jool to gain science, you're going to have to wait maybe an hour or two for science data transmitted from Jool to get to Kerbin in order to be able to use it to unlock things or advance the game in some other way. (All time delays are "I didn't do the math" AKA pure guesses with not much thought given to figuring them out by math and then scaling them to the size of the Kerbal solar system).

In low Kerbin orbit, the delay is entirely absent, because it would be so small as to not make a practical difference.

Geosynchronous Kerbin Orbit, the delay would be on the order of a second or two. Enough delay that it starts to be able to be noticed, but at this point it doesn't exactly impact your ability to have effective 2-way communication, at least not the kind of communication that is interesting to spacecraft collecting data.

Out at the mun or Minmus, it's getting close to 10-15 seconds. Since we're making a point of NOT applying delays to command signals, this delay still makes effectively not a lot of difference, if you went back to the tracking station immediately after transmitting some science data from Minmus you'll just have to wait like 30s in the tracking station for it to show up to be able to be used to unlock things, if we're even doing that with KSP 2.

Duna, the delay becomes somewhat tiresome to just time-warp thru, it takes a few minutes.

Dres, maybe half an hour to an hour. You should probably launch something new from either one of your colonies or from Kerbin itself while you wait for the science data to make it's way back to Kerbin.

Jool, like I said, maybe an hour or two.

Eeloo, if it's not getting moved around from it's KSP 1 orbit (which I really think should happen), the delay would be maybe 4-8 hours.

And just so we're not completely starving our brains of the reward stimulus that it so craves, there should be a set maximum science sent-to-received delay of say 24 hours, with the closer of the two star systems having probably half that much signal delay.

 

However, because this is a "Game about building and FLYING rockets", and not a "Game about building and PROGRAMMING rockets", even tho IRL probes have to have the ability to execute commands on a schedule the game should still give you the option of flying any type of craft with any type of command source by hand. However, the option to have probes (or manned vessels with probe cores) execute commands on a schedule should still be included (tho NEVER MANDATORY) because sometimes you have too many craft arriving at a planetary body all at once and your attention ends up suboptimally divided between all of them in order to get them all to capture into an orbit around that body. This most often happens to me when sending missions to explore Jool or Duna, because I send a Science mothership, a Refueling lander, and a Science lander to work with the mothership, all on their own transfer vehicles, and the way that ends up working for me is that usually they all arrive within like 10 minutes of each other, and that means that I have to be really fast at switching which vessel I'm piloting in order to avoid having one or more of them sail off into deep space because I was busy executing the capture burn of another vessel.

[EnderKid2]

We can warp fast enough that days take a fraction of a second, and probably will have even higher levels of warp to handle the years required to travel between systems, Waiting an hour isn't an issue.

[SciMan]

"Waiting an hour isn't an issue" Well obviously, but that's the whole point of how I designed that post.
My method gives people who want realism in their communications something to chew on, while not being a significant detriment to the actual gameplay.

Remember, we're trying to make it so it doesn't drive new players away, right?

Back on the subject of communications networks, it would be super nice if the game was capable of handling well over 1000 orbiting vessels (on rails not firing any thrusters) at any one time, because we're going to need a lot of communications relay satellites to get full coverage of all the planets (take how many planets and moons there are in the game, multiply by 3, and then add one more for each major planet in the game, that's how many communications relay satellites I personally would need).

The reason I need so many satellites is that I will not accept partial coverage, so I use 3 small relay satellites around each planet or moon, and then around each major planet I additionally put a large relay in a highly inclined high orbit that can push the signal all the way back to Kerbin.
That adds up to something close to 100 satellites, and that's just for the Kerbol system. I don't even know how many planets and/or moons the new star systems will have yet, since we've only been given partial info about them so far.
Add to that the number of resupply vessels that will be flying around under the game's control from start to destination, and you'll actually have quite a lot of ships flying around in space, even if they're not all firing their engines at the same time. So the game is going to have to be able to handle that, or it's not gonna be fun.

[Maria Sirona]

About the communication loss thing... KSP-2 will have far future tech and that will probably include comms tech. Also, basically all interstellar probe plans have the spacecraft have AI to control it.

[Bej Kerman]

On 1/10/2022 at 9:31 AM, mcwaffles2003 said:

Use probes and design automated flight profiles through a VPL. They are more efficient but require the user to learn basic programming skills and practice thorough planning.

Live user inputs being preprogrammed is the headcanon of many who play KSP; delay is only an unnecessary hurdle that detracts from rocket building and piloting.

[mcwaffles2003]

5 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Live user inputs being preprogrammed is the headcanon of many who play KSP; delay is only an unnecessary hurdle that detracts from rocket building and piloting.

I get that my opinion is unpopular, to each their own. Guess I'll just snag the mod.

 

The beauty of PC gaming.

 

EDIT: Just sucks when your mod suite become incompatible. Can't use remote tech with kerbalism Q.Q

Edited March 29, 2022 by mcwaffles2003

[t_v]

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

EDIT: Just sucks when your mod suite become incompatible. Can't use remote tech with kerbalism Q.Q

Which is why its fine if this is an option- just not the only option, at least by default

Looking back at this, there definitely needs to be an incentive to use Kerbals instead of probes, because it makes for more challenging missions despite the lesser realism. In particular, I hope that if we still have a class system, the Pilot gets some more attention and maybe can perform advanced maneuvers or stabilize flight within heavy atmospheres or high wind. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, t_v said:

Looking back at this, there definitely needs to be an incentive to use Kerbals instead of probes,

Probes can't colonise planets and build bases, with the focus on those the "Kerbals are only useful to plant flags" problem is gone.

That and a more balanced science system (kerbals provide more science but it's useless if you can finish the tech tree by exploiting the KSC biomes) and bases, stations and colonies being useful and not just decorations for the sake of it like in KSP1.

Signal delay or not I sincerely hope Kerbal aren't only useful as pilots.

[SciMan]

To be honest, one of the things I'm thinking of that would be EXCELLENT to be able to automate away would be placing communications relay satellites around the various bodies of the solar systems.

When I play KSP, that's what takes up the majority of my time, since I have to pilot each and every one of them to their final orbits (and since not even MechJeb can achieve a perfect orbit, to make sure they stay where I put them (relative to each other) I then cheat their oribts so that they're perfect (but I do it in a way that moves them the smallest possible distance).

Point being, I'd like there to be some sort of automated station-keeping where you can define an orbit for a vessel (perhaps in relation to the orbit of another vessel or celestial body) and if the existing orbit it's in is close enough to that final orbit, it will pilot itself to try to maintain the entered orbital parameters.
That way I don't have to "cheat" by directly editing their orbits, I can just tell them where I want them to be and they'll try to stay there. It's fine (and even realistic) if that means they need to consume some propellants in order to maintain that orbit. That is a problem that I can engineer a solution to.
What I can't engineer a solution to (without cheating) is the fact that my communications relay satellites always seem to need to be adjusted relative to each other in order to maintain full coverage of the body they orbit (but cheating their orbits sets them to EXACTLY what I intend, rather than being off by what is best characterized as "a randomized assortment of digits to the right of the decimal point", which is the whole reason they drift in the first place since there's no orbital perturbations in KSP).

But it goes further than that. Not only do I want automated relative station-keeping, I want automated deployment of satellite constellations.
At least if it has a probe core on it (like all communications relays should), I want something a little more advanced.
I want to be able to deploy say 3 satellites in an elliptical orbit, and then tell them that I want them spaced out so that each one is 120 degrees ahead and/or behind of the next/previous one in the same circular orbit (at the altitude of the apoapsis). All that takes is some math to figure out when to do the circularization burn, and then turning on the (already mentioned) relative station-keeping mechanics.

Not having to worry about setting up communications networks would mean I could actually do the thing I like doing in KSP, namely, exploring the planets, rather than setting up communications networks (assuming the rocket or spacecraft I build to deploy those communications satellites has sufficient Delta-V and thrust to do the job, of course).

[shdwlrd]

16 minutes ago, SciMan said:

When I play KSP, that's what takes up the majority of my time, since I have to pilot each and every one of them to their final orbits (and since not even MechJeb can achieve a perfect orbit, to make sure they stay where I put them (relative to each other) I then cheat their oribts so that they're perfect (but I do it in a way that moves them the smallest possible distance).

Two questions for you, do your orbits have to be perfectly circular and do the angles between the satellites have to be perfect? 

Because neither really matter, your orbital period is what determines how fast your comm satellites will fall out of alignment. If you're within a second, it will take a few decades before you have to adjust them again. (Again, KER for the win and why isn't orbital period a stock piece of information.)

[Bej Kerman]

8 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

why isn't orbital period a stock piece of information

Pretty sure it's been a stock piece of information since precise maneuver control became stock.

[darthgently]

On 1/5/2022 at 3:27 AM, intelliCom said:

TL;DR: Probes that are 'X' light seconds away should take 'X' seconds to control in 'real time'.

This is one of the reasons I enjoy working with kOS.  While there is the delay to initiate a script, once it starts running on the probe it has zero delay control even with something like RT installed.  Which is very nice and realistic.  So you can have your real time control, but you have to script/program it ahead of time.  So challenging, but doable, and realistic.