How do we think Communications will be handled?

[GoldForest]

16 minutes ago, Snafu225 said:

Wouldn't that be a bit backwards though? I see the appeall but I guess in late game you'd have colonies/outposts in lots of placed or at least the capabilities to send kerballed missions. 

How is it backwards? 

[Snafu225]

6 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

How is it backwards? 

Isn't the general idea to have probes explore first and test the waters, thus needing or most likely building a Relay net work first? That's why I thought that would happen way before someone reaches  end game. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

[GoldForest]

Just now, Snafu225 said:

Isn't the general idea to have probes explore first and test the waters, thus needing or most likely building a Relay net work first? That's why I thought that would happen way before someone reaches  end game. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

No, Vl3D made the suggestion that Direct Antenna and Relay Antenna's should be combined. I think they shouldn't be until end game, forcing people to use them separately before getting a dish that can do both. 

[Snafu225]

Just now, GoldForest said:

No, Vl3D made the suggestion that Direct Antenna and Relay Antenna's should be combined. I think they shouldn't be until end game, forcing people to use them separately before getting a dish that can do both. 

Oh yeah agreed, sorry as I suspected I completely misunderstood what you were trying to say! 

[desert]

10 hours ago, Vl3d said:

should direct antennas and relay antennas be merged as a single type of multi-purpose antenna?

I think yes, definitely. The existence of direct and relay antennae in KSP doesn't teach player anything. It's just some complication where it wasn't needed. The player makes orbital probe, and a lander, gives orbital probe a big and pretty antenna. And then it turns out that this antenna can't relay data and he had to read the part description more attentively. It just frustrating and has no real world reason.

A better real world explanation would be to make different control units to have  or not have relay capability. But again, it will lead to a lot of frustration because it will still be a test of person's attention when reading the description 

[tstein]

Just now, desert said:

I think yes, definitely. The existence of direct and relay antennae in KSP doesn't teach player anything. It's just some complication where it wasn't needed. The player makes orbital probe, and a lander, gives orbital probe a big and pretty antenna. And then it turns out that this antenna can't relay data and he had to read the part description more attentively. It just frustrating and has no real world reason.

A better real world explanation would be to make different control units to have  or not have relay capability. But again, it will lead to a lot of frustration because it will still be a test of person's attention when reading the description 

That logic would demand we remove engines that need air to operate...  an antenna being good to receive (a physical demand exist) and different to send (power demand) teach as much as  an engine needing air and the other not.

[desert]

To make antennae more interesting and educative, instead of separation by direct/relay types, there could be some mechanics related to main characteristics of real antennae: frequency and gain.

The bigger the antenna the bigger its gain. For each antenna you can choose it's frequency, higher frequency means higher speeds but more power consumption and shorter distances. Lower frequency is slow but has less consumption and larger range. This would lead some interesting trade-offs for the player to solve and to actually learn something about radio physics.

RealAntennas has a system kinda like this, but it could be simplified. To have less calculations, less frequency options, no power options, and to be more user friendly in general 

[tstein]

25 minutes ago, desert said:

To make antennae more interesting and educative, instead of separation by direct/relay types, there could be some mechanics related to main characteristics of real antennae: frequency and gain.

The bigger the antenna the bigger its gain. For each antenna you can choose it's frequency, higher frequency means higher speeds but more power consumption and shorter distances. Lower frequency is slow but has less consumption and larger range. This would lead some interesting trade-offs for the player to solve and to actually learn something about radio physics.

RealAntennas has a system kinda like this, but it could be simplified. To have less calculations, less frequency options, no power options, and to be more user friendly in general 

That is more interesting that simply removing a class. The important part  is not to make antennas  somethign you  just automatically always do the same thing because tha kills  a game.

[Vl3d]

2 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Why would you bring a 2 million Km direct, and only like a 100 km relay antenna?

Because I have a crewed Duna orbiter with 8 direct antennas to keep in touch with KSC and only need 1 relay antenna for orbit-ground operations. But if I want to control the lander through that relay antenna from the KSC, I can't. It doesn't make sense.

2 hours ago, tstein said:

1- No..  making the game shallower is not an advantage, simplicity  should  not result in shallower

The game doesn't even care about the distinction between omni-directional and uni-directional antennas. It does not even care if you have only 1 relay (you would need at leas 2 uni-directional antennas to relay or 1 omni and a buffer). There's no usage of frequency or even gain. The game is very shallow already in this regard.

2 hours ago, GoldForest said:

New players should learn the difference between direct and relay antenna imo and kind of be forced to open up a relay system.

We could just have a mechanic like this: have only one type of antenna and if you want to make a relay you need to have 2 antennas (one receiving and one sending).

[GoldForest]

29 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Because I have a crewed Duna orbiter with 8 direct antennas to keep in touch with KSC and only need 1 relay antenna for orbit-ground operations. But if I want to control the lander through that relay antenna from the KSC, I can't. It doesn't make sense.

Bring more relays or build a relay network. It does actually make sense, because relay networks just boosts the signal and retransmit it as is. With direct communication, you would have to download the signal, then retransmit it to Kerbin, which adds delay because now the spacecraft has to download then upload the message, and that doesn't make sense. 

But to be honest, what truly doesn't make sense, to me, is why the Kerbals on the spacecraft can't control a probe right next to them. Why does Gene, millions to billions of kilometers away, have to control the probe and not say Jebidiah, who is only a few hundred kilometers away? 

41 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

We could just have a mechanic like this: have only one type of antenna and if you want to make a relay you need to have 2 antennas (one receiving and one sending).

While I agree with the multi-antenna for sending and receiving, the one type of antenna does not make sense. It makes sense to have a direct communication antenna and a relay antenna. Direct for control of the spacecraft and relay for relaying signals. That's how it works in real life. You have an antenna responsible for just receiving data, that data is used to control the spacecraft (Direct antenna in KSP). Then you have antenna that receive and transmit, they receive the data, figures out where it's going, then bounces/retransmits that data to said location. (Relay antenna in KSP) Of course there is a third type of antenna IRL that only transmit data, but this is represented in KSP by the direct antenna. 

If you want a more realistic experience in KSP 2, KSP 2 should have 3 antenna types. Receive, Transmit and Relay. 

[tstein]

19 hours ago, GoldForest said:

If you want a more realistic experience in KSP 2, KSP 2 should have 3 antenna types. Receive, Transmit and Relay. 

True, each one with a size varying with your mission needs. Also  there could be omni directional and directional ones. To have to find out what blue dot  is kerbon to point your antena to transmit science is an extra  challenge.

[Vl3d]

23 minutes ago, tstein said:

Also  there could be omni directional and directional ones. To have to find out what blue dot  is kerbon to point your antena to transmit science is an extra  challenge.

That would slow down gameplay too much.

I think the relay function emerges from having multiple antennas.

Another interesting idea would be to include the Kerbalism idea of having variable transfer speed rates (for transmission / receiving and implicitly relaying).

Also to no longer allow antenna stacking / spamming - it just doesn't work like that in real life. You need a bigger dish and more power.

Edited January 30, 2023 by Vl3d

[GoldForest]

49 minutes ago, tstein said:

True, each one with a size varying with your mission needs. Also  there could be omni directional and directional ones. To have to find out what blue dot  is kerbon to point your antena to transmit science is an extra  challenge.

While it is an interesting challenge, I kind of agree with Vl3d on this one. It would make the game a little difficult. Now that being said, I'm not against having the extra challenge set in the settings, with the default being off so people can decide if they want the extra work of pointing at Kerbin, or the nearest colony.

29 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Another interesting idea would be to include the Kerbalism idea of having variable transfer speed rates (for transmission / receiving and implicitly relaying).

Also to no longer allow antenna stacking / spamming - it just doesn't work like that in real life. You need a bigger dish and more power.

This would be 'signal delay' which a lot of people seem to be against. 

Actually, yes, it does. You can use multiple antennas to boost a signal. Of course, it works differently in real life than in KSP, but multi-antenna boosting is a thing. It's not always a bigger dish and more power. It just more economical sending deep space spacecraft with one dish instead of 4 or 5 to save on weight. If you want proof of this, look at the Deep Space Radio Telescope Array. Hundreds of radio antennas across the world acting as one giant telescope. The more antennas dishes, the better the resolution and data collection. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

This would be 'signal delay' which a lot of people seem to be against. 

Signal delay is mostly about input lag.

I don't think that most people would be against good gameplay designed around bandwidth limits and transfer speeds if it doesn't touch real-time piloting probes.

[GoldForest]

Just now, Master39 said:

Signal delay is mostly about input lag.

I don't think that most people would be against good gameplay designed around bandwidth limits and transfer speeds if it doesn't touch real-time piloting probes.

I agree with this implementation. Control is instant, but data is delayed. 

[Vl3d]

3 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

extra work of pointing at Kerbin, or the nearest colony

Theoretically we would need auto-tracking for antennas like there is for solar panels and also auto-rotation of craft to keep line of sight. Problem is if you place the antenna badly on a lander and while flying / rotating you break contact with KSC. In real life you would need to switch to omni, but that is hard to do on a far away celestial body without setting up relays first. It's doable but implies a lot of other work.

8 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

The more antennas dishes, the better the resolution and data collection.

That's for a radio telescope which uses low frequency waves, not for transmission.

9 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

This would be 'signal delay' which a lot of people seem to be against. 

Nothing i mentioned implies signal delay. Only transmission speed as bits/second.

1 minute ago, Master39 said:

Signal delay is mostly about input lag.

I don't think that most people would be against good gameplay designed around bandwidth limits and transfer speeds if it doesn't touch real-time piloting probes.

Agree.

[GoldForest]

Just now, Vl3d said:

That's for a radio telescope which uses low frequency waves, not for transmission.

Same principle.

Just now, Vl3d said:

Nothing i mentioned implies signal delay. Only transmission speed as bits/second.

Oh, my bad. Read it wrong. In any case, if you implement transmission speed, you should add signal delay too. Having one without the other makes no sense. If you don't have signal delay, there's no point in having transmission speed as it would still be instantaneous. Transmission speed without delay will only take seconds. Why add seconds to gameplay for no reason?

[Guest]

Just now, GoldForest said:

Having one without the other makes no sense. If you don't have signal delay, there's no point in having transmission speed as it would still be instantaneous.

It doesn't make sense if you're after an accurate simulation.

But in terms of gameplay it totally makes sense, having different transfer rates and power consumption values would also play well into the designing stage of the probe itself, give you another design constraint to play with which is not a mere range value, making balancing power generation and storage more interesting.

Even better if experiments are not instantaneous and have significant power requirements, and, why not, crafts risk to die if left without electricity for too long.

[GoldForest]

Just now, Master39 said:

It doesn't make sense if you're after an accurate simulation.

But in terms of gameplay it totally makes sense, having different transfer rates and power consumption values would also play well into the designing stage of the probe itself, give you another design constraint to play with which is not a mere range value, making balancing power generation and storage more interesting.

Even better if experiments are not instantaneous and have significant power requirements, and, why not, crafts risk to die if left without electricity for too long.

Hmmm. I guess that makes sense.