What we wanted vs. what we got: Did anyone at Intercept actually play KSP 1?

[Sea_Kerman]

Why would you have to perform 180 degree turns? All this requires is angling a few degrees to either side, to induce a perpendicular component to the burn. I guess perhaps this would work less well in normal/antinormal burns because in those, one axis is controlled by your engine thrust directly instead of your angle.

[rjbvre]

17 minutes ago, Sea_Kerman said:

Why would you have to perform 180 degree turns?

You wouldn't necessarily, I was replying to Bej Kerman. 

19 minutes ago, Sea_Kerman said:

All this requires is angling a few degrees to either side, to induce a perpendicular component to the burn.

That assumes a small deviation. Plus all that thrust you're using to correct now isn't being used for the main maneuver which means you're not on the intended trajectory anyway.

[Spicat]

17 hours ago, Sea_Kerman said:

it would be cool if the maneuver target did move... in order to recorrect you back to the maneuver trajectory, like so

You should make it a separate post to gather more attention.

Edited March 29, 2023 by Spicat

[Bej Kerman]

2 hours ago, rjbvre said:

The biggest problem though is that you're asking your craft to perform quick 180 degree turns for some of the corrections.

When did we start talking about 180 degree turns?

1 hour ago, rjbvre said:

2 hours ago, Sea_Kerman said:

Why would you have to perform 180 degree turns?

You wouldn't necessarily, I was replying to Bej Kerman. 

They asked a good question

[rjbvre]

7 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

There's nothing stopping the node from offsetting a bit to aim you at your expected position then aiming away from your expected position as you approach your intended trajectory in order to ease back into the planned burn.

I get what you mean by this now, it sounded like you meant a 180 degree turn the first time I read it

[dr.phees]

This proper correction would be a huge thing and worthy of KSP 2. And to all the nay sayers: That's what any proper space agency does: Bring the craft on the intended course and not blame the controllers/pilots. You want to reach your goal, your mission, not compete for scores.

A proper compensating and correcting burn marker would have to be unlocked via the tech tree and would be a huge improvement.

And regarding that "because your craft does not burn straight" argument: It would not even matter. As long as the marker points in the right direction, deviation will get better/corrected. In the end the result may not be perfect, but certainly better than without any compensation. Why struggle against an obvious, huge improvement?