CommNet (For Science!)

[Vl3d]

Well, there seems to be a lot of dev info on Discord that did not make it onto the forums. Not that I've been asking about CommNet for months without getting any answers. Such is life for second hand forum citizens.. you're either on Discord all day or you don't get to talk to the devs. I can only thank providence that Dakota is still engaging with us here.

Nertea, Destroyer of Fun — Yesterday at 2:17 AM

i hear there are some questions about commnet and im here to answer them if they're here

Spork Witch — Yesterday at 2:18 AM

yeah! I was asking about whether occlusion and vehicle links were implemented at this time. I was told occlusion / LoS is not, but that if there's a commsat in range, you'll bounce off that back to kerbin. Further, is there a distinction between transmit-only and relays? I notice we have all the old commsats, wasn't sure if they ALL function as relays now, or if there's still the same split of RA=relay, others are Tx only.

 

Nertea, Destroyer of Fun — Yesterday at 2:23 AM

Generally

• All antennas are relays by default, they can bounce signal back (we didn't like this distinction)
• Line of sight is not a thing, there is only distance as a concern
• Connectivity between vessels is a simple matter of ensuring that they both have antennas that have ranges that qre equal or greater to the distance between them. So if 2 satellites are 100 km apart, they both most have antennas of rating 100 km or higher to connect

 

Nertea, Destroyer of Fun — Yesterday at 2:26 AM

Commnet and occlusion was extremely forgiving by default settings in KSP1 and we didnt feel there was a significant difference between soft occlusion and no occlusion for EA launch. Lots of the depth people would want requires a set of supporting visual and planning tools that are a fair bit of work to design and build

 

Nertea, Destroyer of Fun — Yesterday at 2:32 AM

I think there's a thing I wrote in a devblog of everyone playing KSP with different goals in mind - everyone has a thing they prefer, whether it is building vessels, making comm networks, etc. We can always take player feedback into account in driving plans and make changes at that point.

 

Nertea, Destroyer of Fun — Yesterday at 2:33 AM

dev hat off, I hate commnet and always turned it off in KSP1

 

Nertea, Destroyer of Fun — Yesterday at 2:34 AM

I mean that goes back to need - a question we always need to answer is that, given all the ways people play the game, should you 'need' to do any particular thing? That could significantly impact what someone else wants to do. It's a fine line

 

Spork Witch — Yesterday at 2:37 AM

which is why it was always a toggle, but KSP is also about education. Learning about line of sight communications, and the need to set up satellites in particular orbits is a REAL WORLD learning thing, and also an orbital mechanics one, a core focus of KSP. The easiest way to properly position satellites is to launch them all at once, using resonant orbits. Without this constraint, from occlusion, you remove the one thing in the game that would actually direct someone to learn about these things.

 

Nertea, Destroyer of Fun — Yesterday at 2:39 AM

Yep, understood

 

Nertea, Destroyer of Fun — Yesterday at 2:35 AM

I think I could say with some confidence that increasing commnet complexity has to come with more viz and planning tools

 

Nate Simpson — Yesterday at 2:39 AM

A lot of us like all the detailed line of sight/relay features in Commnet and it's definitely a thing we want to revisit, but as always we're having to balance multiple priorities.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That being said, here are all the current antennas in the game, for comparison purposes:

Spoiler

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Thanks - I only caught part of that and not all the context. 

 

I do want a Comnet feature - but I also want it to come with the visual tools. 

I get the feeling that the internal / Dev play direction is 'bumrush colonies / build big wacky things' rather than 'pretend you're developing a real space exploration program' 

 

[Kerbart]

15 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I get the feeling that the internal / Dev play direction is 'bumrush colonies / build big wacky things' rather than 'pretend you're developing a real space exploration program'

EA 0.1 was rushed but that's water under the bridge now. What FS shows, as much as I detested it when it was announced (instead of bug fixing), is that adding features is just as important to make the game fun. For Science is fun now, while the missions are fresh and surprising, but will be less so by the time players get around playing their third or fourth campaign. So it is vital, for the game to stay engaging and fun, that new features are added sooner rather than later.

It's also clear that the Science milestone was not rushed. There's always room for polishing but we didn't get something bum rushed. There's little reason to think that Intercept wants to risk the fragile trust they're starting to rebuild by rushing out Colonies (if anything, FS was most at risk for rushing given the hard deadline of the holiday season).

We also see that other features, like heat and re-entry effects, are being introduced. I'm sure a better comm net will be rolled out. But obviously there are other priorities. There are still many bugs to be fixed, UI and QOL improvements, re-entry tweaks, and so on.  I'd say that ironically the reason we don't have the KSP1 comm net map overlay is because it's not being rushed.

[Vl3d]

So, my thoughts:

• I am happy that all antennas are also relays now - there was really no point in having that distinction;
• I'm confident occlusion and signal lines will be implemented at some point  in the future, along with an antenna planner and a distance visualization tool in map view;
• I don't think antenna signal strength is explicitly needed in the base game, but I believe both transmission rate and electric change requirements should be variable depending on the distance;
• I also think that antennas should not have a hard max. range defined. The transmission rate should go down and the electric change requirements should go up according to the distance and antenna type, for all antennas, without a hard limit to the range;
• @Nertea has not clarified how stacking multiple antennas on the same vehicle works;
• It is not clear to me how differentiable the antennas are during gameplay - it depends at which Tear these get unlocked. I'll look into it...

[Vl3d]

The tech tree for antennas:

Spoiler

• Why is the RA-15 at 300 kg considered XS size?
• Why are RA-100 and Communotron 88-88 unlocked in the same node? The bigger / heavier one should be unlocked before the deployable one.
• Why are RA-100 and Communotron 88-88 both SM size? IMO RA-100 should be M and Communotron 88-88 should be XS.

I don't even know what to do with this feedback... @Dakota maybe it can be added to a list? Thanks!

Edited December 22, 2023 by Vl3d

[Bej Kerman]

41 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

For Science is fun now, while the missions are fresh and surprising, but will be less so by the time players get around playing their third or fourth campaign.

I'd wager second.

[Kerbart]

Signal processing and radio transmission are complex subjects worth of simulating in a game by itself. What we end up in the game will always be a simplification that has to balance challenges (so we don't just put the tiniest of tiny antennas on a Jool probe) and realism into something that fits the mind model of most players.

A more complex model supporting lower transmission speeds over a longer range and stacking antennas could lead to "I don't know how this works, let's just spam my craft with ten antennas" where a simple "I need a bigger antenna because the smol one won't work" leads to more realistic designs, I don't have the wisdom to suggest what works best (most of you will say I lack any but i digress) but that will have to be taken into account as well. Just as patched conics: it's easy to understands, it works nice and in 95% of the cases it works good enough. Most players don't need a more realistic model or want to deal with all the extras that come with it.

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

I'd wager second.

C'mon Bej. After being Mr. Grumpy for many months I'm trying to be positive here!

[Bej Kerman]

47 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

It's also clear that the Science milestone was not rushed

1 minute ago, Kerbart said:

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

I'd wager second.

C'mon Bej. After being Mr. Grumpy for many months I'm trying to be positive here!

I'll be positive about many things, I think the re-entry effect looks decent compared to KSP 1 and Juno and adds another dimension to hypersonic vehicles, but what is science supposed to be here besides a couple extra menus and internal flags that hide parts?

[kdaviper]

Iirc Commnet was one of the latest things they added to ksp1 and you had to enable it with a toggle. 

I would rather they deliver on the planned roadmap feature than worry about edge case gameplay loops.

[Scarecrow71]

1 minute ago, kdaviper said:

I would rather they deliver on the planned roadmap feature than worry about edge case gameplay loops.

One could argue that CommNET is a core gameplay feature in a space game.  In KSP1, you couldn't control probes or capsules without a pilot unless you had a direct link back to either a capsule with a pilot OR the KSC.  I don't see that as edge case; I see that as core functionality.

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, kdaviper said:

Iirc Commnet was one of the latest things they added to ksp1 and you had to enable it with a toggle. 

I would rather they deliver on the planned roadmap feature than worry about edge case gameplay loops.

Also I don't recall NASA having to string together a road of relays between Earth and the Kuiper Belt in order to talk to the Voyagers (or any other distant probes), and probes that have to land on the far side of objects tend to be smart enough to do this autonomously. Point being, I think probes being 10x more reliant on communications than any real probe is silly, and I would much rather Commnet just be a mod or set to off by default.

[kdaviper]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

Also I don't recall NASA having to string together a road of relays between Earth and the Kuiper Belt in order to talk to the Voyagers (or any other distant probes), and probes that have to land on the far side of objects tend to be smart enough to do this autonomously. Point being, I think probes being 10x more reliant on communications than any real probe is silly, and I would much rather Commnet just be a mod or set to off by default.

On top of all of that, comm nets require a bunch of craft to be sent into orbit so that your other craft can fly. I think they often outnumbered the actual probes and other craft added together in my saves. 

[Kerbart]

14 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

but what is science supposed to be here besides a couple extra menus and internal flags that hide parts?

Instead of anonymous science money (or "points" as they chose the name the currency used for it) to buy whatever research you want, the experiments performed could have a direct impact on what parts of the tech tree get unlocked. Or maybe unlocking a node comes with a mission that needs to be completed (mission may or may not involve science parts and experiments). I dunno, I'm not a game designer. I did my part by handing Intercept a bag of money, now they should let people who went to school for it come up with an innovative game. I think there's just a missed opportunity. It's not like they had no time to come up with something better.

[kdaviper]

8 minutes ago, Scarecrow71 said:

One could argue that CommNET is a core gameplay feature in a space game.  In KSP1, you couldn't control probes or capsules without a pilot unless you had a direct link back to either a capsule with a pilot OR the KSC.  I don't see that as edge case; I see that as core functionality.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea to add more complex or realistic comms, but I think it would be a good commercial strategy to have various levels of implementation.

[Scarecrow71]

Just now, kdaviper said:

I'm not saying it's a bad idea to add more complex or realistic comms, but I think it would be a good commercial strategy to have various levels of implementation.

No lie detected!

[cocoscacao]

9 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

I think there's just a missed opportunity. It's not like they had no time to come up with something better.

I'm still waiting for colonies. While I like what you're suggesting, that kind of gameplay can turn into a grind quick. 

[Chilkoot]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

I'm confident occlusion and signal lines will be implemented at some point  in the future, along with an antenna planner and a distance visualization tool in map view;

Fingers crossed for this one, for sure.  Setting up those crazy elliptical polar relay satellites was actually really satisfying gameplay.

[James M]

Some of us like satellites. Some of us don’t. As I always say it’s better to give the power to the players when faced with decisions about difficulty or strategy.

Personally I’m with the side that approves of a more robust and complex communication system purely for the sake of education. Furthermore, designing satellite networks enables players to explore and experiment with less frequently used orbit types. Heck, if Ksp1 hadn’t had commnet contracts, I would have never bothered to research and learn about stationary orbits, synchronous orbits, molniya orbits, and tundra orbits. Now while @kdaviper had a good point about satellites cluttering the active crafts list, that’s what filters are designed for. 
 

I realize that satellites aren’t a high priority right now, but hopefully one day we’ll get the chance to voice our opinions about this to them and they’ll listen. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

2 hours ago, Kerbart said:

we didn't get something bum rushed

You completely misread my post. 

3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

play direction is 'bumrush colonies / build big wacky things' rather than 'pretend you're developing a real space exploration program

Just switch out ' gameplay style' for 'play direction' and see if that makes more sense. 

(I'm not critical of FS as I have not played FS - comment is about CommNet as is the thread) 

Actually - I do have a minor criticism, if I'm at all correct.

Game design these days seems to focus on the 'game streamer / youtuber' as the primary customer they're trying to please, rather than crafting a phenomenal single player experience.  Evidenced by games like Cities Skylines 2 - which is designed for painters not simers. 

If KSP2 is leaning strongly towards the Matt Lownes and Shadowzone folks as the core player / style - that is fine and a choice - but it may explain why some of us who really enjoyed the 'managing a space program' aspect of KSP are feeling a bit flummoxed 

[modus]

1 hour ago, Chilkoot said:

Fingers crossed for this one, for sure.  Setting up those crazy elliptical polar relay satellites was actually really satisfying gameplay.

I'm not going anywhere before I established my polar sats!

[The Aziz]

I'd rather have the need for a line of sight than distance limits. If I'm on the far side of the Mun I should be locked out of communication unless there's a relay flying above. Or two. Or three. Preferably 4 (3 at 120deg equatorial and one polar in high orbit just in case).

Also, currently you can transfer the science points without even extending the antenna.

[Sea_Kerman]

Yeah, having (not very strict) LOS limitations added an actual reason to launch satellites and have more interesting mission architectures.

[Poodmund]

I think CommNet provides a challenge for controlling un-Kerballed craft in different challenge steps and occlusion plays a part, differently, at each of these steps.

• Progression Step 1: Low Kerbin comms - Setting up a low-to-medium altitude relay constellation to allow for communication around Kerbin - Occlusion feature impact: Large (Kerbin being in the way of the KSC has a massive impact)
• Progression Step 2: Munar/Minmus comms - Setting up a moon based constellation to allow for probe communication on the far side of the moon - Occlusion feature impact: Medium (you are usually already captured in orbit but would often lose comms signal on the far, dark side of the moon)
• Progression Step 3: Interplanetary comms - Setting up comms networks to communicate at large distances - Occlusion feature impact: VERY low (typically, the arc angle at interplanetary comms distances is incredibly minute and occlusion by other planets is easy to mitigate)

I know Intercept want players to accelerate to Progression Step 3 as quickly as possible in comparison to typical KSP1 gameplay but I feel that a lot of people spend a significant amount of game time in the first 2 steps, where occlusion plays a big factor.

Therefore, I would say that for CommNet to be a successful implementation of gameplay feature, it should really include the core mechanic of occlusion.

Quote

Nertea: Lots of the depth people would want requires a set of supporting visual and planning tools that are a fair bit of work to design and build... I think I could say with some confidence that increasing CommNet complexity has to come with more visual and planning tools.

Although I see this being a long way off, time wise, this is absolutely the right perspective on this issue.

Edited December 22, 2023 by Poodmund

[Periple]

I really enjoyed the emergent gameplay from CommNet, it was fun to send up constellations for reliable comms. I think the system could be deepened and improved a lot from KSP1.

I do understand that the team has other priorities now, but I hope they will revisit it once they’ve hit the core milestone features!

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, Periple said:

I really enjoyed the emergent gameplay from CommNet, it was fun to send up constellations for reliable comms. I think the system could be deepened and improved a lot from KSP1.

But also it shouldn't be necessary. It's not unreasonable to expect that a probe can continue executing its implied programming even out of sight of the tracking station, or travel millions of kilometers and still be able to transmit science.