CommNet (For Science!)

[Periple]

18 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

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.

No but I enjoyed it!

[Vl3d]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

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.

I always pay with partial control enabled. Head canon is that the probe is preprogrammed to execute simple maneuvers and basic landing. Also, when transmitting science, all you need to do is wait for LOS. So, yes, I understand the devs decision and Nertea's point.

But.. launching comms satellite constellations is really cool! I want a reason to do it. I know we're going to build logistics networks with delivery routes, but that's a long way off.. and comsats are awesome.. and I like the lines in map view.

Edited December 22, 2023 by Vl3d

[Brofessional]

I definitely want a fleshed out commnet with occlusion and such at some point, but it's also not a terribly high priority. 

Better in-game tools and visuals is a must though. For example there needs to be some form of stock stationkeeping to prevent satellites drifting when you time warp.

[Vl3d]

8 minutes ago, Brofessional said:

here needs to be some form of stock stationkeeping to prevent satellites drifting when you time warp

Totally agree.

Another thing: I've advocated for a very long time for greater distinction between probe and manned missions. I feel like now, with this minimalist CommNet system, there are even less reasons to do probe missions. Basically, you are only incentivised to use probes if you don't want to strand or kill kerbals. I think it's kind of sad.. probes were my favorite because I cared about kerbals. Now.. kerbals are just lemmings.. totally disposable. No real reason to use probes anymore.

On the other hand, one could say that the only reason to use kerbals is taking soil samples and crew reports, because manned / unmanned vehicle control is about the same.

Edited December 22, 2023 by Vl3d

[Brofessional]

28 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Now.. kerbals are just lemmings.. totally disposable. No real reason to use probes anymore.

That will likely be addressed as more roadmap features are added. Once there is a resource cost for recruiting new Kerbals there will be an incentive to keep them alive.

[Mutex]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

Totally agree.

Another thing: I've advocated for a very long time for greater distinction between probe and manned missions. I feel like now, with this minimalist CommNet system, there are even less reasons to do probe missions. Basically, you are only incentivised to use probes if you don't want to strand or kill kerbals. I think it's kind of sad.. probes were my favorite because I cared about kerbals. Now.. kerbals are just lemmings.. totally disposable. No real reason to use probes anymore.

On the other hand, one could say that the only reason to use kerbals is taking soil samples and crew reports, because manned / unmanned vehicle control is about the same.

I've been thinking about this. Right now the only reason to use probes is for one-way journeys, and those missions miss out on half the science you could get from returning samples, but they're a lot easier. If you're returning the craft to Kerbin, then... probes are slightly lighter I guess? But you can't do crew observations, and need a special piece of equipment to do surface samples.

If we add occlusion, the difficulty of using probes increases so much there's no point using them at all. Adding life support requirements might balance the game, along with limits/costs to hiring kerbals. As much as I'd like to see occlusion in the game, right now it wouldn't be balanced.

[fragtzack]

Good to hear CommNet is on the way!

[Periple]

9 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Another thing: I've advocated for a very long time for greater distinction between probe and manned missions. I feel like now, with this minimalist CommNet system, there are even less reasons to do probe missions. Basically, you are only incentivised to use probes if you don't want to strand or kill kerbals. I think it's kind of sad.. probes were my favorite because I cared about kerbals. Now.. kerbals are just lemmings.. totally disposable. No real reason to use probes anymore.

Kerbals aren't any more or less disposable than in KSP1, other than in your head!

Also probes are much smaller and lighter than kerbals. I usually gravitate to them just for that reason unless I actually need crew on the mission.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

17 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

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

Depends on the probe - but read Aziz, above.  Transmit science, sure - but if there is a whomping big planet between the stupid probe and the receivers? 

... 

This whole thing about CommNet reminds me of the gameplay progression metric of 'purpose' 

[tstein]

18 hours ago, Vl3d said:

I always pay with partial control enabled. Head canon is that the probe is preprogrammed to execute simple maneuvers and basic landing. Also, when transmitting science, all you need to do is wait for LOS. So, yes, I understand the devs decision and Nertea's point.

But.. launching comms satellite constellations is really cool! I want a reason to do it. I know we're going to build logistics networks with delivery routes, but that's a long way off.. and comsats are awesome.. and I like the lines in map view.

I still dislike it. I dislike any downgrade of  game complexity that created meaningful  challenges.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

34 minutes ago, tstein said:

.. launching comms satellite constellations is really cool! I want a reason to do it. I know we're going to build logistics networks with delivery routes, but that's a long way off.. and comsats are awesome.. and I like the lines in map view

 

34 minutes ago, tstein said:

still dislike it. I dislike any downgrade of  game complexity that created meaningful  challenges

I think a lot of us agree with this completely - but that's not the game they want. 

I'm seeing KSP as the 'learn about orbital mechanics and the complexity of spaceflight as you play' game / Sim... While KSP2 is 'let's build colonies and have an interstellar adventure' game. 

It seems like to the devs building in the early complexity of what many of us enjoyed about KSP will detract from / limit people from getting to the parts of the game they're excited about (colonies, resource management, interstellar).  I've read many times about them wanting (folks like me) players who rarely ventured past Mun/Minmus to really get out and explore the rest of the system & beyond. 

The downside , if true, is that while it might be a fun game - the educational aspect of the original might be lost. 

[tstein]

4 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

 

I think a lot of us agree with this completely - but that's not the game they want. 

I'm seeing KSP as the 'learn about orbital mechanics and the complexity of spaceflight as you play' game / Sim... While KSP2 is 'let's build colonies and have an interstellar adventure' game. 

It seems like to the devs building in the early complexity of what many of us enjoyed about KSP will detract from / limit people from getting to the parts of the game they're excited about (colonies, resource management, interstellar).  I've read many times about them wanting (folks like me) players who rarely ventured past Mun/Minmus to really get out and explore the rest of the system & beyond. 

The downside , if true, is that while it might be a fun game - the educational aspect of the original might be lost. 

Yes  I feel that there is indeed a shoehorning of the game (and of the expected users) in the explorers category. For me that is utterly boring.  I already stopped playing the game again because the mechanical challenges are  already  too few. I prefer a single system with 2 moons and great deep mechanics that  9999 unique planets with shallow mechanics.I cannot care less for  colonies and almost nothing for interstellar, the same way I care nothing for  the hairstyles of kerbals.. KSP2 is still  as of now targetign to be an inferior game to KSP1, I just try to be optimistic they  change it a bit.

Edited December 23, 2023 by tstein

[Bej Kerman]

7 minutes ago, tstein said:

Yes  I feel that there is indeed a shoehorning of the game (and of the expected users) in the explorers category.

It has always been about exploration. How is this shoehorning?

7 minutes ago, tstein said:

For me that is utterly boring

It's not shoehorning just because you in particular find it boring.

6 minutes ago, tstein said:

I already stopped playing the game again because the mechanical challenges are  already  too few. I prefer a single system with 2 moons and great deep mechanics that  9999 unique planets with shallow mechanics

This contradicts your earlier desire for there to be dozens of science parts without their mechanics being any deeper than clicking to gather points.

8 minutes ago, tstein said:

I cannot care less for  colonies and almost nothing for interstellar, the same way I care nothing for  the hairstyles of kerbals.

I do not believe KSP 2 is gonna be the game for you if you insist that one of its biggest selling points is being shoehorned.

9 minutes ago, tstein said:

KSP2 is still  as of now targetign to be an inferior game to KSP1, I just try to be optimistic they  change it a bit.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The devs will not turn around on the colony gameplay now.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

10 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

 

I think a lot of us agree with this completely - but that's not the game they want. 

I'm seeing KSP as the 'learn about orbital mechanics and the complexity of spaceflight as you play' game / Sim... While KSP2 is 'let's build colonies and have an interstellar adventure' game. 

It seems like to the devs building in the early complexity of what many of us enjoyed about KSP will detract from / limit people from getting to the parts of the game they're excited about (colonies, resource management, interstellar).  I've read many times about them wanting (folks like me) players who rarely ventured past Mun/Minmus to really get out and explore the rest of the system & beyond. 

The downside , if true, is that while it might be a fun game - the educational aspect of the original might be lost. 

Hopefully, Colonies, Interstellar, and Resources are going to bring the challenge back.  The devs have planned more systems to work with, and they may have opted to have early game easier - For Pedagogy?.

Also, something that occurs to me is that the incredibly short shrift our old buddies the Mün and Minmus get is because we have seen the resource extraction and colonization content yet.  We may not be heading to Duna for the third quest in the chain in the full game.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

22 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

incredibly short shrift our old buddies the Mün and Minmus get is because we have seen the resource extraction and colonization content yet

Yep.  They're probably required to get to Duna - or at least to get fuel / components for the further reaches.

We may all look back on this time of griping and say 'if only we knew then what we know now'.

[Periple]

5 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

We may all look back on this time of griping and say 'if only we knew then what we know now'.

Yes! 

When colonies and resources land, KSP2 will be a lot more complex than KSP1. It might turn out that the having to deal with more complex science or comms or funds would just feel like a drag at that point.

In any case I think it’s a good idea to get the core systems in first at minimal complexity, then add complexity where it actually benefits gameplay and synergizes with other systems. 

We can theorize all we want about individual systems but it’s really hard to imagine how it’ll feel when we have to engage with all of them at once!

[Wheehaw Kerman]

6 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Yep.  They're probably required to get to Duna - or at least to get fuel / components for the further reaches.

We may all look back on this time of griping and say 'if only we knew then what we know now'.

Sort of like what we just did over the past few days, or are you talking more “how much more difficult this is going to get” than “how wrong some of us were”, or both?

[The Aziz]

Eh, setting up a recon/comm satellite at the target destination before actually arriving there with the crew is a logical thing to do. "Complex" doesn't even come to mind when I think of it.

[Fabri91]

On 12/22/2023 at 4:23 PM, 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.

In all my KSP 1 saves since the introduction to Commnet I set the related difficulty options to the following:

• realistic occlusion (i.e. effective planet radius = 1)
• no probe control without commnet
• no additional tracking stations beyond the one at KSC

Especially the last point was intriguing because it forced me set up a (small) relay network early on, along with bringing relay satellites on my first trips to the Mun and so on.

It really gave a feeling of building and setting up infrastructure.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

2 hours ago, Fabri91 said:

In all my KSP 1 saves since the introduction to Commnet I set the related difficulty options to the following:

• realistic occlusion (i.e. effective planet radius = 1)
• no probe control without commnet
• no additional tracking stations beyond the one at KSC

Especially the last point was intriguing because it forced me set up a (small) relay network early on, along with bringing relay satellites on my first trips to the Mun and so on.

It really gave a feeling of building and setting up infrastructure.

Amen, brother.  My take on Commnet in KSP1 went from “confused and annoyed” to “constellation architecture is fun and I wish it had realistic antenna orientation constraints!” really quickly.  

3 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Eh, setting up a recon/comm satellite at the target destination before actually arriving there with the crew is a logical thing to do. "Complex" doesn't even come to mind when I think of it.

A constellation of comsats adds very little weight and bulk to a lander/small station/return vehicle launch.  You can go from zero to orbital station and communications constellation in one go.

[joratto]

On 12/22/2023 at 2:34 PM, Vl3d said:

So, my thoughts:

• I am happy that all antennas are also relays now - there was really no point in having that distinction;

I think the distinction led to interesting gameplay in KSP1. You couldn't just fly every relay satellite with that one foldable antenna which is objectively better than practically every other antenna in the game in most circumstances. Instead, if you wanted a relay, you had to figure out how you were going to fit an enormous, non-foldable, un-aerodynamic, "bulbous" dish inside your fairing and on the side of your satellite. It was an interesting building challenge that inspired creativity, which is one of KSP's pillars of fun.

The foldable antenna was great for atmospheric vehicles and deep-space explorers, but if it could also function as a relay antenna, then it would end up being so overpowered that there would be little reason to use any other antenna as soon as it is unlocked.

I hope there will still be a good reason to use massive, awkward antennas at the very least.

[Periple]

I think a better solution for relays would be to require a pair of antennas!

[Poodmund]

18 hours ago, joratto said:

I think the distinction led to interesting gameplay in KSP1. 

The difference in shape (relays being mostly static and cumbersome) was an interesting design issue for the player but the whole direct vs relay mechanic was terribly communicated to the player and more often that not just left players frustrated (see the number of Reddit threads where people were asking why their vessels weren't passing communication through). Add on top of that the fact that direct antenna didn't add their strength to the relay capability and it just caused a world of confusion.

This is my opinion, as someone who liked CommNet, even more than RemoteTech... but CommNet had some real big flaws that were mostly due to a severe lack of communication to the player.

[Vl3d]

20 hours ago, Periple said:

I think a better solution for relays would be to require a pair of antennas!

I used to argue for this, but looking at how the dev team wants to cut all "fluff" from the game, I have to support the decision to make all antennas relays.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

2 hours ago, Vl3d said:

I used to argue for this, but looking at how the dev team wants to cut all "fluff" from the game, I have to support the decision to make all antennas relays.

I liked the way that worked - you had to plan a mission and build a satellite.  It was relatively realistic - again, giving a purpose to the gameplay beyond the 'Sandbox build wacky craft' thing so popular on YouTube. 

I don't think a layer of educational realism is fluff. 

That said - Nertea's explanation of why it's not in now, and what they'd want to do to create it 'right' is an adequate explanation.