Jump to content

Redesign proposals with images (Color manager, Trip planner, Experiment popup...)


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Though you're beginning to cherrypick here, it's KSP, it cannot possibly predict every stupid design the players come up with, but it doesn't make it any less valid.

There's a button to follow the maneuver marker. Don't just hit prograde because you'll end up nowhere during longer burns, as you're going on an ellipse, not straight line.

Been to Moho lately? I have, and noticed a significant difference that makes the KSP1 "halfway to node at Pe" inferior by a long margin.

Agree with better maneuver nodes. For one you see that is going on and can try stuff like I sending the 300 ton lander to Duna, I forgot my TWR was low, I made an node and it took 1700 m/s leaving Kerbin SOI
I did an initial 600 m/s burn and then around 700 m/s for Duna intercept. 

Also testing landing on Tylo, is in low orbit, I make an node with an braking burn who showed I would crash during burn. But if I burned a bit upward during the burn I could end up stationary right over my target. 
All I had to do then  was to decent an km. 

53 minutes ago, Lowi_Sace said:

In the Kerbolar system you can get away with a KSP1 style maneuver planner, but for those interstellar maneuvers you want one which also takes fuel weight loss and acceleration path into account

The KSP2 planner already is way more precise than from the start of EA. It will probably keep improving over time. They are working on more precision maneuver planner, but could take a while until we get it. I personally do not see the need for option one, I think that is more something modders can add to the game. The problem with option three is that vessel stay fixed/locked during time warp. This was a while in the bug report, but the DEV team said it takes a while until they fix it (complex issue). When this is fixed we may get option three after all.

Could be a fix for planning maneuver past your fuel limit. But I don’t know how easy it is to implement

The flight plan mod can create nodes with more dV than you have. Found this as my dV on Duna lander was bugged. I suspect reason was I was docked going from Ike orbit to Duna ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lowi_Sace said:

In the Kerbolar system you can get away with a KSP1 style maneuver planner, but for those interstellar maneuvers you want one which also takes fuel weight loss and acceleration path into account

It's just that sometimes you want to have an estimate of the Delta-V required for a certain maneuver your ship is not capable of. It's a good thing to take into account weight loss and correct path, but stopping the prediction when out of fuel prevents you from getting that knowledge, which is a shame. I'd rather have a not perfectly accurate prediction (e.g. path computed with constant mass after fuel depletion) and with a warning note on the inaccurate path, than no information at all.

6 hours ago, Lowi_Sace said:

In the Kerbolar system you can get away with a KSP1 style maneuver planner, but for those interstellar maneuvers you want one which also takes fuel weight loss and acceleration path into account

I personally do not see the need for option one, I think that is more something modders can add to the game. The problem with option three is that vessel stay fixed/locked during time warp. This was a while in the bug report, but the DEV team said it takes a while until they fix it (complex issue). When this is fixed we may get option three after all.

Ok, I didn't know devs considered this as a bug. When it will be corrected I hope they'll implement option three.

If we have options two AND three AND path prediction beyond fuel depletion, then yes option one is of seldom use

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe when there is a new science experiment that you haven't run yet the notification feature could pop up to tell you that, then it would have a use other than just to tell you that your solar panels aren't in the sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support changes for the TRIP PLANNER in the VAB.     

1)  I wonder if the tool should be accessible from more than just the VAB -- maybe you could call it up from KSC or tracker?   not sure.

IF so, then I think changes to the "FROM" location are especially valuable.    If you already have the ship in orbit, and you want to check your remaining dv, maybe you could do as suggested in the mockup, and say "FROM Kerbin -> Low Orbit" and then select the destination?

If the tool is ONLY for the VAB, then... im not sure there is as much benefit for changing the FROM location.     At least not until we get colonies and you can build ships in other places.     For now, the ships are always starting in the VAB on the ground, on kerbin.

 

 

2)  I still see lots of benefit to changing / refining the TO: location.   

The difference in dv required for a "High Orbit Flyby" vs "Low Orbit Flyby" vs "High Orbit" vs "Low Orbit" vs "Landing", can be enourmous.    Specifically, Im looking at JOOL, which is probably a worst case.     But when we send new players to put a comm around jool, they are going to use this tool to estimate what they need.  The planner for Jool is going to say "no no no", because right now, it always assumes you are landing.

 

For example, here's what I see now for JOOL:

Kerbin Low Orbit:   3400

Kerbin Exit:  900

Jool Intercept:    1250

Jool Entry:   160

Jool Low Orbit:   2780

Jool Surface:  14000

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

Total: 22520

 

So, OK, first, I will totally acknowledge, that since, the numbers are itemized, someone can work backwards and figure, to ignore 14000 of that number, if they dont want to land.   Not everyone is automatically going to take the 22.5k number and build for that.   

 

But, IF it is a somewhat simple change, adding a few selections to the popup (no idea if thats all it needs?), and some quick IF logics to control which numbers to include, --->   then it might be nice to allow them to say they want to goto "high orbit" or "low orbit"   or maybe "flyby" , as well as "landing"

 

Numbers-wise::

-- "flyby" would require intercept, and maybe "entry" amounts?   or maybe just "intercept" gets you a flyby.      Not sure how much value there might be in "high flyby" vs "low flyby".    But even if some people might like it, Im not sure how to define "low flyby" for the existing tool.     (What I would use it for, is a case where I want to send a probe on a flyby,  just close enough to get "low orbit" science reading.     so it would be based on the Low Orbit science "line" for the planet/moon.   But thats a "stretch goal" perhaps, since it needs more thinking and calculating...)

 

-- "high orbit", literally could be just the minimum to capture at all.   But I dont think thats really what people mean.   They tend to want a less elliptical orbit than "barely captured".    So I dont think just "intercept" and "entry" numbers by themselves are enough.   

If I had to make up a rule of thumb, completely as a guess, maybe we could take something like 1/4 of the "low orbit" number,  and maybe that would give us an estimate of capturing, plus rounding the orbit some, but not all the way to low orbit??     That would need a little testing and refining.    But this tool is about ballpark numbers, so I im hoping just using a fraction of the "low orbit" amount is good enough, to keep it really simple...

So, maybe "intercept" + "entry" + 1/4th of "Low Orbit" might be a quick estimate?

 

-- "low orbit" would add in all the numbers, except surface.

-- And then "landing" would add all of the numbers...

 

So, using my suggestions as is, for Jool::

selecting "flyby", you'd get a dv estimate of   3400+900+1250+160, for :: 5710 total

selecting "high orbit", you'd get a dv estimate of   3400+900+1250+160+ (1/4 * 2780) , for :: 6405 total

selecting "low orbit", you'd get a dv estimate of   3400+900+1250+160 + 2780, for :: 8490 total

selecting "landing", you'd get the entire estimate of 22.5k

 

 

Does that sound nice to anyone?      And, hopefully, for implementation, reasonably do-able?

THANKS!!

-CFTeague2

PS.   I'd also support some kind of "subway map style" d-v map, available, in game.    The various versions of community generated d-v maps for KSP1 were very helpful.    It took a short learning curve to interpret them, but once it "clicked" for you, it was a really good way to provide many layers of the info.    Tho you did need to add the numbers up in your head...

 

Edited by CFTeague2
add PS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, CFTeague2 said:

If the tool is ONLY for the VAB, then... im not sure there is as much benefit for changing the FROM location.     At least not until we get colonies and you can build ships in other places.     For now, the ships are always starting in the VAB on the ground, on kerbin.

When you're planning for not only one destination. For instance, if you need to go from Kerbin to Ike and then Eve and then return to Kerbin, it's just not possible if the starting point is Kerbin. It's nice to see the dV needed for Ike -> Eve. But also in general to see what dV a lander needs.

And as you said it, for future proofing the trip planner where you will not launch from Kerbin only (even launch from space).

We can even suggest adding a "+" button to add bodies between the "from" and the "to", but the trip planner is pretty small and it was already hard to fit everything in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deleting some steps could also help a lot. You don't need the 950 dV for returning to Kerbin's SOI, nor the 3400 dV to land when you can simply aerobrake.

Adding different destinations would only help if the vessel stays in one piece. Usually though, a vessel would split up in that case. Even when only having one destination, a vessel could split up into an orbiter and a lander, making the whole calculation more complicated than what the trip planner can account for. For complex missions, you would need an entirely revisioned mission planner, where the maneuvers can be linked to different vessel parts and combinations. You would then also have to select which engines to use for each maneuver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2024 at 9:55 AM, MirageNL said:

Deleting some steps could also help a lot. You don't need the 950 dV for returning to Kerbin's SOI, nor the 3400 dV to land when you can simply aerobrake.

Adding different destinations would only help if the vessel stays in one piece. Usually though, a vessel would split up in that case. Even when only having one destination, a vessel could split up into an orbiter and a lander, making the whole calculation more complicated than what the trip planner can account for. For complex missions, you would need an entirely revisioned mission planner, where the maneuvers can be linked to different vessel parts and combinations. You would then also have to select which engines to use for each maneuver.

To put it simply: it's complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think it can be done, but it would require a much more elaborate interface than the current trip planner. Maybe it could look something like below? It could start off with a launch location, followed by the stages that were added in the VAB. (Or when already in flight: the current location, followed by remaining stages.) Additional destinations could be added in manually, with the the required steps added automatically. Options like aerocaptures could be added where relevant.  Stages and location nodes could be dragged around to set up the desired flight plan, also allowing for vessels to be separated and recombined. The planner then calculates the remaining mass and deltaV at each step. (Don't quote me on specific values; it's a concept.)

u67c8Br.png

Adding in existing vessels would also be very useful. Gravity assists/captures, plane changes or custom orbits could be additional options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

+1

 

These are well thought out & would be incredibly beneficial to us ALL. I can only hope and pray that someone is taking these kinds of things to the powers that be.

Agree with the sum of suggested content.

I especially like the method proposed by trip planner & can see how that will maintain relevance with OAB & later colonies.

 

Perhaps you want to calculate the best place to put thag refueling depot and doing (from) here to (there) seems like a great way to handle it

 

I miss using the color mod. This would truly be a magnificent addition.

 

I was wondering how difficult it would be to have the mouse snap to a specific maneuver control node when the mouse gets within proximity.

These things are so hard to select at time I was trying to think of ways to make it easier to use them.

If I get withing a 3 pixel distance of prograde the mouse snaps to it? No clue of this would just irritate people or not. The dang thing infuriates me ...

 

And the camera is way too sensitive at times in map view

Edited by Fizzlebop Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...