Antenna types and science

[m_robber]

I haven't been able to figure out the functional differences between the antenna. Are there any? Do the two different types of antenna have different science transfers?

Love the new update, by the way! Excellent work, Squad!

[lammatt]

it seems to me, spamming atennas dont improve the transfer loss anyways

and the two atennas have different electricity consumption per signal pulse, but their throughput is different too anyways, so i would say, they are pretty much the same

[NWCtim]

The 'higher end' antennas consume more power per transmission cycle and they cycle faster, allowing for a faster transmission rate. Alternatively, having multiple antennas means you can have multiple data streams transmitting at once. Assuming my understanding of how they work is correct, having two Comm 16s gives you the same transmission rate as a single Comm 88-88, while consuming half the power. Obviously, the parts aren't really balanced at this point.

As far as science loss goes, there is no difference. Fortunately science degrades at a zero-sum rate, even though transmitting the data causes you to only get a fraction of the science results, the value of the next time you run the experiment only degrades by that same fraction of normal. In the end, the only thing you lose by transmitting it is the time and electricity it takes to transmit the results multiple times.

[KerbMav]

They should (must really) not affect the science gained.

No matter how fast or reliable (which means fast, as corrupted data packages get send again, although with Kerbal technology ... ;p ) a transmitter works, there is normally no loss in data.

The reduced gain in science points when not bringing the data (samples really) back to Kerbin simply reflects the inability of KSC scientists to watch the experiments themselves/further study the ground samples etc. - crew reports can be send at 100% e.g., - that rock you picked up on the moon is worth more then just the second hand data you send to your fellows back home, the pictures, measurements, descriptions of smell and taste ... - cooking up the goo in a lab after the mission reveals more than just observing the effects of vacuum on it and writing down some notes about it.

tl/dr: Do not want antennas to influence science gained.

[Crush]

They should (must really) not affect the science gained.

No matter how fast or reliable (which means fast, as corrupted data packages get send again, although with Kerbal technology ... ;p ) a transmitter works, there is normally no loss in data.

When they transfer analog instead of digital signals, a worse signal quality could lead to less meaningful results. The first picture from the far side of the moon wasn't that scientifically useful either because the bad analog transmision added lots of grain to it.

Also, resending corrupted packages might be feasible when in low orbit, but when there are several hours of light-lag, waiting for the confirmation and resending is less trivial.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Crush

[KerbMav]

Hm, well, OK ...

But: Repeating an experiment gives less science - do you also get diminished returns when bringing back a rock from Mun (bring sample back to KSC) for the first time if you sent a picture of it the day before (send report)?

[Crush]

Hm, well, OK ...

But: Repeating an experiment gives less science - do you also get diminished returns when bringing back a rock from Mun (bring sample back to KSC) for the first time if you sent a picture of it the day before (send report)?

I am afraid that this is the case, as unintuitive as it seems. I already considered writing it as a bug report on the suggestions&feedback board.

[KerbMav]

I am afraid that this is the case, as unintuitive as it seems. I already considered writing it as a bug report on the suggestions&feedback board.

This user thinks otherwise.

-follow me-

[Crush]

I will test it tonight (in about 6 hours) and report my findings on the wiki (knowledge is lost too quickly on the forum).

[Gnipu]

Energy transmitted through the 16 is emitted in all directions, while a parabole transmitter like the 88-88 will focus all energy in one direction (IRL, anyway).

Which means that 16 should be much slower -but omnidirectional, while the 88-88 should be way quicker (also way more efficient (10-100 times?)) but unidirectional (i.e. point towards the reciever on Kerbin/relay).

[KerbMav]

I will test it tonight (in about 6 hours) and report my findings on the wiki (knowledge is lost too quickly on the forum).

Can you link me to your entry, please?

[Swoop]

The science % you get when transmitting isn't due to 'data loss', its to do with the data itself. If your astronaut goes EVA and produces a report from it, that report is verbal / written and, therefore, can be transmitted back to the KSC with no data loss. If your astronaut goes and collects a mun rock.....that mun rock can't be transmitted back to KSC cos we haven't invented long range transporters yet. Sure you can write a description of it and take a picture to transmit back.....which is why that data is only worth 20%.

It's not data loss due to transmission quality, it's data loss due to the scientific quality of the data.

[iLlama]

well it's not data loss is that for example a sample retreved and brought back is much more valuable sciencewise than a photo of it (unless there is a lab on board that would be a pretty neat feature) no matter what is the quality of the transmission.

[Dogface]

has anyone noticed a range difference with the different antennas?

[ScholarBeardpig]

The 'higher end' antennas consume more power per transmission cycle and they cycle faster, allowing for a faster transmission rate. Alternatively, having multiple antennas means you can have multiple data streams transmitting at once. Assuming my understanding of how they work is correct, having two Comm 16s gives you the same transmission rate as a single Comm 88-88, while consuming half the power. Obviously, the parts aren't really balanced at this point.

As far as science loss goes, there is no difference. Fortunately science degrades at a zero-sum rate, even though transmitting the data causes you to only get a fraction of the science results, the value of the next time you run the experiment only degrades by that same fraction of normal. In the end, the only thing you lose by transmitting it is the time and electricity it takes to transmit the results multiple times.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand, and this is very interesting to me. Let me see if I understand you.

Let's imagine that I've gotten myself in a situation where my observations are worth 10 science. If I head straight home and land safely, I'd make 10 science off it. But I have an antenna, and enough power, and I can transmit it for 20% value. Once I transfer it, I get 2 science right there. What happened to the other 8 points? Can I observe again, make an observation for the 8, and then go straight home? If I have the juice, can I transmit again and get 1.6? Can I just keep transmitting until I've sent home all 10 points, and then jettison the thing?

[KerbMav]

I dont think you would end up at 10 points that way.

What bothers me more is that it looks like the science gained is lowered every time an experiment is repeated - which in itself is OK, but if you transmit its results often enough, I think a physical sample wont return anything more.

I also wonder if the EVAs should not be transmitted at 100% as well as the crew reports.

[Wheffle]

From what others have posted, spamming transmission until science gain is 0 nets you the same science as spamming recoveries until science gain is 0, and any combination of them.

In other words, trans+trans+recov = trans+recov+trans

and also, trans+trans+trans+trans... ... ... = recov+recov+recov+recov... ... ...

If any of that makes since...

Also, it will take less recoveries to max out the science, but spamming transmissions is faster if you have the tech to do it (especially for very long ranged missions). Transmitting at any point won't net you a loss of science in the end, so no worries there.

My concern is that, once you have solar panels, recovery becomes obsolete. I like some of what is suggested here to change that.

As the current system stands, I think it would be OK for more advanced transmitters to gain more science as a % of a potential recovery. That would mean you'd be spamming transmissions less to gain all the possible science for a certain experiment as opposed to simpler antennae, but in the end it would be the same amount of science. Currently antennae just increase in transmission speed, I think.

[Xellith]

Id love to see a science thing combined with a "remote tech" type system.

[Eric S]

Which means that 16 should be much slower -but omnidirectional, while the 88-88 should be way quicker (also way more efficient (10-100 times?)) but unidirectional (i.e. point towards the reciever on Kerbin/relay).

With my limited background in radio theory, I do think the 88-88 should be more efficient power-wise (the data speed depends more on the frequency than the antenna). However, in game, the 88-88 takes twice the power to transmit the same data, though it does it in half the time. Just to clarify, that's twice the total power, not twice the power per second.

The smaller dish is between the two in both speed and power usage.

[Axon]

What I would have liked to have seen is the lowest end antenna have a limited range, and better antennas have better range with lower energy cost. It would have also been nice if you could bounce signals off other vessels, giving a reason to send probes into orbits around other planets with better antennas. To me, this makes more sense of what the antennas would be used for, rather than just a % science gain. I agree that it would make more sense to cap the science that could be gained by transmit, and require an actual recover to get the full credit. It would also make sense for the deployable labs, which would then give you 100% of the earnable science, making it so the science could be accumulated, but it wouldn't "count" towards your science earned until you had a pathway to transmit the signal all the way back to Kerbin.

Wheffle is right about the actual operation of the antennas, though. The "better" antennas transmit more data per packet at higher packet energy cost and higher total energy cost, but the total data sent back is the same for any given antenna, and spamming radio returns will eventually cause as much science gain as recovering samples. Ultimately, once solar panels are equipped, it doesn't make any sense to recover samples, because you can just spam radio returns until all the science for a particular area is gathered.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Axon

[Tex_NL]

Before this gets locked for necro-posting I'd like to ask you one question: How did you find this? It's been dead for nearly a year!

[micha]

What I would have liked to have seen is the lowest end antenna have a limited range, and better antennas have better range with lower energy cost. It would have also been nice if you could bounce signals off other vessels, giving a reason to send probes into orbits around other planets with better antennas.

Considering the thread is necro'd anyway, for new readers, there's now the AntennaRange mod, a cut-down version of RemoteTech. It basically does what you wrote.

[MarvinKitFox]

resending corrupted packages might be feasible when in low orbit, but when there are several hours of light-lag, waiting for the confirmation and resending is less trivial.

Space probe, meet Information Theory.

If you really, absolutely must get a transmisison through 100%, you wrap it up in multiple layers of CRC, parity, etc. You allow requests of "retransmit packet 559720", etc..

Much more interesting is what you need to do if you want to get the most benefit out of a limited pathway. Some crc, but don't overdo it as is increases overhead.

Which is all moot in the context of Stock KSP.

here, antennae vary only by:

1) mass

2) appearance

3) rate of transmission.

the energy cost per transmission is constant. Energy use rate is directly proportional to transmission rate.

The science per transmission is the same.

Range is irrelevant.

Line-of-sight is irrelevant.

Message propagation speed is infinite.

Which, quite frankly, is why I use the Remote Tech 2 mod. It makes the whole transmit thing almost realistic.