Remote sensing and the fog of errrmmm

[LunchIn10Seconds]

Hi,

I couldn't see this is in the already suggested thread, nor find it in the forums, but I might have missed it so sorry if this is a duplicate.

My suggestion is to add a level of ignorance as part of the science system.

At present we can use the map view, focus on a planet or moon and see the surface. In real life (and yes I know ksp is not real life) this wouldn't be possible. If you look through a telescope you can get a good idea of the surface of near worlds but less and less info on those smaller bodies and those further away. Hubble's picture of Pluto shows a disk with fuzzy blobs on it and to get a better view you have to go there as the New Horizons probe is.

So how about changing the map view so that the surface's of distant and smaller worlds are obscured (fuzzy) until you send something there. We had no idea of Venus's surface until we hit it a few times and radar mapped it. You could thus gain science (and a better map view) by sending something to a planet and transmitting details of its surface back.

Expanding on this, the current science value of experiments either requires repeated transmission of the same data, or somehow returning the experiment to Kerbin. The Mariner, Viking, Voyager etc probes, were all sent on one way trips yet produced vast amounts of science.

So how about tweaking the amount of science you can get on some kinds of experiments depending on the experiment type and, 'we don't know' difficulty.

For example.

Looking through a telescope at Lathe shows a small blue dot so the map would show a blue fuzzy moon to start with. Going there and flying past would give some science depending on how close you got and it'd improve the map. You couldn't spam the transmission and get lots of science as well you still don't know much. Going and orbiting would give more science on the surface detail, depending on how low you orbited and how long up to a predefined max. and improve the map further.

Landing would open up a different kind of science, you could sample the temperature, dig holes etc and do limited analysis – giving more science score.

Landing and coming back with stuff would give the full score on surface science as it would be so much more difficult.

So basically we have remote sensing science (flybys and orbits) and going there and falling over stuff science (landing and getting back in one piece). Both give valid science and you cannot get the landing science by spamming a probe in orbit or the orbit science by just landing in one place. Both are valid. Orbiting improves the map, showing good places to land etc, but the landing gives most score and kudos.(I think the latter was hinted at in the recent Reddit Q&A session).

Expanding further you'd probably need the ability to store multiple experiments in a probe. (It cost a lot to get to Lathe and all you brought back was a single rock!???) So the ability to store info on the atmosphere (temp, composition, pressure etc), water (is it water?) sand, rock etc and then bring all this back in one piece would produce massive science rewards (and fame/kudos whatever).

For other worlds you could perhaps get different science depending on where you go and what you find out – meaning that you actually explore rather than landing and then just taking off again. Kerbin already allows this and I guess it'll be added for other worlds in time.

Any thoughts?

[Starwhip]

THAT.... is one of the *best* ideas I've heard so far. Now, the game is still in Alpha stage, so the devs could be planning on adding it. What would be even better is that the map view would not show anything until you "find" the planet by seeing it through a telescope in orbit or on the ground.

[Kasuha]

Given Kerbin's completely quiet and stationary atmosphere with no winds or clouds, Kerbals have clearly unobstructed view at all planets with their state-of-the-art telescopes.

Although I kinda like the MapSat or Kethane scan ideas providing more info about the planet than what's immediately visible. Such info could become available in game only after appropriate scanning. It might be nice to be able to switch the planet to height or slope view in map view after the scan is finished.

[LunchIn10Seconds]

Given Kerbin's completely quiet and stationary atmosphere with no winds or clouds, Kerbals have clearly unobstructed view at all planets with their state-of-the-art telescopes.

Although I kinda like the MapSat or Kethane scan ideas providing more info about the planet than what's immediately visible. Such info could become available in game only after appropriate scanning. It might be nice to be able to switch the planet to height or slope view in map view after the scan is finished.

Hmm, interesting point and KSP is only a game so no-one is suggesting that Squad spend time building a really detailed atmospheric model. Still even in a clear atmosphere no dust, clouds, birds, leaves on the lens or whatever you would still get convection currents as one side of the planet's atmosphere is heated by day and the other half cools by night. So Kerbals will have wind, or rather their planet will. I have no idea of their digestive problems. Anyway different layers of air with different temperatures have different densities and that reaallly mucks up an image.

Another problem is that stuff in space is a damn long way away and unless our green friends have 100% perfect lenses with incredible resolving power they wont be able to see all the features on a distant world for the same reason as we cannot see the Great Wall of China from space and Hubble can't see the surface of Pluto. Most of features will just be too small.