Electric charge and Antennas

[giacdegiac]

Where are the antennas grabbing the electric charge? I often get the message "Warning! Not enough electric charge!" even when the batteries are full. I tryed to manually move the charge between the batteries and the parts into the craft but it's still giving me that message. Is it just a bug ?

Thanks in advance for any answer.

Edited December 2, 2013 by giacdegiac

[Monkeh]

Transmitting drains them VERY quickly. Keep an eye on your resources box top right as you transmit. Add solar panels and those little nuclear reactors and it will get sent in the end. Just takes time.

[allmhuran]

I figured out the reason why this happens today.

The "not enough electirc charge" message is appearing because at least one electricity-containing part on your ship has run out of charge. Yes, even if you have ten thousand units left in other batteries around the ship.

For example, let's say you build a ship with one of the medium sized disc batteries. These hold 1000 units of charge each. And let's say you also have a probe core on your ship. This has 10 charge. So your total charge is 1010.

When you attempt to transmit, the transmission will attempt to draw power equally (not proportionally!) from all of your batteries at once. So you open up your coommunotron 88-88, which requires 10 units of charge per pulse, and you begin to send your pulses.

After your first pulse, your disc will have 995 units of charge, and your probe will have 5.

After the second pulse, your disc will have 990 units of charge, and your probe will have 0.

All subsequent pulses will now display the message "not enough electric charge!". This is fantastically annoying.

The solution? Disable current flow on your command pods and probes, since these are usually the culprits. (Right click, then click the little icon next to the bar representing charge available in the part).

Edited November 28, 2013 by allmhuran

[giacdegiac]

The solution? Disable current flow on your command pods and probes, since these are usually the culprits. (Right click, then click the little icon next to the bar representing charge available in the part).

I used to manually "trade" the charge from the batteries to the command pod to prevent it from going out of charge but the message was still there, slowing me down.

Going to try this one, thanks.

[annallia]

Hmmm if it was just one part running out of charge wouldn't I almost always see the message? And yet I don't.

My theory was that it calculates how much charge will be needed total to transmit, if you don't have enough it will give the message even if by the time the report reaches the point where it would have run out it keeps spamming the message even though you had been constantly generating a charge by your engines or panels or whatever means you are using.

[kurja]

The solution? Disable current flow on your command pods and probes, since these are usually the culprits. (Right click, then click the little icon next to the bar representing charge available in the part).

Good solution, thanks. I've been exploiting time warp to get around this - in non-physics warp, transmission speed stays normal but batteries charge at the warp-factored speed, so your panels will charge the batteries quick enough to avoid those out of power errors. That's still useful however, when you have say 200 units of power but want to transmit something that takes 300.

[kurja]

Hmmm if it was just one part running out of charge wouldn't I almost always see the message? And yet I don't.

My theory was that it calculates how much charge will be needed total to transmit, if you don't have enough it will give the message even if by the time the report reaches the point where it would have run out it keeps spamming the message even though you had been constantly generating a charge by your engines or panels or whatever means you are using.

Nope, these errors come along even when there are thousands of units of electricity available.

[Smidge204]

Here's another tip: As of 0.22, the small red and white antenna (Communotron 16) is slower but uses less electric charge per unit of science delivered than all the other options. Since range and time are functionally unlimited at the moment, you're better off using the Communotron 16 and reducing the parts/weight of extra power generating equipment.

I fully expect future updates to ruin this strategy, most likely by limiting range or reducing how much science you get from the transmission. For now, though, it's not really cheating if that's the way the game is made!

=Smidge=

[Yasmy]

The solution? Disable current flow on your command pods and probes, since these are usually the culprits.

What a great idea. I'm going to use this all the time to prevent dead rockets due to forgetting to extend solar panels!

[Murph]

I'm about 90% certain that this is purely a cosmetic issue and isn't actually slowing anything down, just throwing spurious warnings out when one of many batteries hits zero. I've not timed it, but it looks to me very much like the transmissions continue without issue, despite the spurious warnings. It is a bug, but I suggest just ignoring it (unless you're Squad, in which case, please fix it…).

It may well be a general bug with the resources system, as you sometimes see and hear a flameout when one of many fuel tanks hits zero, if you happen to be paying attention at the time. It's so brief that it doesn't cause any asymmetric thrust issues, and likely isn't noticed by most people.

[pizzaoverhead]

It is a bug, but I suggest just ignoring it (unless you're Squad, in which case, please fix it…).

It may well be a general bug with the resources system, as you sometimes see and hear a flameout when one of many fuel tanks hits zero, if you happen to be paying attention at the time. It's so brief that it doesn't cause any asymmetric thrust issues, and likely isn't noticed by most people.

It sounds like it's been fixed in 0.23 too:

On other news, I’ve also reworked the logic behind the flow of resources like monopropellant and electricity, to allow containers to properly drain and top off completely, since the current version’s implementation makes it impossible to drain those last dregs of charge on a battery, or pull that last whiff of intake air into your turbines.

[SSSPutnik]

IMHO antennas should use a LOT less charge.

Sputnik transmitted for ages with ancient tech. Power sucking radios don't really add to gameplay.

[Smidge204]

Sputnik is a poor analogy since it all it ever really did was beep. Granted, the length of the beeps indicated various information, but there was no real transmission protocol to speak of. It was very short range, too - under 1000km.

And the ~100lbs of batteries didn't last a month. Not really "ages."

A better analogy would be something like the Voyager probes. They used 3.5 meter, 23-watt high gain antennas to transmit actual data at a staggering 160 bits per second. That's ~7 bits per joule. It's not clear what units KSP uses but I don't think their current power draw is unreasonable given their current speed, infinite range and ability to transmit through moons and planets.

=Smidge=

[pizzaoverhead]

Sputnik is a poor analogy since it all it ever really did was beep. Granted, the length of the beeps indicated various information, but there was no real transmission protocol to speak of.

That is a transmission protocol. The facts remain that Sputnik made around six million successful communications of both temperature and pressure over the course of three weeks using only 0.005 tons of batteries (coincidentally, the same mass as the small Z-100 battery). In KSP, a single transmission of temperature on an equivalent Stayputnik with an omnidirectional antenna will black out a craft. This is so jarring as to be immersion-breaking. It is a gamey exaggeration with the purpose of attempting to use electric charge as the sole difficulty curve in the early tech tree. There are much better ways of achieving this. It is not a result of the current placeholder infinite range, attenuationless transmission model.

[Smidge204]

That is a transmission protocol.

Only in the loosest sense of the word. It didn't so much transmit information but rather information could be inferred based on the nature of the transmission itself. The difference between inferring and receiving data makes all the difference.

The facts remain that Sputnik made around six million successful communications of both temperature and pressure over the course of three weeks using only 0.005 tons of batteries (coincidentally, the same mass as the small Z-100 battery). In KSP, a single transmission of temperature on an equivalent Stayputnik with an omnidirectional antenna will black out a craft.

You have to assume a lot of things about the implied nature of KSP's transmission mechanics in order to make any kind of valid comparison. Sputnik broadcast weak beeps, not even patterned. For all we know (and I'm sure there's no official explanation, it's "just the way it is") you could be broadcasting full bidirectional TCP over DTMF and 99% of the energy expended could just be for handshaking and packet overhead! You're basically getting upset over something in your own imagination. Your complaint about power used to transmit is valid overall, sure, but the comparison to Sputnik is ridiculous and that's what I'm objecting to.

You want to know what the real reason probably is? To make spamming more difficult and maintain some semblance of balance. You may as well be complaining about how KSP's fuel is too dense or the engines are too over/under powered to be realistic.

=Smidge=

[pizzaoverhead]

information could be inferred based on the nature of the transmission itself.

This is the definition of communication. That's what we're trying to achieve with the system after all, is it not? Whether it is frequency modulated electromagnetic radiation or timed explosions, if a ground station can reconstruct the meaning being conveyed by the source, then it is a successful transmission system.

Your complaint about power used to transmit is valid overall, sure, but the comparison to Sputnik is ridiculous and that's what I'm objecting to.

Sputnik is a useful example because it is rare to find spacecraft solely powered by batteries to get good numbers from without taking the extra variables of solar and nuclear power into account. Given its historical significance, it is also pertinent when discussing the base-level tech tree parts. I agree with you that it is at the extreme end of the tech scale, even for its era, but starting a KSP career puts us in a similar situation. I'd like to see a depth of progression that leaves us looking at how far we've come since our first "beeping radio in a ball".

You want to know what the real reason probably is? To make spamming more difficult and maintain some semblance of balance. You may as well be complaining about how KSP's fuel is too dense or the engines are too over/under powered to be realistic.

I agree that this is the reason, as I said in the previous comment. I disagree that it is a suitable method of balancing, or the current setup is correctly balanced, though I believe the current system is very much a placeholder. The problem with the current setup is that, compared with electric charge and transmission, fuel and engines are balanced to a believable level with respect to the Kerbal universe's scale. For example, one of the most famously overpowered-for-gameplay-reasons parts is the PB-ION, with an Isp of 4200 s (~42,000 s real scale equivalent). The NEXT ion thruster on which it seems to be based has an Isp of 4190 s, a factor of ten less. For our transmission model, taking the simplest possible antenna and the simplest possible data source (temperature readings are small groups of digits) at the shortest orbital range, we get 2.5 transmissions from a Z100 battery. That is 2,400,000 less efficient than its real-life counterpart. That is well beyond credible and far into difficulty for difficulty's sake. If we include the barometer readings also, that brings us to 6,000,000. Throw in the rescale factor and you're at sixty million. People are currently unhappy about Kerbin being too dense to exist. If fuel was 60,000,000 times as dense as in reality, you can bet that people would be complaining too. As far as an actual balance mechanic goes, it is a poor one. For early missions, it encourages running a rocket engine to transmit data. This is just poor gameplay.

Beyond that initial short range, low data, low science-value phase, things should become more complex. It would be perfectly reasonable to have the science lab produce hundreds or even hundreds of thousands more units of data than a thermometer, using whatever kind of inefficient protocol. There is a lot of scope there for balance tweaking, as well as gameplay progression through researchable upgrades.

There is also scope for tweaking the power requirement for a given transmission range, as in your Voyager example. This has the nice effect of having the effort required increase the further you explore, i.e. a difficulty curve. This fits in well with the current layout of the Mun and Minmus as tutorial bodies. Upgradeable ground stations provide even more opportunities for progression through reducing the transmit power required to be heard at range.

Overall, I'm expecting the current system to change quite a bit in future releases. Given that there are three transmission parts, with only one given stats that incentivise use, I'm guessing that the 0.22 implementation was the system they had time to create that maintained some level of gameplay. The directional antennae hint at a range requirement, which would go some way towards giving expected behaviour for both Sputnik- and Voyager-style craft. At this point, given that 0.23 is in the final stages of development, I'm happy to wait and see what work has been done. The above points may already be moot.