Map view, satellite mapping and how it should work.

[Capt Snuggler]

Mapping satellites and telescopes need to be a part of the stock game. this is how i think they should work.

*I know there are mapping mods. i use them. i am suggesting it could be better if incorporated in to the map view.

At the beginning of the game, the planet/moon surfaces should not be clearly detailed. The planets should be visible, as telescopes would have spotted and tracked them long before the idea for launching rockets, But at first planets should look very blurry, maybe even pixelated? kind of like this:

at this point, nothing is stopping you from just blindly landing a kerbal anywhere, it just means you wont have clear data about your landing site until you get there or map the surface.

this is loosely what im talking about:

as the craft orbits the planet, the surface features become sharper. details on the surface below the craft can be seen more clearly. perhaps even the max zoom level could also be increased after close orbital mapping?

it could be like a blur filter layer that is slowly removed as you fly over. similar to the way the cloud layers work in the cloud mods.

maybe advanced imaging equipment could unlock different color layers like this:

space telescopes could also be used to partially improve surface resolution in the early game, without leaving kerbins SOI. But for hi-res surface data you will need to send a craft with mapping/imaging equipment fitted like voyager.

All this data should be accessed and viewed via the map view/tracking station (rather than pop up windows, like in current mapping mods). landing sites could be tagged, biomes could be identified, surface photos could be viewed.

all this would give you more to do in game, more scope for mission planning AND potentially more meaningful career mode missions/contracts.

what do you think?

*edit*

image showing early low res image data of Duna versus later high res data. courtesy of CaptRobau.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[Kasuha]

I think it would be nice to have. If nothing else, it could work this way for biomes as we may pretend Kerbals already have sufficient technology to prepare visual maps of planet surfaces from distance thanks to their clear atmosphere.

[Capt Snuggler]

Thanks Kasuha, yeah identifying and mapping biomes is exactly the sort of thing i mean. but also i just think the map view at the moment is too much like a "GOD EYE" you can see everything from day one! without even leaving kerbin atmosphere! it seems too overpowered.

you should have to work to obtain that kind of image clarity. then once you have hi-def surface data, then you can use late game mapping tools to uncover biomes and anomalies.

[Majorjim!]

Thanks Kasuha, yeah identifying and mapping biomes is exactly the sort of thing i mean. but also i just think the map view at the moment is too much like a "GOD EYE" you can see everything from day one! without even leaving kerbin atmosphere! it seems too overpowered.

you should have to work to obtain that kind of image clarity. then once you have hi-def surface data, then you can use late game mapping tools to uncover biomes and anomalies.

I agree Snuggler, the map view gives it all away too soon.

I would love to have an observatory in the game. Imagine how cool it would be to spot an undiscovered body, map its course and study it.

You could unlock different equipment to log new data about the body for the first probes.

[Bobe]

I would also love to have mapping functionality implemented in this way.

In the orbit view there would be a small UI switch to cycle between the map overlays: raw (optical data), topographical and biomes, maybe even infrared/thermal.

[Capt Snuggler]

YAY! I'm glad some people agree. I was beginning to think I was the only one.

I think having a "biome overlay" might be a bit too easy. maybe they should be indicated by the combination of other overlays? thermal + visual + density + geographical or some thing like that.

obvious biomes could be identified just by visual. eg: highlands vs plains ect.

but later in the game, with more advanced instruments, smaller unique biomes could be identified. eg: thermal data identifies several hot spots or Radio spectrometer identifies dense elements. blah blah. more detail!

thanks again for your thoughts Bobe!

Edited January 27, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[allmappedout]

I like all of this, it's currently a bit of a punt in the dark for finding each Biome, and it'd be nice to be able to do a bit of pre-mission planning.

[Capt Snuggler]

I agree Snuggler, the map view gives it all away too soon.

I would love to have an observatory in the game. Imagine how cool it would be to spot an undiscovered body, map its course and study it.

You could unlock different equipment to log new data about the body for the first probes.

Thanks Jim I'm glad you agree!

I'm not sure about unknown planets/bodies though. as all players are in the same solar system (random systems ruled out by Squad) you would never really be discovering anything but rather unlocking which doesn't fall right. also the planets orbits would have been observed for hundreds of not thousands of years before building rockets, so we know where they are.

I think a blurry/low-res surface is a fair compromise. you can still, plan a maneuver, go there, get an encounter, land, all from day one (disregarding part constraints) the only thing is you don't fully know is where or if you'll be landing and what you will find.

I believe this would give reason for space telescopes, mapping sats, advanced mapping sats, radio spectrometers etc etc, all to gather image data and plan missions.

[Dodgey]

Brilliant, I myself have wondered how to tackle the issue of "God Eye" and this is an amazing solution, not the mention the extra parts that would come along with it, telescopes and the such. Well done, well done indeed

[Bobe]

I think having a "biome overlay" might be a bit too easy. maybe they should be indicated by the combination of other overlays? thermal + visual + density + geographical or some thing like that.

I actually really like that idea. It would be so much more interesting to gather specific data (you wouldn't just put a biome scanner on the probe) and then analyse different combinations of data to reveal anomalies.

[Capt Snuggler]

Brilliant, I myself have wondered how to tackle the issue of "God Eye" and this is an amazing solution, not the mention the extra parts that would come along with it, telescopes and the such. Well done, well done indeed

I actually really like that idea. It would be so much more interesting to gather specific data (you wouldn't just put a biome scanner on the probe) and then analyse different combinations of data to reveal anomalies.

Thanks very much guys! I'm glad you agree.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[Majorjim!]

Thanks Jim I'm glad you agree!

I'm not sure about unknown planets/bodies though. as all players are in the same solar system (random systems ruled out by Squad) you would never really be discovering anything but rather unlocking which doesn't fall right. also the planets orbits would have been observed for hundreds of not thousands of years before building rockets, so we know where they are.

I think a blurry/low-res surface is a fair compromise. you can still, plan a maneuver, go there, get an encounter, land, all from day one (disregarding part constraints) the only thing is you don't fully know is where or if you'll be landing and what you will find.

I believe this would give reason for space telescopes, mapping sats, advanced mapping sats, radio spectrometers etc etc, all to gather image data and plan missions.

I'm not sure about unknown planets/bodies though. as all players are in the same solar system (random systems ruled out by Squad) you would never really be discovering anything but rather unlocking which doesn't fall right.

I don't suggest random systems just a few more distant outer planets that are not immediately visible would be cool.

also the planets orbits would have been observed for hundreds of not thousands of years before building rockets, so we know where they are.

Observed by the naked eye, and also by telescope.

You could use the system you suggested in conjunction with something like I suggested.

MJ

[Keymaster89]

This is a great idea, i will really like something like this!

All telescopes will need to be in orbit of the target planetoid within a telescope defined range, then selecting the telescope and clicking on "start scan" the ship will auto orient itself with the SAS on, pointing the optics always at the centre of the target planet and start getting data from the surface while it orbits around. If the telescope can't autorientate automatically for any reason (like if u don't have SAS on or the ship took too long to reorientate or the optics are obstructed), it will immidiatly abort scan and refuse to operate.

Different telescopes can have different use and statistic, so u must have different ships or one that can carry more than one at a time! for example:

-Optical telescope, detailed surface scan: radial mounted, light, small, cheap, low range-wide angle, dish like telescope

-Hi definition Optical telescope, detailed surface scan + elevation map: inline mounted, moderally heavy, high range-small angle telescope, FL-T400 size like

-Corrective Optical telescope (atmosphere dedicated where other optical fail) detailed surface scan + elevation map: inline mounted, really heavy, medium range-medium angle telescope, X200-8 (or larger!?) size like

-Termal telescope, biomes scan telescope: inline mounted, heavy, medium range-normal angle telescope, FL-T800 size like

-Radio telescope, radiation-magnetic map (late game science tool?): inline mounted, SUPER heavy, expensive, high range-tiny angled telescope, Jumbo 64 size like, can scan Kerbol from Kerbin! ^^

-Spectrograph telescope, exact planets parameters + spot surface anomalys (not actually ingame, but who knows, maybe something related to resource detection?): inline mounted, medium range-wide angle telescope, X200-8 size like

Obviously, the orbit height and inclination, the size of the planet and the angle of the telescope used, greatly influence the time needen to perform a complete scan of the planet.

Also high teck telescopes may also require a medium to high elettricity in order to operate, and stop scan if the batterys level goes under 20%.

And also high powered antennas and/or dedicated datastore may be needed in order to transmit/transport scan to Kerbin, especially for outer planets.

This will make scans not simply launch and forget, but also something to check regularly in orther to secure it's correct function.

All this will fit perfectly with the new Observatory building that the DEV placed in the todo list!

In this facility u will probably be able to analyze all the maps (or portion of the maps) u discovered of the planets, all the info of the many biomes u discovered and also planet specific information like low and high orbit gravity values, planet's equatorial diameter, ecc.

Squad pleeeeeeeeeeeese

Edited January 27, 2014 by Keymaster89

[Capt Snuggler]

I don't suggest random systems just a few more distant outer planets that are not immediately visible would be cool.

Observed by the naked eye, and also by telescope.

You could use the system you suggested in conjunction with something like I suggested.

MJ

Ah, I see... or rather, I don't see, as I do not have a space telescope yet!

this is a good way for squad to introduce new OUTER planets + commits.

also as a side note, space telescopes could have two modes you could set them to focus on a single body OR scan for search new bodies (some how). also taking a picture should consume VAST amounts of power, so lots of batteries are required for a single exposure.

[Wahgineer]

This is a cool idea, and I like the other suggestions, too.

Besides planets, though, this could be applied to interstellar travel and research. How?

Lets say in a far flung future iteration of KSP, you've just unlocked a warp drive to travel to other star systems. The ship is ready, the experiments are ready, and you are ready. Well, almost ready. Before you depart on the journey of the century, you have to know whether any of the nearby stars have planets or not. So, after launching a large telescope, you send it out past the orbit of GP3. After taking a short look around, you have 5 candidate systems with planets. You point your ship to the nearest one, select Maximum warp, and leave Kerbol orbit for the star known locally as 'Sol'.

With a situation like that, who wouldn't want interstellar travel and, (in the case of the thread) more importantly, telescopes?

[Capt Snuggler]

some more types of sat mapping:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25911846

[Capt Snuggler]

This is a cool idea, and I like the other suggestions, too.

Besides planets, though, this could be applied to interstellar travel and research. How?

*snip*

Sure yeah, though interstellar travel is not likely to be in final release. BUT discovering another star system(s) would be a good "end game" objective, and make a great setup for a future KSP expansion!

[Dwight_js]

-Optical telescope, detailed surface scan: radial mounted, light, small, cheap, low range-wide angle, dish like telescope

-Hi definition Optical telescope, detailed surface scan + elevation map: inline mounted, moderally heavy, high range-small angle telescope, FL-T400 size like

-Corrective Optical telescope (atmosphere dedicated where other optical fail) detailed surface scan + elevation map: inline mounted, really heavy, medium range-medium angle telescope, X200-8 (or larger!?) size like

-Termal telescope, biomes scan telescope: inline mounted, heavy, medium range-normal angle telescope, FL-T800 size like

-Radio telescope, radiation-magnetic map (late game science tool?): inline mounted, SUPER heavy, expensive, high range-tiny angled telescope, Jumbo 64 size like, can scan Kerbol from Kerbin! ^^

-Spectrograph telescope, exact planets parameters + spot surface anomalys (not actually ingame, but who knows, maybe something related to resource detection?): inline mounted, medium range-wide angle telescope, X200-8 size like

Squad pleeeeeeeeeeeese

I LOVE the idea. A few suggestions I would make to the list of instruments:

-If the optical instruments are able to give us elevation maps, (like in real life where stereo pair air-photos are digitized into a 3D terrain model) they should produce a lower quality result with a bit of error built in. High fidelity maps could be created with lidar-equivalent instruments that don't require manual digitizing to create the 3D model.

-The spectrograph would be able to give some information on some types of biomes (those that are defined by a difference in surface composition). So perhaps different types of biomes could be discovered by different types of instruments.

Would also be nice to be able to perform some types of analysis on the data - for example, with elevation data you can do slope analysis, least-cost path to find the easiest route between points for a rover. I know these are a long-shot, so I'll probably have to keep doing this with my external GIS software.

[Guest]

At the beginning of the game, the planet/moon surfaces should not be clearly detailed. The planets should be visible, as telescopes would have spotted and tracked them long before the idea for launching rockets, But at first planets should look very blurry, maybe even pixelated?

I like it.

at this point, nothing is stopping you from just blindly landing a kerbal anywhere, it just means you wont have clear data about your landing site until you get there or map the surface.

If I choose to blindly go I should be able to pinpoint a landing spot "by eyeball" in orbit. Maybe it could be like it is now when something is in SOI with mapping and such giving you additional information.

as the craft orbits the planet, the surface features become sharper. details on the surface below the craft can be seen more clearly. perhaps even the max zoom level could also be increased after close orbital mapping?

it could be like a blur filter layer that is slowly removed as you fly over. similar to the way the cloud layers work in the cloud mods.

If I am in SOI I should be able to see what I need to see in order to land, maybe it could be based on disfance from the surface for "eyeball" features?

space telescopes could also be used to partially improve surface resolution in the early game, without leaving kerbins SOI. But for hi-res surface data you will need to send a craft with mapping/imaging equipment fitted like voyager.

All this data should be accessed and viewed via the map view/tracking station (rather than pop up windows, like in current mapping mods). landing sites could be tagged, biomes could be identified, surface photos could be viewed.

I like this save for what I've mentioned. Are you suggesting mapping like what we have now in mods? Basically I think the player should be provided with other mechanics (offering a more "hands-on approach such as actually landing and that sort of thing) if they want to avoid mapping. Mapping satellites consitute mind-numbing gameplay IMO; there's a reason I stopped using Kethane. ScanSat apparently allows you to do it when not focused but has interpolation problems (?) which is better than "free resources" at timewarp, I suppose.

Anyway, I like the idea in part but I don't think it should penalize other styles of gameplay.

E: I misread a bit of your proposal. I like the idea as a whole but I would also love to see alternatives to mapping satellites and what I would call "waiting" mechanics (maybe "passive gameplay" is a better term?). When you land on a planet or moon you should get a significant bonus to the scanned area; getting close to the planet should give significant information with a few appropriate parts. Driving a rover around or flying low-level should work the same for mapping, maybe even for a greater range than a mapsat pass for the simple reason that it would take longer.

Edited January 27, 2014 by regex

[Dwight_js]

If I choose to blindly go I should be able to pinpoint a landing spot "by eyeball" in orbit. Maybe it could be like it is now when something is in SOI with mapping and such giving you additional information.

You would be able to see full detail around you in the "real world" view, but just because your Kerbal looked out the window doesn't mean that the overflown areas are mapped with any degree of accuracy. And it certainly shouldn't magically reveal detail of the whole planet. I think the current map surface contains too much detail for an "eyeball" observation from orbit for those who want the mapping process to be meaningful.

Basically I think the player should be provided with other mechanics (offering a more "hands-on approach such as actually landing and that sort of thing) if they want to avoid mapping.

Mapping from the surface would require surveying - unless you're going to use some magic solution where "poof" it's done. Trying to get information on a whole planet from surface surveys would take a looooong time. I hope you really, really like driving your rovers. That's why real-life large scale mapping is done from space.

Mapping satellites consitute mind-numbing gameplay IMO; there's a reason I stopped using Kethane. ScanSat apparently allows you to do it when not focused

Satellites require launching, deployment, correct positioning - sounds like fun to me, especially in a game about launching rockets. And if they can collect data while unfocused, then I can get on with doing other things in the meantime.

Anyway, I like the idea in part but I don't think it should penalize other styles of gameplay.

Well, it's a constraint, so it's kind of designed to "penalize" everybody by creating a challenge that you have to overcome (what I like to refer to as "the whole point of career mode"). But it should probably at least be made scalable to make mapping trivial for those who don't like it.

[Guest]

You would be able to see full detail around you in the "real world" view, but just because your Kerbal looked out the window doesn't mean that the overflown areas are mapped with any degree of accuracy. And it certainly shouldn't magically reveal detail of the whole planet. I think the current map surface contains too much detail for an "eyeball" observation from orbit for those who want the mapping process to be meaningful.

Well the point is that you actually went somewhere and did something. Why should I be penalized during landing because I don't have a mapping satellite in orbit and it hasn't done the required number of passes? Mapping could be useful for providing specialized information, but you should be able to see the level of information we have in the game now from orbit or flyby. It doesn't have to "save" or "map" that information for later; if my Kerbals leave orbit and I didn't have any mapping gear, or whatever, then that sight information shouldn't be available until I get back there.

Mapping from the surface would require surveying - unless you're going to use some magic solution where "poof" it's done.

For the immediate area I absolutely think the information should be saved. Landing a craft is a much more difficult (and active!) feat than putting a satellite into orbit and watching it spin around the planet. You should absolutely get something for that, even without additional gear.

Satellites require launching, deployment, correct positioning - sounds like fun to me, especially in a game about launching rockets. And if they can collect data while unfocused, then I can get on with doing other things in the meantime.

I personally don't like that sort of "passive gameplay", it seems too much like "getting something for nothing". I think the game should reward and encourage bold acts of exploration that put Kerbals into interesting situations. Players should never be penalized for or be at a disadvantage when doing interesting things like landing on a new planet.

[Capt Snuggler]

I don't like it. If I choose to blindly go I should be able to pinpoint a landing spot "by eyeball" in orbit. Maybe it could be like it is now when something is in SOI with mapping and such giving you additional information.

yes I agree. I just think the surface detail should be a little fuzzy. It would appear mostly flat and only as your altitude decreases, do you see the subtle topographic features for what they are. (*subtle in a planetary context) eg: sharp ravine. steep ridge, deep crater.

My objection is the same as above; if I am in SOI I should be able to see what I need to see in order to land. This should be restricted to special information, IMO. Alternatively it could be based on distance from the surface for "eyeball" features.

Yup exactly, see above. I agree kerbals can just look out the window. surface data/detail should increase the closer a planet is observed. optical telescopes and optical mapping equipment are just a quicker more organized way of collecting surface data. advance telescopes/mapping tools offer extra data to help identify biomes. The biomes are/were always there and can still be discovered by chance.

I like this save for what I've mentioned. Are you suggesting mapping like what we have now in mods? Basically I think the player should be provided with other mechanics (offering a more "hands-on approach such as actually landing and that sort of thing) if they want to avoid mapping. Mapping satellites consitute mind-numbing gameplay IMO; there's a reason I stopped using Kethane. ScanSat apparently allows you to do it when not focused but has interpolation problems (?) which is better than "free resources" at timewarp, I suppose.

yes, all mapping data would be contained in the map view. as above, looking out the window still counts as mapping, though perhaps not as accurate at long range. (maybe a show this with a flashing camera from a CM window )

In regards to ScanSat. As I understand it, it generates topographic data rather than reveals it (with ray-tracing?). while I appreciate this is very clever and technically cool, it is resource hungry and not friendly to lower end PCs. I propose to "fake it" by just revealing texture/geometry in the game it self. ether covered with a blur layer or by actually increasing texture/mesh resolution.

Anyway, I like the idea in part but I don't think it should penalize other styles of gameplay.

absolutely not. Its not my desire to penalize anyone's style of game play. sorry if I seem to have written it that way. I also support the ability to turn the "blurry surfaces" feature off entirely. i understand it might not be for everyone, I just hope others would like the extra functionality and depth this could offer.

thanks for your response!

*edit: lol wow i took way too long to reply

Edited January 27, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[Guest]

absolutely not. Its not my desire to penalize anyone's style of game play. sorry if I seem to have written it that way.

I didn't read close enough the first time, you can see in my edit. Your original proposal actually accommodated all my concerns. I like it.

I also support the ability to turn the "blurry surfaces" feature off entirely. i understand it might not be for everyone, I just hope others would like the extra functionality and depth this could offer.

For career mode I don't think it should be an option to turn it off (E: ) because it's interesting gameplay. The devs don't seem to be too friendly to the idea of "difficulty sliders" or options and such either, so I would just suggest that this be put into the game as a whole. My only reservations were regarding players who prefer to say "**** it" and launch a mission to Duna or Eeloo without years of planning and pre-missions, and things like that. IMO that sort of gameplay should never be penalized or constrained in KSP because I feel it really embodies the Kerbal way of doing things: get out there and explore! As I said, your original proposal actually answered all my concerns regarding that.

Edited January 28, 2014 by regex

[Capt Snuggler]

It doesn't have to "save" or "map" that information for later; if my Kerbals leave orbit and I didn't have any mapping gear, or whatever, then that sight information shouldn't be available until I get back there.

For the immediate area I absolutely think the information should be saved. Landing a craft is a much more difficult (and active!) feat than putting a satellite into orbit and watching it spin around the planet. You should absolutely get something for that, even without additional gear.

simple hand held cameras are almost always on board a CM IRL. the Apollo guys were taking pictures constantly. I would think this is a very "kerbal way to map" and should add to the surface data to some extent.

I personally don't like that sort of "passive gameplay", it seems too much like "getting something for nothing". I think the game should reward and encourage bold acts of exploration that put Kerbals into interesting situations. Players should never be penalized for or be at a disadvantage when doing interesting things like landing on a new planet.

I think money would be big incentive to be bold. its way cheaper to send one rocket and just "get it done".

that's your way and that's cool with me. the question is "¯\_(ツ)_/¯ How do I KSP?". the game could and should allow and reward both(all) play styles.

thanks again.

*edit: thanks for all the responses guys. really appreciate everyone's ideas, concerns and interest. cheers!

Edited January 28, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[Capt Snuggler]

Just want to give this a gentle *bump*, anyone have anything more to add?