Purpose for long-term things

[allmhuran]

We actually do have base stations at various points on the earth (and of course satellites in space) to maintain communications with various objects, so the "realism" objection doesn't really work (as usual). But I can't fault your simply "not liking it". My opinion is that the game needs to give us more to do, more challenges to players as they push out. I personally don't see much fun in launching yet-another-probe-to-wherever unless something is scaling up the difficulty as you progress in order to make the gameplay evolve beyond the simple "get rocket into orbit with enough delta-v" challenge that people experience from day dot.

[Guest]

We actually do have base stations at various points on the earth (and of course satellites in space) to maintain communications with various objects, so the "realism" objection doesn't really work (as usual).

Yes and most of those, if not all that were required for an early program like Voyager, were Earth based. KSP already fills that requirement. We don't use relay satellites IRL, we program a craft to do something and let it run, and then have it transmit the results later. KSP already meets one of these requirements by allowing you to control the craft outside of LOS. Yes, it would be more realistic to have to program the craft, but that's the last thing I want to do after a long day of programming to feed my kid. I could see a case for transmission of science (for instance) being blocked by LOS, but that shouldn't require junk craft (or if it does, maybe something like the Venera bus).

I personally don't see much fun in launching yet-another-probe-to-wherever unless something is scaling up the difficulty as you progress in order to make the gameplay evolve beyond the simple "get rocket into orbit with enough delta-v" challenge that people experience from day dot.

I don't see much challenge or difficulty in launching satellite constellations to maintain LOS. Tedium maybe, but not challenge, especially if it's the third time I've done it.

[Kegereneku]

Voyager is very different from a rover or a lander probes. It does have a big antenna and doesn't require a continuous control-feedback like rover.

to quote NASA :

Most often, Curiosity will likely send radio waves through its ultra-high frequency (UHF) antenna (about 400 Megahertz) to communicate with Earth through NASA's Mars Odyssey and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiters. Because the rover's and orbiters' antennas are close-range, they act a little like walky-talkies compared to the long range of the low-gain and high-gain antennas. Using orbiters to relay messages is beneficial because they are closer to the rover than the Deep Space Network (DSN) antennas on Earth and they have Earth in their field of view for much longer time periods than the rover does on the ground. That allows them to send more data back to Earth at faster rates. Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter will likely relay most of the data between the rover and Earth.

It is said that although Curiosity can transmit directly to Earth but will more likely go through one or the other Orbiters (sats) present because those are more efficient (and have longer line of sat)

I don't think we should have line-of-sight like allmhuran (I'm against that part) but it would be interesting gameplay-speaking to have sat in orbit with short-range antenna and long-range antenna for orbital interplanetary communication.

This way at worst you only need one relay.

- if you put a medium/long-range antenna on your rover, no relay

- or put a long-range satellite and short-range for the rover.

- or use medium-range antenna on the rover to communicate with a long-range satellite in a multi-moon system (like Jool)

It would also make important to NOT break the extended antenna while landing or during reentry.

[allmhuran]

I could see a case for transmission of science (for instance)

Oh hells yes, that's all I'm referring to. I wouldn't put in the more advanced remote-tech requirement of having LOS for all unmanned craft control. Just for transmissions of, well, "science" at the moment since that's all there is to transmit for now.

I don't see much challenge or difficulty in launching satellite constellations to maintain LOS. Tedium maybe, but not challenge, especially if it's the third time I've done it.

I don't think it'd be something you'd do repeatedly. You'd set up what you need for your first few missions around Kerbin, then expand your network when you want to start pushing out further, and maybe expand a little more when you start heading for Jool or Eeloo (if there is a transmission distance-limit).

I agree that the "geometry puzzle" isn't difficult per-se (you could just launch two dozen of the buggers and you'd never have an issue with LOS). The puzzle comes from figuring out how to optimize the geometry so that the fewest launches have the most coverage. In other words, there'd be a new skill - or if you prefer a new bit of knowledge - to learn.

[xvdBanksbvx]

Squad has mentioned that a few times in the past. Kebal's piloting performance would depend on their character and experience. The big problem to realize that is to change ksp so that that multiple craft all over the solar system can be off-rails simultaneously. I'm not sure that would be playable without a major improvements in ksp's performance.

I have heard them mention ideas about that, like so many other cool ideas. But to me having that sort of ai, able to perform basic tasks and get into troubling situations that would require your intervention to save them. That is the most important thing they could add to the game after the current update, it would add to the game much than multiplayer ever would.

Although i have no idea how feasible adding something like that to the game is, i would like to see them have at fair crack at trying it, even if they only got some basic eva ai for the kerbals working.

[Guest]

It is said that although Curiosity can transmit directly to Earth but will more likely go through one or the other Orbiters (sats) present because those are more efficient (and have longer line of sat)

That was the point I was trying to make with the Venera analogy. The Venera bus acted as a relay for the descent module which, IIRC, landed on the opposite side of Venus from Earth on a few occasions (ofc there was also that thick atmosphere to contend with but other craft with direct LOS communication back to Earth helped us figure out Venus' atmospheric composition).

I don't think it'd be something you'd do repeatedly.

I must be the only person around here who keeps multiple saves and multiple installs, and scratches a save when a mod blows up or a new version comes out, and other such things.

Yes, for relaying science back I can totally get behind antenna ranges, and possibly even LOS, but I don't think full-blown RT2 control networks are really needed (or necessarily realistic) in KSP.

[Kegereneku]

Although the use of transmission-range at all would be better than the actual "transmission speed", I still think the suggestion to make so you need one non-line-of-sight satellite relay to keep control would bring something interesting to the game : the need to produce as much power as the antenna use and the risk of losing control if you lose said antenna.

On the other hand... loosing control suddenly because you didn't knew is not very forgiving so maybe the idea of a line-of-sight SCIENCE TRANSFER could be more fun.

The idea is that you wouldn't need a constellation as you would be transferring science from a relay to another as it become possible, warping a little if necessary. And I guess you would keep control of the probes based on the idea that "it was autonomous".

However, the transfer not being a yes/no questions could be bothersome considering how we have to switch from a ship to another.

I'm still not with allmhuran's suggestion of requiring a constellation rather than proposing it as an optional contract, but we NEED a relay mechanic to justify satellite, be it for control or science. (that or scanning the planet)

[Metriximor]

Well, yea, they do, but what really hits the performance is the magical 2km render, other than that their positions are simply calculated, it will obviously require some thinking like: it was here, add that speed and that ap and pe and at time x it should be there, which is not a lot.

Now, if your pc can't handle a lot of rails warp, then it must be a stone age pc

[Red Iron Crown]

Windows 7 64, i7-4770, gtx-670.

I could keep launching probes until I have enough in rails orbit to see a framerate drop, but I think it would end up being hundreds, maybe even thousands. I've had several dozen things in orbit before without any issue.

I spent some time testing this tonight, and it would appear that you are right and I was wrong. I tested up to 50 craft in orbit at high rates of timewarp and experienced little difference in performance. There was some variation but it wasn't consistent or large in magnitude, I can probably chalk it up to the PC doing things in the background during testing.

I may have misremembered where the performance sapping occurred, it definitely happens within the physics bubble (no surprise there). Or it may be that there have been under-the-hood optimizations at some point; I've been avoiding having a lot of simultaneous craft for a long while now. At any rate, it would seem that I can now Kessler it up a bit and not worry about the game becoming unplayable, even on my older hardware.

[allmhuran]

Perhaps in your previous scenario your other ships had SOI changes? That would significantly change the amount of work required, from a simple, deterministic ellipse to a more complex patched conics algorithm. In fact, now I'm curious... I might try putting 50 different vessels into intercepts with the mun and see what happens.

[Tortoise]

Well now, mods give them purposes. (Except for fueling station, those can be fully stock unless you use kethane to drill and convert fuel. )

But mods:

Kethane

ScanSAT

TAC Life Support

AntennaRange or RT2

Hullcam(observatory?)

Etc