[1.1] RemoteTech v1.6.10 [2016-04-12]

[ItchyBrother]

I have a question regarding omnidirectional antennas. Currently I have a probe on the surface of Moho and am attempting to communicate with it while an orbiting satellite passes overhead. Each have the same type of omnidirectional antenna, and the orbiting satellite has an in-range time that is twice as long as the signal delay. But at no time does the lander get a "connection". My understanding is that it was support to work as shown here:

Taken from here: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=227399379

Did I miss something or am I doomed in a non-connection status? If so, any way to fix?

Thanks!

[Grays]

Itchy, did you double check you're not having the Active Vessel problem?

[ItchyBrother]

Itchy, did you double check you're not having the Active Vessel problem?

Success... was that darn Active Vessel indeed. Comms came up immediately once I turned off Active Vessel. Wished it would just pick up the bloody nearest signal. Thanks much!

[Drew Kerman]

wait you said you were using omnis - how does Active Vessel factor into this at all?

[somnambulist]

Guessing that the Kerbin -> Moho link was set to active vessel. The probe in orbit around Moho would only have a connection when it's active and would not act as a relay when the lander is active.

[lammatt]

do i have to delete modular manager 1.5.6

or i just let the 1.5.6 sit there with the 2.1 thing?

[Drew Kerman]

Guessing that the Kerbin -> Moho link was set to active vessel. The probe in orbit around Moho would only have a connection when it's active and would not act as a relay when the lander is active.

Oh, yea that would indeed need a dish now wouldn't it

do i have to delete modular manager 1.5.6

or i just let the 1.5.6 sit there with the 2.1 thing?

Delete. Always just one MM DLL at a time, newer one is better of course

[Starstrider42]

I tend to have the map screen quite clogged in the vicinity of Kerbin, while doing a career game. So, if I have to reach for any craft by clicking on it on the map screen, that action is far less easy than it should be, due to all the other crafts close by. But, the target selection menu accessible from the map view (to assign an antenna) is absolutely fine. I would imagine however to have another menu available (possibly with Mission Control, as those Github comments suggest) where all available antennae from all communication sats in orbit around a body can be controlled together. Multiple antennae may be assigned to specific groups, and then may be activated and assigned targets with a single group command. Like on a spreadsheet, with rows for available antennae (or groups) and columns for possible targets, and the user may select a specific target for each antenna (or group), all in a single place.

Have to say, the above is not actually an original idea from me. It is how complex comms network assets are managed in real life (the "spreadsheet" is implemented in a real device, in my local reality it is called the "matrix").

Ouch. The user UI for that would be tricky, especially for people like me who have small screens. But it's an interesting twist on the idea. Suggest posting it to the GitHub thread, or I can do it if you don't have an account.

[DerekL1963]

Itchy, did you double check you're not having the Active Vessel problem?

That's not an Active Vessel problem, that's a PEBKAC error. Seriously, while there are quite a few things about RT2 that need fixing, Active Vessel is not one of them. RT2, even if "fixed", is a complex mod that is to a certain degree counterintuitive. If the user(s) can't be bothered to read and grasp the documentation, then they're going to encounter problems... which is also true of a lot of the other "higher end" mods in the game. The solution (IMO) isn't to "dumb down" mods meant to add complexity and realism, but to encourage mod authors and communities to not rely on the forum's broken search function and hundreds of pages of low S/N forum threads for tech "support", to write and post (and maintain) better documentation, and users to read the documentation before asking questions.

[AndreyATGB]

I disagree. There's no reason selecting active vessel shouldn't mean "any path to said vessel" rather than "directly target it". If active vessel would be smart enough to detect an orbiter and relay the signal through it, then it would be perfect but as it is right now it requires a bit of micro management which was thoroughly discussed just a few pages back.

[Rod4Rodger]

For the record, anybody that writes code on a single line with no line feeds or tabs for organization should be SHOT.

[Sandworm]

I disagree. There's no reason selecting active vessel shouldn't mean "any path to said vessel" rather than "directly target it". If active vessel would be smart enough to detect an orbiter and relay the signal through it, then it would be perfect but as it is right now it requires a bit of micro management which was thoroughly discussed just a few pages back.

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

For the record, anybody that writes code on a single line with no line feeds or tabs for organization should be SHOT.

[Fox42]

I have a little problem with using a ship as a relay for my lander... I checked it multiple times for the AV issue. But I do see both cones. One from a commsat at Kerbin targeting Duna with an 88-88, and one from my ship orbiting Ike (momentarily directly in front of Duna) (standard 3Kerbal cockpit) targeting Kerbin also with an 88-88. Both are displayed. But as soon as I switch to another vesser there is no more connection between that orbiting ship and Kerbin (no green/orange line).

ha ha.. funny thing.. Just wehile writing this, I found the reason (which shouldn't be one.... -.-). I switched two of my sats at Kerbin to target Ike instead of Duna. Even though Ike is in front of Duna, it seems like my ship in the SOI of Ike did not get a connection. I remember this kind of thing worked for vessels targeting Kerbin where the Mun was in the line of sight and targeted Mun-Sats instead just fine... (that was with the old version).

Is this a known bug, or something new?

[OminousPenguin]

Even though Ike is in front of Duna, it seems like my ship in the SOI of Ike did not get a connection. I remember this kind of thing worked for vessels targeting Kerbin where the Mun was in the line of sight and targeted Mun-Sats instead just fine... (that was with the old version).

Is this a known bug, or something new?

This has always been the case in RT2. I never tried the original. If a dish is targeted at a body, it will only connect to vessels in the SOI of that body. If a vessel is within the angle and range but in a different SOI it will not connect.

The math is very easy this way. I guess making it work for vessels not in the SOI would require access to data that the game doesn't expose?

[BigD145]

Lolbster on KSPTV seemed to find antenna's changing their weight when they were on, leading to unbalanced craft.

[AndreyATGB]

With "Any path to vessel", why bother targeting any dish at any thing? With them all set to "any path" you are leaving it up to the mod to arrange your network for you. Where's the fun in that?

Dishes in real life have to be pointed at things. Any logic involving "any path" presupposes that the different relays can communicate with each other to negotiate a possible route. Either that or we can pretend the dishes point around randomly until, by chance, a path opens up.

I can kind of see where you're coming from, but have you read any of the discussions here for the past page or two? One of the most glaring issues is that a cone only works if you point at a planet, not at a single sat when in fact it should always work with a cone in mind (I.e. Two sats in close proximity, you only need to target one and if the other is in this cone it would also work). If your active vessel is on the surface of a planet, the cone from Kerbin is very likely to also cover the orbiter. RT should then recognize this and properly use the orbiter as a relay without me having to switch vessels and wait 5 seconds before my giant relay station loads.

I'm not asking for remote tech to automatically connect through for example Kerbin-Duna-Jool-vessel, I'm asking for Kerbin-orbiter-lander.

[Grays]

That's not an Active Vessel problem, that's a PEBKAC error.

I've seen other people refer to it as the Active Vessel "bug", and I called it a "problem" because I recognize that it's simply a misunderstanding of what's going on with the operation of the Active Vessel function. I'm not saying that RT2 is at fault, I was asking whether he had ruled out Active Vessel as the source of the problem. As it turns out, that reminder was all he needed in order to fix the problem with his network.

Seriously, while there are quite a few things about RT2 that need fixing, Active Vessel is not one of them.

The "fix" for the Active Vessel problem is to remove Active Vessel altogether, which I would honestly be in favor of for unrelated reasons. As-is, it operates as intended, but the intended operation causes a counter-intuitive issue that is often overlooked because the vessels that appear to be the problem aren't actually the vessels where the problem originates.

RT2, even if "fixed", is a complex mod that is to a certain degree counterintuitive.

No, the operation of dishes and omni-directional antennas is quite intuitive and the whole system makes sense. The Active Vessel problem is the single most counter-intuitive problem in the entire operation of the mod and the most common RT2 question we get over at /r/kerbalacademy.

If the user(s) can't be bothered to read and grasp the documentation, then they're going to encounter problems...

Even if you read and grasp the documentation, it's okay to miss something and ask for help. No need to antagonize.

The solution (IMO) isn't to "dumb down" mods meant to add complexity and realism, but to encourage mod authors and communities to not rely on the forum's broken search function and hundreds of pages of low S/N forum threads for tech "support", to write and post (and maintain) better documentation, and users to read the documentation before asking questions.

This was a troubleshooting question. This thread is for discussion and questions. Even if you're aware of the issue, it's easy to miss the issue because people don't often check in the right place for the source of the issue. When the network connects to the station, but not the lander, the intuitive solution is that there's a problem between the station and the lander. It doesn't occur to people that the problem is one step back, so it's a common source of confusion that often is asked as troubleshooting. There is nothing wrong with that.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Grays

[OminousPenguin]

I would go a step further and say I don't think the active vessel feature is counter-intuitive. If a dish's target is set to the active vessel there is nothing to suggest that if it's out of range or blocked that it will connect to other dishes and attempt to find a route to the target.

If I set a dish's target explicitly rather than to active vessel, and it looses connection to that target, I have no expectation of it automatically finding a route to connect to that target through other satellites.

I would be in favour of removing the active vessel feature altogether.

[Fox42]

This has always been the case in RT2. I never tried the original. If a dish is targeted at a body, it will only connect to vessels in the SOI of that body. If a vessel is within the angle and range but in a different SOI it will not connect. [...]

I think, with the older version, I also had a fixed .dll installed. With that, I was definetely able to do just that. I have satellites around the Mun and Minmus. So, when the Mun blocks the line of sight to Kerbin, a vessel did connect to a sat around the mun and find a route to Kerbin that way. That worked perfectly fine. (I am going for 100% coverage )

[nobodez]

I would go a step further and say I don't think the active vessel feature is counter-intuitive. If a dish's target is set to the active vessel there is nothing to suggest that if it's out of range or blocked that it will connect to other dishes and attempt to find a route to the target.

If I set a dish's target explicitly rather than to active vessel, and it looses connection to that target, I have no expectation of it automatically finding a route to connect to that target through other satellites.

I would be in favour of removing the active vessel feature altogether.

Eh, I just launch my sats with more dishes. My KSO sats have three or five dishes (the ones within sight of KSC have only three, two of the folding dishes towards Kerbin on the blind KSO sat and the fixed dish towards "active vessel"; the blind KSO has five, the same static 90Mm dish for "active vessel", one to each of the KSO sats within line of sight of KSC, and one each to Minmus and Mun). I have four sats in semi-stationary orbits around the Mun so far, each with eight folding dishes and 1 static 90Mm dish, giving me more coverage of Kerbin and Minmus. I plan on placing some more around Minmus tonight (some more 8+1 sats, but in MinSO). I have two extra dishes on each of my MunSSO sats for deeper coverage (likely Eve/Gilly and/or Duna/Ike for my first forays outside of Kerbin's SoI). Once I have larger dishes/omnis I'll put up new KSO, MunSSO, and MinSO sats for deeper coverage of the system, as well a some relays, perhaps some in Low Kerbol Orbit for coverage anti-Kerbin, as well as repeaters further out to blanket the system in coverage. I'll likely always have the longest range static dishes on each of my sats set to "active vessel", but also rely on a full network of sats for actual coverage.

Here's my current KSO and MunSSO sats:

Edited June 30, 2014 by nobodez

[Boomerang]

I have to say that I'm rather impressed with this current iteration of Remotetech. I was a big fan of the original, previous to RT2 and my experiences with RT2 in the past really soured me on the mod, just because of so many headache-inducing bugs and complications.

And while I haven't explored every potential problem area with this new version, my experience with it has been miles better than in the past and I'm very happy to have the functionality back in my game play. And there isn't anything I can add to recommendations that haven't already been said and explained in detail. It's good to see a group working on this again.

Edit: As for my own set up, I use equatorial satellites around Kerbin, the Mun, and Minmus with the appropriate dishes for communicating with each other and antennae for total coverage around each body, which I'm sure is common enough.

I'll also admit to cheating a small bit and editing my persistence file so that they're all in perfect orbits to make up for the lack of station keeping technology in the game. Though I do only do this after getting the orbital periods exact and my other orbital perimeters damn near perfect.

For interplanetary comms, I have a pair of heavy satellites in highly eccentric, opposed orbits. Each has an appropriate dish focused on each planet as well as two dishes (one mid-range for the inner planets, one long range) that are set to AV for communicating with deep space craft that don't fall under the cones of the planet-specific dishes.

I use a similar system for comms around Jool. A trio of heavy polar satellites that carry the link between Kerbin and Jool, then a dish for each moon along with an AV dish. The moons themselves have equatorial satellites which talk back to the ones around Jool with antenna for covering their respective bodies.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Boomerang

[AndreyATGB]

Even if you cheated, unless you never timewarp they'll eventually get out of sync anyway. This is very easy to see as your Ap and Pe change every time you do so. I'm not sure what its effects are on SMA and if they're the exact same for all sats, in which case it doesn't matter.

[Rockstar04]

Even if you cheated, unless you never timewarp they'll eventually get out of sync anyway. This is very easy to see as your Ap and Pe change every time you do so. I'm not sure what its effects are on SMA and if they're the exact same for all sats, in which case it doesn't matter.

While it may be outside of the scope of this mod, how hard would it be to make a mod that "maintained" the orbits of craft?

[Rayder]

Even if you cheated, unless you never timewarp they'll eventually get out of sync anyway. This is very easy to see as your Ap and Pe change every time you do so. I'm not sure what its effects are on SMA and if they're the exact same for all sats, in which case it doesn't matter.

This is precisely why I've abandoned the idea of having satellites in synchronous orbits, or having craft on similar orbits (in a triangle). So I've come up with a setup which requires no orbital maintenance and provides 100% up-time. Requires a bit more testing but if it goes well, I'll post my results.