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

[E.Nygma]

Now my own personal question, is it possible to "mod the mod" to make it less "game-y and repetitive". What I mean is launching the same exact rocket/sat setup 3 to 10 times gets a little old, I am glad I had mechjeb or I would have never gotten all my sats into orbit. I would like to keep the way you can connect them to each other, but without nearly as much range restriction as it has now. I know the OP has the edit for no time delay but I would like to double the range of the omnidirectional antenna, or have it at least able to target the Mun from about 500K Kerbin orbit.

At the very least I would like to keep the dishes/antenna the mods add (they look cool) and just keep the connectivity part as simple as I can.

in conjuction with:

However, I doubt that will make the setup less repetitive. To avoid repetition, you may find a more interesting approach in designing missions that allow to put multiple satellites in orbit together. Try building a vessel able to deploy 3 or 4 sats in KSO, designing an efficient mission profile would make for something interesting (definitely doable).

I also loathed the prospect of having to fly ~20 missions just to get a network running, so in 0.23 i came up with these (different iterations of the same concept), heavily dependant on mods (i'm sure there is a similar solution for stock players):

The Archangel DS-Concept allows me to launch 16 sats in one go, so just 2 launches are needed for a functioning network in my basic configuration (see earlier posts)

Regards

Edited July 21, 2014 by E.Nygma

[elfindreams]

800 plugins? and I was thinking to have too many at 85!

About your question, RT2 has built-in some moddability. In /GameData/RemoteTech2/RemoteTech_settings.cfg you'll find most of what needed. For a rapid across-the-board increase of communication ranges I would advise to mod the line "RangeMultiplier =" to a number fitting your need.

However, I doubt that will make the setup less repetitive. To avoid repetition, you may find a more interesting approach in designing missions that allow to put multiple satellites in orbit together. Try building a vessel able to deploy 3 or 4 sats in KSO, designing an efficient mission profile would make for something interesting (definitely doable).

Launching groups of satellites at the same time is almost necessary on some of the planets for orbit coordination. On planets/moons with geosync you can get away with not doing it provided you are good at orbit targeting (I use SCANsat's maps to make this really precise and easy) but on moons without stable geosync if you want to get the spacing right the easiest way is to launch all four (or however many) and quarter the orbits.

[S4qFBxkFFg]

Hello - this may be similar to problems other people in the thread have been having, but I can't say for sure - I'd be grateful if anyone can suggest a fix though.

I had a 0.23.5 save, where my comm network was functioning perfectly, and as soon as I tried 0.24 it stopped working.

When I try to go to one of the satellites, I can't control it and the status in the top left of the screen says "N/A" (instead of something like "Local Control"); Kerbin is gone (apart from its atmosphere, so it just looks like a bright shiny ring) and right-clicking on antennae gives two statuses for each antenna (the comm idle status), as if the relevant module is loaded twice, although I don't think that's the case.

[mdapol]

Has the issue where a probe that has not been focussed in a long time (and the relay satellite has not been focussed in a long time) will become stuck in "Not Connected" state even though both the probe and the relay are (1) pointed at each other, (2) in range, and (3) have clear LOS been solved yet?

My Jool probes will quite reliably get "Not Connected" since I don't look at them for a while, requiring me to edit the persistant file to force them back into "Connected" state. I have reported this problem before but I haven't been on the forum for a while so I was wondering if this issue has been fixed, or will be fixed for 0.24?

[OminousPenguin]

I also loathed the prospect of having to fly ~20 missions just to get a network running [...]

You didn't have to...

The Archangel DS-Concept allows me to launch 16 sats in one go, so just 2 launches are needed for a functioning network in my basic configuration (see earlier posts)

Everyone pointed it out at the time but I'll say it again, 16 is total overkill and not a 'basic configuration' 'Basic' would be 3.

titan357 is looking to minimise network overheads, not increase it superfluously.

Obviously you're free to do what you like but any posts regarding having 16 sats around one planet are not going to be helpful to someone asking for help.

Edited July 22, 2014 by OminousPenguin

[E.Nygma]

Actually, just a quick question:, how, where, when and by whom was the meaning of 'basic' defined as meaning '3' ?

When i started using RT2, i would have found a post like mine quite helpful, because i seriously tried to use a 3 satellite configuration but utterly failed and found no one describing how to build a multiredundant network with no need for absolute precision...hence 'basic' is 32 satellites for me.

PS: And by which statement of titan357 do you assume he was asking for the reduction of overhead or the like? He was merely asking how to avoid repetitive gameplay and that question did i try to answer...

Edited July 21, 2014 by E.Nygma

[sidfu]

E.Nygma to some it may be cheating but i use mechjeb for percesion stuff on putting up com network. its the only thing i use mj for but for launching 3fps 1k part rockets lol.

if u put 4 sats at geo stationary orbit and they roughly the same disance form each other and have them point a dish at 2 other sats thats beside them u could form a box around kerbin of 100% veiw. but make sure they have engines on them cause no matter how close u get to perfect they will over time drift off a bit.

[E.Nygma]

Of course, MJ is an option, but i tried it and it takes the fun out of the game for me...i know, MJ is a controversial topic so i can only speak for myself...

I also see the mathematical truth in the argument about 3-4 sats, but i'm to lazy for efficent building plus it is not my style of gaming...

I jut wanted to point out that there are other options besides a highly efficent, non-redundant network...Sry if i have been to brazen...

[Adamantium9001]

Looking through the config files, I don't understand why third-party command pods/probe cores aren't supported. Wouldn't this do it:

@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand],!MODULE[ModuleSPU]]:FINAL
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleSPU
    }
}
@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand],!MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive]]:FINAL
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleRTAntennaPassive
        TechRequired = unmannedTech
        OmniRange = 3000

        TRANSMITTER
        {
            PacketInterval = 0.3
            PacketSize = 2
            PacketResourceCost = 15.0
        }
    }
}

?

Edit:

1) This is in one of my custom configs, hence the 'final'; I know it's bad form for mod developers to use it.

2) In RT2's default configuration, only unmanned probes get these modules added to them, so it would have to be:

@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]:HAS[#minimumCrew[0]],!MODULE[ModuleSPU]]:FINAL //remove FINAL if you're the mod developer
...
@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]:HAS[#minimumCrew[0]],!MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive]]:FINAL //ditto
...

(I think)

Edited July 22, 2014 by Adamantium9001

[SRiley77]

Looking through the config files, I don't understand why third-party command pods/probe cores aren't supported. Wouldn't this do it:

.....

?

Yes.. I manipulated my 23.5 installation with that code, gave myself remote tech capabilities on aies, bomp, impossible innovations, etc. I based my home-made cfg files on the AIES cfg files found earlier in the thread.

[diomedea]

Looking through the config files, I don't understand why third-party command pods/probe cores aren't supported. Wouldn't this do it:

@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand],!MODULE[ModuleSPU]]:FINAL
{
...
@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand],!MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive]]:FINAL
{

    }
}

?

I have certainly not enough knowledge of how ModuleManager works, but the :FINAL directive is rather exclusive, meaning can be used once only.

Mods that don't respect that, and include configs for additional modules with that directive with parts that already have one, inevitably clash.

Actually, I can't see why that directive would be needed, RemoteTech does not use it with the stock parts and those work. Instead, I know that at least up to v. 1.3.3 RT2 used to internally number the modules, and referenced them by number instead of by name. Can't say if that changed with v. 1.4.0; but with that directive the number assigned to "ModuleSPU" would increase as other MM configs are parsed and applied to the same parts, and that may make RT2 not work.

Please note, I am not a dev with RT2, and if one with more knowledge would like to comment on the above, I will certainly be glad to learn something.

[rynak]

Personally speaking, no popular mod should use :FINAL - it should be exclusive to custom user scripts - similiar to !important in CSS.

Of course, this is assuming that MM has proper alternatives to :FINAL, for devs.... and i'm not sure if it has.... the official docs don't even mention loadorder directives at all - without picking up rumors on the forum, i wouldn't even know about :FINAL. Someway, i've seen :BEFORE and :AFTER in other threads... i guess those are meant to define execution should happend after a certain part.... or directory.... or..... something.... is loaded.... or modified? Who knows....

[Creat]

Ahh, that sounds like its just what I need to make the mod a bit more friendly for me and my mod list (that I need to prune tonight), so thank you. I think the last time I loaded the game up it was sitting around 805 plugins and took forever (even on my I7 4770K/SSD setup) to get in game, most of the parts are things I wanted to try and wrote off after trying them, but the game sits pretty solid at 60FPS until I get some debirs floating around and 10+ objects in orbit.

Didn't think about launching multiple com sats in one go, and with KW rockets new parts I think I could launch 2-4 at a time on a manned mission and drop them as I go at different heights and inclinations.

Well, even with basic stock technology (only 1.25m parts) that's easily possible. It depends on what you really want to have on a communication satellite obviously, but for a basic network allowing operation near Kerbin usually it's just an omnidirectional and a dish or two, plus enough solar panels and some batteries to supply them. I've posted a screenshot of a trivial design meant for early career mode in this post. For deployment tips, there's a

that explains how to easily launch multiple satellites from a single vessel into equally spaced orbits. The method he showcases need the satellites to have some minimal propulsion, but you can also decouple them at the right position, then you don't need the small probe tech or RCS. The resulting orbits will be quite wonky (due to the decouplers accelerating the satellites on launch), but it's easily good enough until you can get a precise network up eventually when you have the tech. You obviously need to match the target orbit on every period with the deployment vessel instead of just pulling your periapsis up with the sat itself. This does need a bit more fuel (and a heavier launch vehicle).

Please do note two more things though: First, you basically need Kerbal Engineer for this (or something else that shows you the orbital period, like Void or MechJeb). Secondly, as you can read in my other post I linked above there is basically no reason to actually use sync orbits just for remote tech (except for maybe role playing reasons), and it even makes some things worse/harder (for example KSC and the other sats are not in range of each other). Secondly, if you do want to use a sync orbit, the height of it around Kerbin was slightly changed in 0.24 from the values he mentions (I don't know exact numbers though, kerbin now rotates in exactly 6 hours instead of 6h50s or something).

Edit: With the new xlarge (5m?) parts in KW you can probably launch 32 at once if you really want to. I'm sure it does look awesome

[rynak]

Well, you can do sync orbits and get them sufficient range by using the smallest dish for neighbour comms, instead of an omni.... inefficient and pointless, but it would work. The major downside however, isn't comms with neighbours, but instead comms with vessels: if the sats are this far away from the planet, then then the other party needs rather big antennas too - after all, remember that for communication, BOTH parties must be able to reach each other.

This being said, one problem i couldn't solve efficiently yet, is giving vehicles in the atmosphere a link to KSC almost all the time: If i put sats lower than 1000km, i start approaching the point where 4 sats are no longer safe - i'd need five sats or have to place them VERY precisely. If i put them sufficiently high instead, then a plane somewhere in the atmosphere cannot uplink to the sat, because the atmo-safe antenna has not enough range.

That reminds me: Where is it defined anyways, how a model reacts to atmospheric pressure? I've seen almost everything editable, except of that. Is it part of the model file? Or is it in the compiled code?

[Creat]

[...] after all, remember that for communication, BOTH parties must be able to reach each other.

Exactly. That causes a rather significant difference in power requirements, as even the smallest dishes already need quite a bit of juice (over 6 times what a Communotron 16 needs). If you're just launching some small satellite, that may easily be the far biggest power consumption on that thing.

And you're also quite right with aircraft, but I wouldn't consider that application 'basic' (not with the stock tree at least), so it's kind of ok that it requires more effort put into the communication coverage?

[Adamantium9001]

Hi again. I'm trying to add command station capabilities to all command pods with crew capacity >= 6 (This is the only one I have, but I'd like a general MM file). I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why this isn't working:

@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand],#CrewCapacity[6]|#CrewCapacity[7]|#CrewCapacity[8]|#CrewCapacity[9]|#CrewCapacity[10]]:NEEDS[RemoteTech2]:FINAL
{
    %MODULE[ModuleSPU]
    {
        %IsRTCommandStation = true
    }
}

[Mecripp]

Hi again. I'm trying to add command station capabilities to all command pods with crew capacity >= 6 (This is the only one I have, but I'd like a general MM file). I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why this isn't working:

@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand],#CrewCapacity[6]|#CrewCapacity[7]|#CrewCapacity[8]|#CrewCapacity[9]|#CrewCapacity[10]]:NEEDS[RemoteTech2]:FINAL
{
    %MODULE[ModuleSPU]
    {
        %IsRTCommandStation = true
    }
}

You can try this it's what, I use

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]:HAS[#minimumCrew[1]]]:Final

{

MODULE

{

name = ModuleSPU

IsRTCommandStation = true

}

MODULE

{

name = ModuleRTAntennaPassive

TechRequired = unmannedTech

OmniRange = 3000

TRANSMITTER

{

PacketInterval = 0.3

PacketSize = 2

PacketResourceCost = 15.0

}

}

[OminousPenguin]

Actually, just a quick question:, how, where, when and by whom was the meaning of 'basic' defined as meaning '3' ?

When i started using RT2, i would have found a post like mine quite helpful, because i seriously tried to use a 3 satellite configuration but utterly failed and found no one describing how to build a multiredundant network with no need for absolute precision...hence 'basic' is 32 satellites for me.

PS: And by which statement of titan357 do you assume he was asking for the reduction of overhead or the like? He was merely asking how to avoid repetitive gameplay and that question did i try to answer...

Unless you have a random failure mod there's no need for redundancy, and precision isn't hard to achieve - just accelerate until you get your period to a certain number.

There's a

for putting multiple sats equally spaced into the same orbit. (Scott Manley is going for a geosynchronous orbit in that video but it can be any altitude you like)

I just don't want people unfamiliar with the mod to think that 32 sats are required for a 'basic' network.

[Boomerang]

I'll second the notion that it doesn't require some Manley-esque feat of piloting to achieve a -simple-, low-count comm sat network. You can go with the shotgun effect, but have fun scrolling through your list of missions or trying to see anything in orbit around Kerbin with your 30+ satellites cluttering things up.

There are plenty of guides on the technicalities of how to do it and personally I think puzzling it out for yourself is the most rewarding way to do it. Taught myself some minorly interesting math that way.

[Kalloran]

I've now had sequential crashes attempting to load a saved launch vehicle that incorporates RT2 parts AFTER installing FAR. I must emphasize that I built the rocket non-FAR, installed FAR, re-started KSP, and attempted to load the saved vehicle in the VAB. I'm running KSPx64 on a Windows 7 64-bit box. RT2 v 1.4.0 and FAR v0.14.0.2.

The relevant part of the output_log:

CommSat Mk2 loaded!

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49)

BuildEngineer: OnSave

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49)

CommSat Mk2 - CommSat Mk2

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49)

ArgumentNullException: Argument cannot be null.
Parameter name: source
  at System.Linq.Check.SourceAndPredicate (System.Object source, System.Object predicate) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at System.Linq.Enumerable.Where[UIPartActionWindow] (IEnumerable`1 source, System.Func`2 predicate) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at RemoteTech.UIPartActionMenuPatcher.Wrap (.Vessel parent, System.Action`2 pass) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at RemoteTech.ModuleSPU.HookPartMenus () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at RemoteTech.ModuleSPU.FixedUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

(Filename:  Line: -1)

ArgumentNullException: Argument cannot be null.
Parameter name: source
  at System.Linq.Check.SourceAndPredicate (System.Object source, System.Object predicate) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at System.Linq.Enumerable.Where[UIPartActionWindow] (IEnumerable`1 source, System.Func`2 predicate) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at RemoteTech.UIPartActionMenuPatcher.Wrap (.Vessel parent, System.Action`2 pass) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at RemoteTech.ModuleSPU.HookPartMenus () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at RemoteTech.ModuleSPU.FixedUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

(Filename:  Line: -1)

BuildEngineer: OnStart (Editor)

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49)

BuildEngineer: OnEditorAttach

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49)

BuildEngineer: OnLoad

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49)

FlightEngineer: OnStart (Editor)

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49)

Crash!!!
SymInit: Symbol-SearchPath: '.;C:\Users\James\Documents\KSP Full\ksp-win64-0-24-0\KSP_win64;C:\Users\James\Documents\KSP Full\ksp-win64-0-24-0\KSP_win64;C:\Windows;C:\Windows\system32;SRV*C:\websymbols*http://msdl.microsoft.com/download/symbols;', symOptions: 530, UserName: 'James'
OS-Version: 6.1.7600 () 0x100-0x1

The error.log:

Unity Player [version: Unity 4.5.2f1_9abb1b59b47c]

KSP_x64.exe caused an Access Violation (0xc0000005)
  in module KSP_x64.exe at 0033:03cf0000.

Error occurred at 2014-07-22_090826.

UPDATE: I uninstalled FAR and I'm getting the same crash and error with the same craft.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Kalloran

[elfindreams]

Unless you have a random failure mod there's no need for redundancy, and precision isn't hard to achieve - just accelerate until you get your period to a certain number.

There's a

for putting multiple sats equally spaced into the same orbit. (Scott Manley is going for a geosynchronous orbit in that video but it can be any altitude you like)

I just don't want people unfamiliar with the mod to think that 32 sats are required for a 'basic' network.

A tool I use for geo-sync is SCANsat. If you bring up MapTraq and look at the big map it charts your orbit on the map. So you create a node where the Apo shows up where you want it to be at the right height, then after running that maneuver and circularize, look at the tick marks. The ones above the equator are equatorial ascending nodes, the ones below are descending nodes. If the trail of tick marks are to the right burn prograde until they shrink and disappear. If they are to the left, burn retro until they shrink and disappear. If you get them to disappear completely (or close) you are exactly where you need to be. I have done this a number of times to get my spacing "perfect" and even as a test on Kerbin fast forwarded time something like 10 years and still had a stable network.

On the smaller moons, you can use this on the ones that have geosync orbits within the SOI but due to precision issues, when you get it right, the tick marks won't stand still, just get them as small as you can and where the "flickers" average out to the right place.

With semisync orbits, you can do the same thing provided you are doing a typical "quartering" or "thirding" the orbits, instead of disappearing completely you will see a fixed number of single lines where they all gather (hard to explain without doing it).

Either way SCANsat's prediction of future ascending and descending nodes and charting of Ap, Pe and Maneuver nodes on a geographic map is damn useful.

[sidfu]

kalloran rt2 didnt cause your crash and that error looks like probaly a badly written MM cfg imo

[Adamantium9001]

A tool I use for geo-sync is SCANsat. If you bring up MapTraq and look at the big map it charts your orbit on the map. So you create a node where the Apo shows up where you want it to be at the right height, then after running that maneuver and circularize, look at the tick marks. The ones above the equator are equatorial ascending nodes, the ones below are descending nodes. If the trail of tick marks are to the right burn prograde until they shrink and disappear. If they are to the left, burn retro until they shrink and disappear. If you get them to disappear completely (or close) you are exactly where you need to be. I have done this a number of times to get my spacing "perfect" and even as a test on Kerbin fast forwarded time something like 10 years and still had a stable network.

On the smaller moons, you can use this on the ones that have geosync orbits within the SOI but due to precision issues, when you get it right, the tick marks won't stand still, just get them as small as you can and where the "flickers" average out to the right place.

With semisync orbits, you can do the same thing provided you are doing a typical "quartering" or "thirding" the orbits, instead of disappearing completely you will see a fixed number of single lines where they all gather (hard to explain without doing it).

Either way SCANsat's prediction of future ascending and descending nodes and charting of Ap, Pe and Maneuver nodes on a geographic map is damn useful.

I just look up the celestial body's sidereal rotation period and geosync altitude on the wiki, raise Ap to that altitude, then circularize until MechJeb says my orbital period matches

[Creat]

kalloran rt2 didnt cause your crash and that error looks like probaly a badly written MM cfg imo

It's not, those don't cause exceptions (you might get an error on load/init, but not an actual exception). You can see that the callstack where it clearly comes from RemoteTech. More specifically it's coming from RemoteTech.ModuleSPU.FixedUpdate(), which is called on every physics-frame (basically whenever the physics engine moves ahead one step).

The actual problem seems to be in a function (possibly?) managing the right-click-menu.

[Aedile]

Unless you have a random failure mod there's no need for redundancy, and precision isn't hard to achieve - just accelerate until you get your period to a certain number.

There's a

for putting multiple sats equally spaced into the same orbit. (Scott Manley is going for a geosynchronous orbit in that video but it can be any altitude you like)

I just don't want people unfamiliar with the mod to think that 32 sats are required for a 'basic' network.

For most planets complete 100% coverage with some redundancy is achieved with 6 sats, 3 equatorial - 3 polar. If you don't care about polar regions, 3 will be enough. If you got access to the long range antenna, this is easily achieved. In fact we do discuss this in the beginning of this thread.

Edit - your sats need not to be from the stationary type either. In fact if ising 5000km antenna, 2000km over Kirbin is the altitude which which will provide you with highest drift room.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Aedile