What have they done to electric charge drain??

[cantab]

I was still playing vanilla back then, so something has definitely been changed. I just wish I knew when..

When it was first added I did this mistake several times and usually only noticed it after a time warp since then batteries would be entirely drained leaving my ship completey frozen.

If you want to pin this down, I suggest testing with some very simple ships in a clean stock install.

[Technical Ben]

You can also turn off the battery and later turn it back on. You couldn't do that before (realism), and now you can (fantasy).

Theoretically a "on/off" switch can be used that is triggered by transmission only. Not "fantasy", just "relays".

While real batteries degrade, so do all real things. KSP does not model or simulate "degrading" parts, including battery charge. So for example, the battery could have a relay that is active and able to switch when it receives a signal, there is no reason why the relay should loose power if charged but not receiving a signal (it looses charge when switching the battery back on). The relay would then instantly charge when the battery is reactivated.

Thus they can both "stay forever charged when not in use" and can "be turned on/off" with Kerbal radio activated relays/switches.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Technical Ben

[Guest]

Out of curiosity, I did some testing on .25 and on .20.2 and nothing has changed as far as the way battery charge is simulated. In both versions. battery charge levels are simulated on rails so long as you are focused on the vessel either in the flight scene or the map view.

In .25, if you time warp from the tracking station or space center, the battery charge is not simulated. Warping from the tracking station or space center was not possible in .20.2.

Warping while focused on ship#1 will not simulate battery charge on ship#2. This is the same on both versions.

So there is an exploit here that I never really thought about or leveraged. But, seeing that the small solar panels are PhysicsSignificance = 1, it doesn't really matter anyway.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Otis
spelling

[boxman]

If you want to pin this down, I suggest testing with some very simple ships in a clean stock install.

Judging by most of the replies it seems like this is normal behaviour now though.

[Renegrade]

While real batteries degrade, so do all real things. KSP does not model or simulate "degrading" parts, including battery charge. So for example, the battery could have a relay that is active and able to switch when it receives a signal, there is no reason why the relay should loose power if charged but not receiving a signal (it looses charge when switching the battery back on). The relay would then instantly charge when the battery is reactivated.

The issue is not that batteries can be turned on/off, but that they can be turned on without any control(or power) at all.

Without power or control, there would be nothing to receive and amplify the signal, process it into an action, and toggle the relay.

Of course this is a realism argument in a game where it takes no power at all to maintain a crew capsule, but you can look at this from a gameplay angle as well: failing to include enough power for your probe core is a fair player-caused failure state/game over, on par with running out of fuel.

(I'd actually like to see manned capsules have a significant (>probe) power requirement when manned, in stock)

I think we're getting off-topic though..

[Technical Ben]

An areal can amplify the signal. It can have a latent charge. My house electric uses similar to switch the meter from low to high cost meterage. The battery has a charge (if not zero) and thus a signal can activate that charge.

So the only question is, "is this intended by the developers"? Do they wish for probes to be able to "hibernate" and be turned on/off manually, as long as some battery power exists? I'd say yes they do.

[lajoswinkler]

Or perhaps the probe core has a built in reserve battery to handle that exact scenario? A little like having a battery on your PC motherboard to keep the clock running even when the computer is switched off. Switching off the battery (as in the battery component you added in the VAB), merely powers down the rest of the probe systems. Being able to deliberately shut a probe down to the point where it can't be restarted is neither particularly realistic, nor adds anything to the game other than a pointless irritation.

Such batteries aren't enough to be able to hold receivers on standby. Keeping internal clock and data, that's ok, but other stuff requires an actual power source to amplify the signal.

[magnemoe]

I've only been playing since 0.24.2, but I am 95% sure command pods have never passively drained electricity. Anybody who has had manned missions run out of juice is either using a probe core, lights, a mod like TAC: Life Support, is using SAS during physical time warp, or otherwise has some other source of power drain going.

EDIT: I can't read (in reference to Overfloater's post). Still: command pods will not drain electricity in non-physical time warp, because SAS cannot function, and (unless modded) has no passive drain associated with it.

This has been true as long as we have had science mode, pods don't use power themselves, making it vital to turn off sas then doing Mun or Minmus missions before having solar panels.

Do not know if they used power before 0.24 but kind of doubt it. Nothing uses power then not loaded, it would be far to hard to calculate power input during warp.

Kerbals can still control your ship. Know I have rescued some missions by activating engines to give power so I could turn the ship the correct way for burn.

Typically doing science transmission then coming in for the orbital injection burn, running out of power while in shadow.

[magnemoe]

You can press the green triangle in its menu and turn it off. If you did that in real life, the probe can't respond anymore. Sending a signal "wake up" can't be processed because the probw no longer works. It's that simple and it was featured in older KSP versions. We need that because it adds a sense of reality and caution.

On the other hand sleep mode is used often on real life probes, this work a lot like on a pc, almost everything is shut down, even the main cpu.

Like on the pc you can set an turn on time and date, I guess you could also set some minimum power level requirement.

The comet intercept used this, probes on mars and moon do it to survive the night.

[KSK]

On the other hand sleep mode is used often on real life probes, this work a lot like on a pc, almost everything is shut down, even the main cpu.

Like on the pc you can set an turn on time and date, I guess you could also set some minimum power level requirement.

The comet intercept used this, probes on mars and moon do it to survive the night.

Thanks - that's a better analogy than mine.

In real life, building a probe that can be put into sleep mode but deliberately designing it not to be woken up again would be stupid. In KSP, I would argue that a 'sleep mode' should just be handled transparently by the probe core, in the same way that other essential systems (e.g. star trackers or other navigational equipment) presumably are. Having the option to put my probes into sleep mode by switching off the battery for long distance flights, adds a certain amount of realism. Having to explicitly stick a 'backup power supply' onto the side of the probe core would just be irritating, the more so in a game where most of the technological complexity of spaceflight is handled abstractly anyway.

[Wanderfound]

Incidentally, every single ship I make these days has one source of locked-off power on it (usually the cockpit or probe core), specifically as insurance against "forgot to deploy the solar" or "solar facing the wrong way" whoopsies.

Also not a bad idea to do this with the cockpit RCS; there's just enough in there for a docking, and trying to dock two spaceplanes with no RCS at all is extremely tedious.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Wanderfound

[magnemoe]

Lock down power makes sense for an manned ship, especially if you do science and transmit.

It let you get power back if you transmit, run out and have to do an burn. Pretty pointless on probes.

Better to always add 2-4 static solar panels.

[lajoswinkler]

On the other hand sleep mode is used often on real life probes, this work a lot like on a pc, almost everything is shut down, even the main cpu.

Like on the pc you can set an turn on time and date, I guess you could also set some minimum power level requirement.

The comet intercept used this, probes on mars and moon do it to survive the night.

Truth to be told, we can always pretend and roleplay like this is the case.

[Wanderfound]

Lock down power makes sense for an manned ship, especially if you do science and transmit.

It let you get power back if you transmit, run out and have to do an burn. Pretty pointless on probes.

Better to always add 2-4 static solar panels.

I find it more the other way, actually. With a manned ship, there's always the option to get out and push in order to spin the solar the right way or rescue a decaying orbit, but get an unKerballed probe into a bad spot and you're out of luck.

[Renegrade]

An areal can amplify the signal. It can have a latent charge. My house electric uses similar to switch the meter from low to high cost meterage. The battery has a charge (if not zero) and thus a signal can activate that charge.

No, at interplanetary distances, even the highest gain antennas (such as a 90db dish) are outputting almost nothing (nanovolts). Electrical amplification is required to make it into something useful.

Plus aerials that are high gain are automatically highly directional, and have to be kept pointing in the correct direction to send or receive.

Also without active processing, ANYTHING would trigger the wake-up, resulting in premature drain. A single cosmic ray hitting the antenna would be many, MANY orders of magnitude stronger than a signal from Kerbin or Earth, even in LKO/LEO.

So the only question is, "is this intended by the developers"? Do they wish for probes to be able to "hibernate" and be turned on/off manually, as long as some battery power exists? I'd say yes they do.

While that possibility can't be discounted (say hello to the easy-mode/dumbing-down 21st century!) without a direct developer statement, given their track record with various bugs and regressions, I'd say it's far MORE likely this is just another bug or regression.

OR possibly both. Started as a bug and is now a "feature". *cough*

On the other hand sleep mode is used often on real life probes, this work a lot like on a pc, almost everything is shut down, even the main cpu.

Like on the pc you can set an turn on time and date, I guess you could also set some minimum power level requirement.

That still requires power, AND an activation time. The main system CPU is off, but the RTC chip is still operating on a small battery (nowadays it's typically a 3v CR2032 lithium coin cell, although historically it was usually a NiCD stack), watching the time count. Also, the power supply and motherboard are not off, but leeching small amounts of power (by Energy Star requirements, less than a watt).

Should the RTC power source die (and it's constantly running down), the system won't turn on.

Note also that the power supply is online throughout this entire process, draining a small amount of wall power and providing power to the motherboard in standby mode. This wasn't considered any sort of design flaw as without mains power, it couldn't turn on anyways.

These probe missions generally do have a standby mode like that, but they still require power in standby, AND also have to have the activation time pre-set. None of this is happening when one turns a battery off -> it has literally unlimited endurance, AND can be reactivated at any time/at will, without setting the time in advance.

Also some of the probes and rovers that have standby are completely dead during hibernation and do not reactivate until they're getting solar power again, and we already have that without this bug/exploit.

I find it more the other way, actually. With a manned ship, there's always the option to get out and push in order to spin the solar the right way or rescue a decaying orbit, but get an unKerballed probe into a bad spot and you're out of luck.

Was thinkin' the same thing when I read that bit. Also I don't recall panels requiring power to deploy either with manned vessels.. Manned stuff needs some hardcore nerfing...I'd love to see some Life Support options in the Difficulty Menu.. at least power-based support.

[KSK]

While that possibility can't be discounted (say hello to the easy-mode/dumbing-down 21st century!) without a direct developer statement, given their track record with various bugs and regressions, I'd say it's far MORE likely this is just another bug or regression..

It might be. I don't know. But either way, this notion that simplified = dumbed down, gets really old. Especially when we're talking about a game in which building a rocket booster is a matter of clipping an 'engine' part onto a 'fuel tank' part. In which case, getting bent of shape over an abstracted away backup battery seems more than a bit silly quite frankly.

There's a fine balance between 'enough detail to be interesting and challenging' and 'so much detail that the player is loaded down with largely pointless parts. KSP does a pretty good job of striking that balance, and there's certainly no shortage of mods for adding extra detail if you like such things. There may even be a mod for adding star trackers, propellant line heaters, thermal protection blankets and sundry other subsystems to your probes, because, you know - for realism. But I doubt it.

Likewise, there might be a game out there that does dive into the minutiae of building spacecraft. KSP has never been that game though, and thankfully, probably never will.

Edited November 17, 2014 by KSK
Removing whitespace

[Renegrade]

It might be. I don't know. But either way, this notion that simplified = dumbed down, gets really old. Especially when we're talking about a game in which building a rocket booster is a matter of clipping an 'engine' part onto a 'fuel tank' part. In which case, getting bent of shape over an abstracted away backup battery seems more than a bit silly quite frankly.

Yeah, it's definitely not a serious problem, I'll agree there.

There's a fine balance between 'enough detail to be interesting and challenging' and 'so much detail that the player is loaded down with largely pointless parts. KSP does a pretty good job of striking that balance, and there's certainly no shortage of mods for adding extra detail if you like such things. There may even be a mod for adding star trackers, propellant line heaters, thermal protection blankets and sundry other subsystems to your probes, because, you know - for realism. But I doubt it.

I agree here too, but in my opinion, the concept that a probe core has to have at least some enabled power at any time you want to do anything with it falls under 'enough detail to be interesting and challenging' rather than the 'excessive detail/drudgery' category.

I don't think it's too much trouble to ensure that a probe has enough panels and batteries to be fully operable in the dark side of a planet, and consider that beneficial, simple, abstracted gameplay.

(and I totally understand the elegance of a simple system, and often complain of the proliferation of resources and such in TAC_LS, Interstellar, MKS/OKS etc.)

[KSK]

Yeah, it's definitely not a serious problem, I'll agree there.

I agree here too, but in my opinion, the concept that a probe core has to have at least some enabled power at any time you want to do anything with it falls under 'enough detail to be interesting and challenging' rather than the 'excessive detail/drudgery' category.

I don't think it's too much trouble to ensure that a probe has enough panels and batteries to be fully operable in the dark side of a planet, and consider that beneficial, simple, abstracted gameplay.

(and I totally understand the elegance of a simple system, and often complain of the proliferation of resources and such in TAC_LS, Interstellar, MKS/OKS etc.)

Ahh - I think I might have the wrong end of the stick then - sorry! Completely agree with that part - and as it happens I'm playing with RemoteTech installed, so your example is particularly relevant. What I meant, was the idea that a probe could be deliberately put into hibernation for long journeys to save that enabling power for later (for example if you did mess up with your energy requirements) simply by switching it's battery or batteries off, and then reactivating them when required. This seems OK to me from a gameplay perspective, in that a player can salvage a bad probe design by handling power management themselves.

Incidentally, disconnected batteries certainly shouldn't be chargeable in transit. If you reawaken your probe at it's destination and then (for example) run out of power on the dark side of a planet before you can execute your orbit insertion burn and switch the probe back off again (to bring it back around to the sun facing side and recharge the batteries a bit), then tough.

My understanding though was that folks were arguing that switching off the batteries would make a dead probe, which would then be incapable of being switched back on because it wouldn't be able to even receive the 'switch on' signal. Hence the player should have to include a reserve battery on the probe to simulate some kind of reserve power supply. My, somewhat grumpy, counterargument was that a reserve battery could just as easily be handwaved away as a built in part of the probe core, rather than something the player should explicity need to remember to stick on.

[John FX]

I like the ability to turn on a battery even if the rest of the craft has run out of power for gameplay reasons. The same with opening solar panels. I don`t want `ultra realistic, every move is vital, severe consequences` gameplay.

Try Better Than Starting Manned one day if you like that (If you Do like that it`s quite good), the probe cores and pods all use power all the time even when on rails or unloaded and if you run out of power your probe core is permanently damaged by the cold of space and cannot be used any more or all your crew are dead. Mission over.

It has realistic results from your action/inaction and I just don`t find it fun. A challenge? Sure, and lots of people DO find it lots of fun but not me. It was just a struggle and I`m playing the game to enjoy myself and relax.

The tech tree is quite good though.

EDIT :

Incidentally, disconnected batteries certainly shouldn't be chargeable in transit. If you reawaken your probe at it's destination and then (for example) run out of power on the dark side of a planet before you can execute your orbit insertion burn and switch the probe back off again (to bring it back around to the sun facing side and recharge the batteries a bit), then tough.

I disagree.

If they had a simple relay that activated when the panels were in light then it could be done easily. I have the setup in my Van where if the engine is running (panels in sun) and so there is charge coming in then it connects the front battery to the ones at the back, charging them, but when the engine stops (the panels enter dark) the relay closes the link meaning the rear battery is topped up when there is charge but is not drained by anything.

Then I can turn on the rear (reserve) batteries when I like knowing they are charged and not drained. They charge when there is charge available but are not connected to power anything so they do not drain.

Philae is a good example, they have shut down the probe and if it gets enough sun then it charges its batteries a bit. If the batteries get a useful amount of charge they will awaken the probe and get some more science.

I agree that a probe should be regarded as having enough internal redundancy to be able to activate a reserve battery or open the panels.

Edited November 19, 2014 by John FX

[Vallius]

If I understand the OP correctly, the problem is that a manned pod isn't draining energy when Time-warp is on.

Assuming that your only toggled piece of equipment is the SAS, this is perfectly normal. When you time-warp a vessel, it's attitude gets locked. Since the manned ship isn't allowed to turn, SAS (and thus the ship as a whole) shouldn't drain energy at all.

So nothing's wrong or buggy about this situation at all. Having done a fair amount of simulation work, I'd guess that the attitude locking is necessary to allow desktop computers to resolve physics with a minimum of fuss (after all, you really want to be at normal time to do maneuvers).

[waterlubber]

Probably SAS cancelling some small oscillation, or are you using an ion engine? Maybe its slightly throttles up, and shuts down when you warp.