How to show "What you did": Mission Profile Notation

[Thunderous Echo]

Flyby could be simpler:

http://i.imgur.com/teLsumf.jpg

Stuff as imprecise as flybys is really up to improvisation, so go ahead and to that.

For the generator, let's use yours for linear mode and mine for flowchart mode.

[Ezriilc]

However Ezriilc, please add this thing to your list: Option for linear vs. flowchart mode.

If you don't mind, I'm going to let you be the administrator/facilitator of the Official ToDo List (dramatic music here) - at least for now, until I can actually start the work. When I finally publish to GitHub, we'll put that list into issues we can track. Sound good?

[Superfluous J]

Oh, shoot. There has been a massive misunderstanding that I will remedy soon.

This was not intended to be linear, it was intended to have each planet at certain point on your image and draw lines around. Orientation wouldn't matter.

I think I at least helped with this and for that I'm sorry As I said (but did not perhaps say strongly enough) was that my intention was to make the symbols "directon agnostic" meaning that they would work regardless of which direction you left and came back.

In that same vein, I really like that flyby. You could come in from one direction and go around easily 90 degrees, 180, even 270 and then head off. You could also easily show a lander disconnecting from the flyby and landing.

I also agree that landing and takeoff should be more obvious with some sort of indicator "on planet."

Edited December 11, 2014 by 5thHorseman

[Thunderous Echo]

I think I at least helped with this and for that I'm sorry As I said (but did not perhaps say strongly enough) was that my intention was to make the symbols "directon agnostic" meaning that they would work regardless of which direction you left and came back.

In that same vein, I really like that flyby. You could come in from one direction and go around easily 90 degrees, 180, even 270 and then head off. You could also easily show a lander disconnecting from the flyby and landing.

I also agree that landing and takeoff should be more obvious with some sort of indicator "on planet."

Alright, guys just use whatever flyby you want, and you can use two arrows if you want. I just like the one-arrow system because it's so simple.

But... um... 5thHorseman, can I ask about the picture in your signature?

If you don't mind, I'm going to let you be the administrator/facilitator of the Official ToDo List (dramatic music here) - at least for now, until I can actually start the work. When I finally publish to GitHub, we'll put that list into issues we can track. Sound good?

Sounds good. I'll combine it and my intended features list.

[Superfluous J]

Finally, I think 1-or-2-letter designations for planets (Like the elements are done) would be benficial. A blue circle is fine and all but does it mean Kerbin, Vall, or even Laythe?

Really quick I suggest Mo, Ev, Gi, Ke, Mu, Mi, Du, Ik, Dr, Jo, La, Ty, Va, Po, Bo, and Ee. Each is just the first 2 letters of the name and they're unique. Then you could leave the colors off or at least they wouldn't be required to memorize.

5thHorseman, can I ask about the picture in your signature?

[Thunderous Echo]

Finally, I think 1-or-2-letter designations for planets (Like the elements are done) would be benficial. A blue circle is fine and all but does it mean Kerbin, Vall, or even Laythe?

Really quick I suggest Mo, Ev, Gi, Ke, Mu, Mi, Du, Ik, Dr, Jo, La, Ty, Va, Po, Bo, and Ee. Each is just the first 2 letters of the name and they're unique. Then you could leave the colors off or at least they wouldn't be required to memorize.

We'll add an option for it.

[Norpo]

Great to see this is picking up steam

Point of note, what if you have a second stage on a mothership or lander? I think that not TOO many landers or mothership use them, but some certainly do. It'd be nice to see where a ship performs a staging. A Jool-5 lander could shed a stage after it lands on Tylo, for example. Currently there's no way to show that in the guide (I think, I could of easily missed it).

Also, what about if there should be any distinction between low orbit and High orbit (or even a hyperbolic orbit?)

I'm not sure if it'd ever make a large impact on mission planning on execution, if, say, you were in low orbit of the Mun, or High orbit, but it could make a world of difference for Jool.

That could be saved for version 2.0, though

Edited December 11, 2014 by Norpo
Me spell skill thing bad.

[Thunderous Echo]

Great to see this is picking up steam

Point of note, what if you have a second stage on a mothership or lander? I think that not TOO many landers or mothership use them, but some certainly do. It'd be nice to see where a ship performs a staging. A Jool-5 lander could shed a stage after it lands on Tylo, for example. Currently there's no way to show that in the guide (I think, I could of easilly missed it).

Also, what about if there should be any distinction between low orbit and High orbit (or even a hyperbolic orbit?)

I'm not sure if it'd ever make a large impact on mission planning on execution, if, say, you were in low orbit of the Mun, or High orbit, but it could make a world of difference for Jool.

That could be saved for version 2.0, though

Staging is not shown.

Obital altitude/shape is not shown, but you can add a label.

[StormKat]

I'm just going to throw this idea out there.

All missions use the same base image. Then the proper lines just need to be added for whatever the story is. Although I really like the 2-character labels.

Here's my version of the base image:

Can you guess what mission is represented?

Launches are curves at the top of the circles and landings are curves at the bottom of the circles.

[Superfluous J]

All missions use the same base image.

I'm torn on this. The main reason to use a notation is to conserve space. Using one big image wastes space. Also, it does not account for missions that revisit a location.

I'm trying to figure out how you'd notate (in either the proposed style or in your style, StormKat) a mission to Jool where you got into orbit around Tylo and then sent landers to each of the other moons from there.

[StormKat]

My base image was thrown together in Paint (uhg). Something that only takes up maybe 150 pixels high by 640 wide might work better.

I just like how you can look at that bottom picture and know exactly what the mission is. A picture is really worth a thousand words.

As a mission planner, I would do separate diagrams for each lander. Treat each lander as it's own mission.

Edit: I just now noticed all your changes on the first page, Thunderous Echo. I should have used your new symbols instead of making up my own for my example.

Edited December 11, 2014 by StormKat

[Thunderous Echo]

I'm just going to throw this idea out there.

All missions use the same base image. Then the proper lines just need to be added for whatever the story is. Although I really like the 2-character labels.

Here's my version of the base image:

http://i.imgur.com/5s5pw0O.jpg

Can you guess what mission is represented?

http://i.imgur.com/wyfeTVP.jpg

Launches are curves at the top of the circles and landings are curves at the bottom of the circles.

Lemme Guess: You stranded a bunch of people on Laythe.

Why does Jool have a crosshair on it?

While doing this without arrows for a simple mission like this is fine, it wold be very confusing for a Grand Tour.

Also, just curves don't make sense for variable orientations. You need an arrowhead to show which direction you're going.

Also, when you have a lot of arrows, you may need to reposition your planets to make it look neater.

[StormKat]

Lemme Guess: You stranded a bunch of people on Laythe.

Why does Jool have a crosshair on it?

While doing this without arrows for a simple mission like this is fine, it wold be very confusing for a Grand Tour.

Also, just curves don't make sense for variable orientations. You need an arrowhead to show which direction you're going.

Also, when you have a lot of arrows, you may need to reposition your planets to make it look neater.

Ignore it. I was trying to make up my own system. I hadn't noticed all your changes on the first page.

The crosshair was my "aerobrake". If launches are always on the top and landings always on the bottom then arrows aren't really needed.

What kind of variable orientations? The circles mean reach orbit, you don't show orbit directions. Or have I missed something else?

This is a fantastic idea, by the way. I love it!

[Thunderous Echo]

Ignore it. I was trying to make up my own system. I hadn't noticed all your changes on the first page.

The crosshair was my "aerobrake". If launches are always on the top and landings always on the bottom then arrows aren't really needed.

What kind of variable orientations? The circles mean reach orbit, you don't show orbit directions. Or have I missed something else?

I meant that you could come from all sides or angles.

The only thing wrong with "launches are always on the top and landings always on the bottom" is that that's one more thing you need to know about the notation system before you can read it.

[Thunderous Echo]

Well done, everyone! The KSP Forums have declared this as a "Hot Thread"!

[StormKat]

You're right. I was going for intuitively obvious.

I'll be intently watching this evolve.

[Summerfirefly]

Good idea!It will be easier to describe our space mission:D

[MGCJerry]

At first I didn't like this idea, but I do now a lot. I then thought, hey I could do a page to help create these graphics then seen others discussing this. My idea for an interface is something that was hugely simple, and I threw together a mockup for a basic interface.

A link to my test: Yea, the link looks funny because I'm having to host my domain like this. I don't have access to "Addon Domains" so I have to host it in a sub-directory.

http://2thextreme.org/mgcjerry.net/missiontest.html

Potential? Or should I just walk away from it?

[Superfluous J]

Potential? Or should I just walk away from it?

I think it has potential. As a non-programmer I would have no trouble using this.

I whipped this up in Dia, can people understand it? I would further submit a new notation, the double arrow for "went there and came back"

I only used one color (because I'm lazy) but each line coming off an orbit is actually a separate craft. Also, my "aerobraking" isn't a line but a box (again, I was too lazy to find a line and just took the first thing I could find that was similar) but other than that and the double arrows I followed the notation pretty strictly.

[Thunderous Echo]

I think it has potential. As a non-programmer I would have no trouble using this.

I whipped this up in Dia, can people understand it? I would further submit a new notation, the double arrow for "went there and came back"

http://pulpaudio.com/ksp/Jool5_diagram.png

I only used one color (because I'm lazy) but each line coming off an orbit is actually a separate craft. Also, my "aerobraking" isn't a line but a box (again, I was too lazy to find a line and just took the first thing I could find that was similar) but other than that and the double arrows I followed the notation pretty strictly.

That looks freaking amazing. This is exactly why I started this thread.

The only reason against double arrows is determining what happened when.

What it looks like happened:

-Whole ship launches from Kerbin, gravity assists at Laythe.

-Something disconnects, aerobrakes at Jool to get to Tylo, while rest of ship goes straight to Tylo

-Something and rest of ship dock.

-Thing undocks, goes to Vall, orbits, lands, takes off, orbits, returns to tylo, and docks

-Thing undocks, goes to Laythe, orbits, lands, takes off, orbits, returns to tylo, and docks

-Thing undocks, goes to Pol, orbits, lands, takes off, orbits, goes to Bop, orbits, lands, takes off, orbits, returns to tylo, and docks

Past there, it just seems that either everything just stayed at Tylo or continued on an infinite loop. Did you draw an arrow backwards?

Infinite looping is why we'll need to number our maneuvers/segments

[Thunderous Echo]

At first I didn't like this idea, but I do now a lot. I then thought, hey I could do a page to help create these graphics then seen others discussing this. My idea for an interface is something that was hugely simple, and I threw together a mockup for a basic interface.

A link to my test: Yea, the link looks funny because I'm having to host my domain like this. I don't have access to "Addon Domains" so I have to host it in a sub-directory.

http://2thextreme.org/mgcjerry.net/missiontest.html

Potential? Or should I just walk away from it?

Well, KerbalTek and I are already planning to make one, but you could join us when it comes time.

As for the UI, I have a far different plan that will be simpler.

[Thunderous Echo]

I drew up a mission Overfloater flew a couple months ago:

Edited December 11, 2014 by Thunderous Echo

[AbhChallenger]

Keep the images small please. If it is standardized. Folks can get used to the various symbols and colors/sizes for planets.

That being said this is very interesting. Especially if it can be generated.

[Superfluous J]

That looks freaking amazing. This is exactly why I started this thread.

The only reason against double arrows is determining what happened when.

What it looks like happened:

-Whole ship launches from Kerbin, gravity assists at Laythe.

-Something disconnects, aerobrakes at Jool to get to Tylo, while rest of ship goes straight to Tylo

-Something and rest of ship dock.

-Thing undocks, goes to Vall, orbits, lands, takes off, orbits, returns to tylo, and docks

-Thing undocks, goes to Laythe, orbits, lands, takes off, orbits, returns to tylo, and docks

-Thing undocks, goes to Pol, orbits, lands, takes off, orbits, goes to Bop, orbits, lands, takes off, orbits, returns to tylo, and docks

Past there, it just seems that either everything just stayed at Tylo or continued on an infinite loop. Did you draw an arrow backwards?

Infinite looping is why we'll need to number our maneuvers/segments

Actually without knowing the colors (as I said I left them off due to laziness) you pretty much got it right. The thing that aerobroke at Jool did so to get "flying low over Jool" science, and each thing that went from Tylo to a different moon was actually separate craft.

I actually forgot to draw the eventual "going from Tylo back to Kerbin" line *oops*

Other than losing the order that the excursions from Tylo to the other moons happened, The "there and back" lines really clean it up. I can't even think of how to show all that in a clean way otherwise (though I'd be happy to see another's attempt)

[Ezriilc]

At first I didn't like this idea, but I do now a lot. I then thought, hey I could do a page to help create these graphics then seen others discussing this. My idea for an interface is something that was hugely simple, and I threw together a mockup for a basic interface.

A link to my test: Yea, the link looks funny because I'm having to host my domain like this. I don't have access to "Addon Domains" so I have to host it in a sub-directory.

http://2thextreme.org/mgcjerry.net/missiontest.html

Potential? Or should I just walk away from it?

I like the simplicity of this. Edited December 11, 2014 by Ezriilc
Quoted wrong post.