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

[Ezriilc]

So, I put the pedal to the metal and "finished" my previous task, to rebuild the Kerbaltek website.

I'm eager to get started on this project, but I think I might need a little break and some time to find bugs on the new site.

So... [shameless plug coming] how about ya'all come over and give me some love? You could register an account and make yourself some nice ribbons, and while you're there you can tell me about any issues you find, to speed up my process. Heck, invite your friends and we'll make a party of it! Thanks in advance!

Now, let's build this... what are we going to call it?

[Norpo]

...what are we going to call it?

Ideas:

"Mission Overview Generator"

"Mission Summary Generator"

"Grand-High Awesome Mission Composer of Overview-Ness"

...maybe not that last one

[Superfluous J]

I can't stop wanting this to be available all in text. I blame chess notation.

Each line is a ship. :#: means that ship undocks.

T=Takeoff | O=Orbit | A=Aerobrake | L=Land | D#=Docked to ship # | -=Transfer between bodies.

1: KeTO-LaF-:2:-TyO:3:4:5:6:-KeAL

2: -JoA-TyD1

3: -LaO:3a:-TyOD1

3a: LaALTOD3

4: -VaO:4a:-TyOD1

4a: VaLTOD4

5: TyLTOD1

6: -PoO:6a:-BoO:6b:-TyOD1

6a: PoLTOD6

6b: BoLTOD6

Whew. Now that I've written it all out, I no longer want that sort of notation.

[StormKat]

Instead of the arrows for dock and undock, wouldn't a small circle with a + or - make more sense? Or maybe a square with a + or -?

[klgraham1013]

It has to be Mission Overview Generator, right? I mean...I just want to say "Mog" in general conversation. Maybe that's just me.

Edited December 12, 2014 by klgraham1013

[Pecan]

I'm still playing-around with a monochrome left to right network version in Photoshop.

Monochrome is not an issue but space is - the linear format shows actions and time-relations very clearly but at the expense of showing positon in space. This is simply a function of positioning things in the order, not the place, that they happen.

Conversely, fixed-position displays such as StormKat's and 5thHorseman's show relative place well (and distance, with a bit of scaling) but obscure time-relations.

Any presentation-display guru's out there know a good way to show both position and time relations on the same chart?

ETA - I think there is a good way to display fly-bys and orbit information in either case:

Fly-bys are an arc beneath the body disc, with (if wanted and display-scale allows) the periapsis marked between the body and flight-line.

Orbits are then complete circles with the apoapsis marked above the disk.

The point here being that fly-bys only have a periapsis (low point, shown below body) while orbits also have an apoapsis (high point, above it).

Multiple orbits can be shown by larger and larger rings, each similarly annotation with Ap and Pe between it and the next-lower orbit.

Working on a more complete diagram, showing separate bodies and vehicles.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Pecan

[Superfluous J]

I mean, it has to be Mission Overview Generator, right? I mean...I just want to say "Mog" in general conversation. Maybe that's just me.

And the notation is Mission Overview Notation, or MON.

"Eh, ow you notate your missions?"

"Eh, MON!"

Instead of the arrows for dock and undock, wouldn't a small circle with a + or - make more sense? Or maybe a square with a + or -?

I like this lots and lots. Then arrows can be used for when direction is ambiguous.

...the linear format shows actions and time-relations very clearly but at the expense of showing positon in space.

Conversely, fixed-position displays ... show relative place well (and distance, with a bit of scaling) but obscure time-relations.

Any presentation-display guru's out there know a good way to show both position and time relations on the same chart?

I am by no means a guru on design but perhaps an agreement that everything happens either (1) clockwise around the circle (my preferred), (2) counter-clockwise around the circle (to match orbits), (3) whichever direction arrows around the circle go (see above), or (4) something weird like both ways around the circle, but distance from entry (or exit) vector dentoes how far.

So take my pic for example, and from Tylo:

(1) We visit Vall first, then do the Pol/Bop mission, then the Laythe mission, then the Jool Flyby mission returns (he got lost).

(2) Jool Flyby Mission returns, we do the Laythe Mission, the Pol/Bop mission, then the Vall Mission.

(3) I didn't include arrows, but presumably they'd specifically note one of the above.

(4) Jool Flyby Misison returns, then we do the Laythe and Vall missions at the same time (though we could have shifted one of them right or left to indicate it went first or last), then the Pol/Bop mission goes last.

4 is the most confusing but has a great benefit that it naturally encourages you to continue moving on to the next planet in the series in at least roughly the same direction you came in.

Another option would be to number each sub-mission, like Thunderous Echo did a few pages back.

Edited December 12, 2014 by 5thHorseman

[klgraham1013]

Pecan, in your example, I'd worry about the text being to small when put into practical use. I do like the AP and PE being displayed, though.

Edited December 12, 2014 by klgraham1013

[Pecan]

Pecan, in your example, I'd worry about the text being to small when put into practical use. I do like the AP and PE being displayed, though.

WIP - you will note I said "(if wanted and display-scale allows)" and I agree it's an issue. Consider 5th Horseman's more complete diagram and the size of the body-discs their two-letter names and the distance between the bodies and the orbit-lines. There seems enough room there for 3 or 4 digits/characters and precision is unlikely to be important on the diagram - so "70K", "1.2M", etc. Relative size is all subject to whim (outside of an actual tool) and I'm assuming most people won't want realistic scales on a diagram.

On the version I'm considering ("swim-lane" network style, and I'm changing my mind to a vertical orientation instead of horizontal) there won't be multiple orbits on a single node, as those are differentiated by time and/or vehicle, so Ap/Pe could be shown outside the orbit-line instead for more room (but I think it looks less tidy).

Oh, and I used chevrons instead of arrows for launch/landing just to avoid confusion with any other arrows that might be present on the diagrams (there are quite a few in 5thHorseman's!). Other features to be discussed more once I've done the advent-calendar challenge for today.

[Superfluous J]

Oh, and I used chevrons instead of arrows for launch/landing just to avoid confusion with any other arrows that might be present on the diagrams (there are quite a few in 5thHorseman's!). Other features to be discussed more once I've done the advent-calendar challenge for today.

My arrows were mostly due to the pack I chose in Dia and my laziness toward finding a better alternative. But I do like a lot of them. The extra one at the Jool Flyby was unneeded but it was the only arc I could find after literally SECONDS of searching.

[StormKat]

Put the AP and PE number in circles attached to the top and bottom of the orbit respectively. A single number on an orbit indicates a circular orbit.

Landing and launch chevrons (or arrows) would always be in pairs 180 degrees apart starting at left side (270 degrees). Multiple landings and launch chevrons would be in order from left to right rotated clockwise by a few degrees. Theoretically you could show many launches/landings this way without cluttering up the display.

Edited December 12, 2014 by StormKat

[Thunderous Echo]

I was not planning on marking Ap and Pe because it usually doesn't matter, but sometimes, it does. So there will be an optional orbital height marker on the generator (auto-abbreviated to a few digits).

Docking and undocking: Why don't arrows work?

Space relations: I thought everyone knew where the planets were. And craft position doesn't matter that much: you just need to know if things are in orbit and what SOI they're in.

Also, I realize linear mode could show simultaneous maneuvers by parallel, so do that.

[StormKat]

I tried this in Google Drawing to see if I could replicate 5thHorseman's chart. It was pretty hard to do since I'm not used to it. I used the triangle to denote the lander that got lost while the rest of the ship continued on. The triangle could be used as a marker to show other missions on separate linear paths. Just match up the triangles?

Or maybe landers should be rectangles and triangles should be ships.

T.E., Arrows usually denote a flow. Docking is an event and should be shown as such. Plus it gives you a place to put extra information.

This is all hurting my head...

Edited December 12, 2014 by StormKat

[Thunderous Echo]

I tried this in Google Drawing. It was pretty hard to do since I'm not used to it. I used the triangle to denote the lander that got lost while the rest of the ship continued on.

T.E., Arrows usually denote a flow. Docking is an event and should be shown as such. Plus it gives you a place to put extra information.

Yes, but you don't need a plus sign. The notation is simpler without it. And a triangle isn't necessary either.

If you want to put extra information, just write words.

[StormKat]

Yes, but you don't need a plus sign. The notation is simpler without it. And a triangle isn't necessary either.

If you want to put extra information, just write words.

I just grabbed an arbitrary shape that hadn't been used before.

LOL! Y'all have me thinking too hard about this. I just need to sit back and let all of you work it out.

[MGCJerry]

LOL! Y'all have me thinking too hard about this. I just need to sit back and let all of you work it out.

That's the reason I've laid off coming up with stuff. See how the community wants it to look/operate before tossing any code around.

[Pecan]

Time is my enemy still, but to give another example, I am trying to diagram:

"Jool-Mother launched from Kerbin into a 75km orbit, where the SSTO launch vehicle, VL-50, undocked. Jool-Mother then performed its escape burn and, while it was transferring to Jool, VL-50 de-orbited and landed back at KSC. Sometime later, shortly before entering Jool's SOI, Jool-Mother released Lander 1 on an inclined orbit to intercept Bop. Lander 1 established orbit around Bop then Jool-Mother aerobraked at Jool and again at Laythe, where it released Lander 2, which established orbit there. Jool-Mother left Laythe on transfer to Tylo. Meanwhile Lander 1 landed on and re-orbited from Bop then transferred to Pol, Lander 2 landed on then re-orbited from Laythe then transferred to Vall. Jool-Mother established orbit around Tylo, Lander 1 around Pol and Lander 2 around Vall then they landed in that sequence."

Whether that's a sensible way to organise a Jool-5 mission is beside the point, but I think that's the sort of detail that, at least, a good diagram should be able to show, including all the time-relations, which is why I'm organising by that instead of position. Sequential-numbering just doesn't do it for me, as you have to look all over the place for the next number. Parallel swim-lanes certainly work well for showing multiple craft and all docking/undocking/staging requires is lines that split or converge on nodes. It may be that showing specific 'manoeuvre' rather than 'body' nodes works better for position ... that's my next experiment.

[Ezriilc]

I've started a repo on GitHub here: https://github.com/Ezriilc/KSP-Mission-Overview-Generator

Right now it's nothing but an empty shell, and it will likely change drastically in the beginning, since we don't really know where we're going just yet. Think of it as an empty drawing board.

[Waterlimon]

The diagram could be represented similar to how source version control works, you have horizontal lines representing single craft, and these lines can branch and merge (undock/dock) into multiple parallel horizontal lines.

It would even allow representing the mission in correct chronological order, since horizontal axis represents time and each craft is on a separate line, advancing in parallel with the other lines.

This would mean that:

-A single craft is always described as a horizontal sequence of actions

-Docking/undocking always means branching or merging horizontal lines vertically

-Lengths of arrows can be adjusted to achieve correct chronological order (optional, in reality only the branch/merge points need to be at the same point in time...)

Instead of displaying multiple actions on top of a planet symbol, how about including the planet symbol ONLY for the transfer to that planet and all future actions are assumed to be on that planet:

1. ^ | Kerbin | O(80) | Eve | AB | O(200) | <2> | >2< |

2. O(100) | v | muh flag | ^ | >1< |

1.=timeline of craft 1

2.=timeline of lander

|=divisor

^=liftoff

v=land

O(x)=orbit to x km (O(x,y) would have AP and PE)

AB=aerobrake

<x>=undock, undocked vessel timeline is x.

>x<=dock with vessel with timeline x (both timelines should include this)

A vessel shouldnt be able to undock after redocking to make sure the timeline stays unambiguous I guess (so if 2. were to undock again it would be put on timeline 3, not continue timeline 2)

Something like this might work.

[mielgato]

I really liked the idea from thunderous echo on post #1, you can put the index as first page of your album and then stick a little icon in the corner of each screenshot to explain what you're doing, really neat !

from what I've seen, all ideas so far are really cool, and most of them easily understandable for a novice like me, but the further we go on the thread, the bigger and the more complex it get !

Edited December 14, 2014 by mielgato

[Superfluous J]

Time is my enemy still, but to give another example, I am trying to diagram:

"Jool-Mother launched from Kerbin into a 75km orbit, where the SSTO launch vehicle, VL-50, undocked. Jool-Mother then performed its escape burn and, while it was transferring to Jool, VL-50 de-orbited and landed back at KSC...

...I think that's the sort of detail that, at least, a good diagram should be able to show, including all the time-relations...

I don't agree that the diagram needs to show all the time relations. What is the functional difference between the SSTO landing before or after the mothership leaves? All that matters is that it undocks and lands.

[Vaporo]

This is interesting. I like it. Perhaps someone could create a mission profile generator, similarly to the forum ribbon generator.

EDIT: I should really read previous posts before saying something like this.

https://github.com/Ezriilc/KSP-Mission-Overview-Generator

Edited December 17, 2014 by Vaporo

[Superfluous J]

This is interesting. I like it. Perhaps someone could create a mission profile generator, similarly to the forum ribbon generator.

Yeah, but whomever could we get to do that?

[Thunderous Echo]

The diagram could be represented similar to how source version control works, you have horizontal lines representing single craft, and these lines can branch and merge (undock/dock) into multiple parallel horizontal lines.

Yup. That's what I have in mind.

This is interesting. I like it. Perhaps someone could create a mission profile generator, similarly to the forum ribbon generator.

Working on it, along with Ezriilc!

[Mister Kingdom]

Yes, this is perfect. I definitely agree, it beats telling it through words and pictures by a long way. I generally like anything that brings some standardisation into potentially difficult to understand concepts, so this is directly 'up my street'.

Edited December 14, 2014 by Mister Kingdom