Flight altimeter should have a ground altitude mode

[regex]

Currently the altimeter only shows "baseline" altitude (sea level on Kerbin, Eve, and Laythe, base elsewhere), which is fairly useless most of the time because parachutes deploy based on ground altitude and knowing how far you are from the ground is crucial to successfully landing. At the moment the only place you can see your ground altitude is within certain IVAs (which are generally useless to begin with because KSP strives to starve the player of information). Therefore, it make sense to have the altimeter on the main flight view be able to show the ground altitude as a different mode, just like when clicking the velocity indicator on the navball.

[Tuareg]

it WOULD make sense and thats exactly why it will not make it into the game like many other things...

[nightingale]

So basically, Diazo's Landing Height for stock?

Certainly makes sense to me. I remember my first Mun landing attempt when I crashed into the surface at 100m/s because I thought I still had 3 km or so to go. Considering at the time I didn't even know about quicksave/quickload... well you could say I was somewhat upset at the realization of what was going on.

[regex]

So basically, Diazo's Landing Height for stock?

Somewhat, but just using the stock radar altimeter for altitude, no need for fancy parts-based altitude. Edited February 11, 2015 by regex
fun fact: "latitude" is literally a one-letter shift from "altitude"

[klgraham1013]

I can agree with this.

[Nemrav]

so....

IVA's are useless, and I hate that... so let's get rid of the one advantage ivas have !!! Excellent idea everyone !!11!!

Other than that... sure, people might not be able to handle the higher resolutions to actually see the instruments, so it would be useful

[cpast]

More like "why make us use IVAs for this information?" I don't see why AGL altitude should be specific to IVA. While I don't love that things like apoapsis altitude aren't available in non-map mode, I can see the reasoning (map mode is for stuff to do with the orbit, flight modes are for when you want to control the craft at a finer level of detail than "use my currently enabled engines" and "point"); however, I don't see why IVA is uniquely suitable for the radar altimeter.

[Sonny_Jim]

+1 for the idea that altitude is displayed from terrain when the navball is set to surface mode and sea level when in orbit. Makes much more sense.

[Wabbit]

We need this, and we have for a while. Support.

[Brotoro]

I approve of being able to switch the altimeter from MSL to AGL. They could invert the colors of the display (to white on black) to make the change Really Obvious.

[Stormweaver]

It'd be more interesting to have parachutes deploy based on height above sea-level, and unlock a not-inexpencive radar altimeter some way into the tech tree.

....but where you have one, yes, it should be on the HUD somewhere.

[regex]

IVA's are useless, and I hate that... so let's get rid of the one advantage ivas have !!! Excellent idea everyone !!11!!

Yes, that's exactly what I'm proposing here, removing all IVAs.

[klgraham1013]

so....

IVA's are useless, and I hate that... so let's get rid of the one advantage ivas have !!! Excellent idea everyone !!11!!

Since I'm not sure if you're serious or missing the point, how about this:

so....

IVA's are useless, and I hate that... why isn't Raster Prop Monitor stock yet !!! Excellent idea everyone !!11!!

I agree! Great idea!

Edited February 11, 2015 by klgraham1013

[Red Iron Crown]

Agree with this suggestion 100%, when in surface mode AGL is the more useful information and should be available in the main flight view as well as IVA.

it WOULD make sense and thats exactly why it will not make it into the game like many other things...

Do you have anything constructive to add? Because that post is simply worthless.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Red Iron Crown

[Alshain]

I agree with the suggestion, but I'm afraid at this point they would probably add it as a function of the Engineer. Ground level altitude is a complicated two variable subtraction problem after all.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Alshain

[Renegrade]

Also agree.

Actually, is it even possible to determine altitude above sea level on a planet that has no atmosphere? AGL is easy to do with radar, optics, or laser rangefinders or such.. but sea level measurements usually rely on barometers, no?

[Alshain]

Also agree.

Actually, is it even possible to determine altitude above sea level on a planet that has no atmosphere? AGL is easy to do with radar, optics, or laser rangefinders or such.. but sea level measurements usually rely on barometers, no?

I believe it is the other way around. The sea level is the standard for which atmospheric pressure is measured. Presumably if you had a defined standard sea level for a body and knew the altitude of the ground, radar mapping could tell you the ASL without a barometer by simple addition, but that process requires the surface altitude first, which is why we should have access the that data!

Edited February 12, 2015 by Alshain

[Renegrade]

Presumably if you had a defined standard sea level for a body and knew the altitude of the ground, radar mapping could tell you the ASL without a barometer by simple addition, but that process requires the surface altitude first, which is why we should have access the that data!

Yeah, totally agree here.

I'm definitely in favor of having AGL displayed in addition to, OR even in replacement of, our current ASL measurement. If both are to be available, clicking the altimeter (as suggested by regex) sounds like a perfectly good way to handle it, especially as that's how the speed indicator on the navball works.

Would kill fewer newbies too

[cicatrix]

Technically, radar/laser altimeter is the only reliable instrument that is available on the planets with no atmosphere. There is simply nothing else that can tell you how far is it. So, the baseline altimeter is an artificial thing that is used by the game engine. The real thing is radar / barometric altimetry.

[regex]

Actually, is it even possible to determine altitude above sea level on a planet that has no atmosphere? AGL is easy to do with radar, optics, or laser rangefinders or such.. but sea level measurements usually rely on barometers, no?

In KSP "Sea Level" on airless/oceanless bodies is essentially the base sphere radius around which all terrain is measured from. It is useful for orbital calculations (75km up, or whatever) but is essentially worthless for landing.

I agree with the suggestion, but I'm afraid at this point they would probably add it as a function of the Engineer. Ground level altitude is a complicated two variable subtraction problem after all.

ONLY HIGHLY-TRAINED SUBTRACTION SPECIALISTS NEED APPLY Edited February 12, 2015 by regex

[tntristan12]

I've been pulling for this feature for a long time. I think I would go one step farther and say "give the altimeter a datum toggle like the speedometer has." For example, the cycle might go:

1) distance from surface of planet.

2) distance from center of planet.

3) distance from currently selected target (for docking, since the altimeter is basically useless when you're trying to dock)

For bonus points, tie it to the speedometer datum toggle, so 1 corresponds to surface mode, 2 corresponds to orbital readout, and 3 corresponds to target readout.

EDIT: It'd be really nice to toggle them independently, but have them switch together when the transition is automatic (like when going from surface to orbit mode)

Tangential aside: Heck, let's make the Pe and Ap readouts in the map menu measure from the center of the planet instead of sea level, because that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!

Edited February 13, 2015 by tntristan12

[kujuman]

Tangential aside: Heck, let's make the Pe and Ap readouts in the map menu measure from the center of the planet instead of sea level, because that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!

Ehhh nah. Above ASL makes sense anytime you need to have an idea of how much clearance you have from hitting the planet and it's how most Low orbits are described. You only need Pe from center if you're doing math, in which case adding the body radius is a trivial step

[cicatrix]

2 corresponds to orbital readout

Imagine you're in a real spacecraft orbiting the Moon. How in the world you would determine orbital readout? The only way you can measure the distance to the surface/target is by using radio or laser beam. No 'orbital readout' for you.

[tntristan12]

Ehhh nah. Above ASL makes sense anytime you need to have an idea of how much clearance you have from hitting the planet and it's how most Low orbits are described. You only need Pe from center if you're doing math, in which case adding the body radius is a trivial step

Very fair point. I stand corrected. Still doesn't make much sense for heliocentric orbits though, since you never actually come close enough to the sun to worry about crashing into it.

Imagine you're in a real spacecraft orbiting the Moon. How in the world you would determine orbital readout? The only way you can measure the distance to the surface/target is by using radio or laser beam. No 'orbital readout' for you.

You're preaching to the choir on that one. Yes, it is unrealistic, and as somebody who is taking a graduate level course on spacecraft navigation I can attest to the fact that determining a spacecraft's position in space is no trivial thing. However, keep in mind that nearly everything about KSP's UI is designed to make it accessible. Hell, I don't think even Orbiter went into that level of detail - requiring you to determine your position using celestial navigation or GPS or whatnot. I think something like that is a reasonable break from reality.

Besides, how exactly does pinging the Mun with a laser beam tell you where you are at relative to the datum? By that logic, the system is already broken anyway. Also, I do agree that surface mode should give you the radar altitude anyway.

[cicatrix]

Besides, how exactly does pinging the Mun with a laser beam tell you where you are at relative to the datum? By that logic, the system is already broken anyway. Also, I do agree that surface mode should give you the radar altitude anyway.

No, the laser can only tell you the distance to the object which reflected it back, nothing more. Actually, there's no big difference if its radio or laser - they both are just electromagnetic waves. So, you can use either to determine how far down the surface is (or your target is), but you cannot tell how far the 'baseline' or 'sea level' are or how far is the planet center. What I mean that it's only logical to change the altimeter readout from 'baseline' to 'surface'.