RemoteTech
RemoteTech copied to clipboard
RemoteTechnologiesGroup
Diversified omnis...
I'm actually in-game designing a new commsat right this second, and I've realized something... I use the same AIES Commtech 12 Mm range antenna on everything. It reaches the Mun, has negligible power consumption for a dedicated satellite (or any satellite really, and doesn't even take up that much space. Why bother with a Commutron or any other Omni when I have a one-stop-shop for all my radio needs?
In general, the entire Omni antenna set are more or less moot, even if I took out the 12 Mm. I'd just switch to the next longest range antenna. Providing enough power just isn't an issue.
Does anyone have any ideas on how to give more diversification to omnidirectional antennae?
Right now, the only thing that's 'intuitive' in my mind for players is to simply nerf their ranges and increase their power consumption, making the use of short-range, wide angle dishes more desirable. (And commsats look more like commsats than RC-rockets with solar panels.)
However, that brings into thought of trying to stich up inter-satellite connections that were originally just handled by the omnidirectional network. And that brings me to thinking about adding more aim directions for dishes. In this case, the six cardinal directions. Prograde, Retrograde, Normal, Antinormal, Radial +, and Radial -. (Or at least pro and retro) That way, you can set a satellite up to have dishes looking ahead of it in its orbit it, and behind it in its orbit at other satellites without having to lock directly on to them. But I'm wary of such complexity as that could easily get confusing, or spiral into including an antenna aim module where you could direct the relative or absolute aim in degrees.
Does anyone have any ideas for this? We're plugging so many ideas into fixing dishes, but I'm starting to think Omnis are getting neglected.
One simple method would be to cut the base effectiveness of Omnis, but allow the range to add together with diminishing returns following a power intensity curve: I = P / 4_pi_r^2
Rearrange for r:
r = sqrt(P/I_4_pi)
P can then be the electrical power requirements for the Omni. I can then be a value assigned to lower-tier Omnis which determines there quality.
Now to combine Omnis simply take their effectiveness (E = P/I_4_pi) add them together to calculate the new range.
Obviously for this to really be worth while the Omnis would need some sort of spherical visual indicator to show what the range is. Maybe a tool in the VAB to calculate the maximum range given the omnis on the vehicle.
Here is a table with some number to show exactly what I mean:
| Omni | Count | Power Factor | Intensity Factor | Electric Req (Ec/s) | Effectiveness | Range (Mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type A | 1 | 10 | 3.15 | 0.01 | 0.252626894 | 0.502620029 |
| Type A | 2 | 10 | 3.15 | 0.02 | 0.252626894 | 0.710812062 |
| Type A | 3 | 10 | 3.15 | 0.03 | 0.252626894 | 0.870563428 |
| Type A | 5 | 10 | 3.15 | 0.05 | 0.252626894 | 1.123892552 |
| Type A | 10 | 10 | 3.15 | 0.1 | 0.252626894 | 1.58942409 |
| Type A | 100 | 10 | 3.15 | 1 | 0.252626894 | 5.026200292 |
| Type A | 1000 | 10 | 3.15 | 10 | 0.252626894 | 15.8942409 |
| Type B | 1 | 130 | 2 | 0.13 | 5.17253565 | 2.274320921 |
| Type B | 2 | 130 | 2 | 0.26 | 5.17253565 | 3.216375491 |
| Type B | 3 | 130 | 2 | 0.39 | 5.17253565 | 3.939239387 |
| Type B | 5 | 130 | 2 | 0.65 | 5.17253565 | 5.085536181 |
| Type B | 10 | 130 | 2 | 1.3 | 5.17253565 | 7.19203424 |
| Type B | 100 | 130 | 2 | 13 | 5.17253565 | 22.74320921 |
| Type B | 1000 | 130 | 2 | 130 | 5.17253565 | 71.9203424 |
| Type A & B | 1 | N/A | N/A | 0.14 | N/A | 2.329197833 |
| Type A & B | 2 | N/A | N/A | 0.28 | N/A | 3.293983165 |
| Type A & B | 3 | N/A | N/A | 0.42 | N/A | 4.034288987 |
| Type A & B | 5 | N/A | N/A | 0.7 | N/A | 5.208244687 |
| Type A & B | 10 | N/A | N/A | 1.4 | N/A | 7.365570273 |
| Type A & B | 100 | N/A | N/A | 14 | N/A | 23.29197833 |
| Type A & B | 1000 | N/A | N/A | 140 | N/A | 73.65570273 |
*Type A & B indicates 1 of each on the vessel.
There was a fix previously which I liked: some omnies were retractable (also, heavier, iirc) and some were not (oneshot). I think it was in RTE, but Cilph rolled it back after one of RT2 development restarts.
I sort-of like, but sort-of hate the idea that chart represents myself. On the one hand, the satellite starts to look like a commsat with the cluster of antennae sticking out of it of different types.
On the other hand, that works fine and dandy for an A & B pair, but we have something like seven different antenna types to choose from... [Goes to get count from my set] ...Eight antenna types.
Many of them different lengths... At least one of those is a dish-shaped patch antenna.
If frequencies were introduced, I could see the use of the different lengths stacked on a satellite to give different 'channels'. But that gets too close to needlessly confusing for other players. And then we'd have to work that whole mess into dishes.
Simultaneous connection limits still seems tantalizing, thought that too would just lead to slapping a few dozen of the long range ones on and calling it a day.
I'm at a loss here. Only things I can think of either fall back to exploiting a golden combo, or adding extra mechanics to the system. If I could think of a mechanic to add that doesn't result in liberal application of Head-to-Desk Exercise, I'd post it.
What about throwing delay into the mix? Based on the length and power combinations of the antenna the signal delay would be applied.
Longer antenna = less delay but more power consumption Smaller antenna = more delay but less power consumption
Tie that in with the antenna stacking and different combinations would have different range-delay-power with diminishing returns. I am not strong in the maths to know if this is a good idea or not.
Delay isn't something antenna's can fix. That's an attribute of C (The Speed of Light). The only attributes antennae would introduce here would be power loss from bad impedance matching, or EM noise from poor engineering in the underlying signal processing equipment.
Oh yeah, light :-/
Slightly tangent idea, has read-only been introduced before? After a distance, the antenna can only receive instructions, not transmit data back?
On a similar tangent, I haven't tested if dishes can talk to antenna if they are pointed at them. I'm thinking about cantenna's/modified dishes being able to pick up wifi from longer distances than unfocused antenna receivers. That would really mess with the current balance though if a connection were as simple as a good dish pointing at an antenna in range.
Back to omni-diversity - It may be easier to balance when budgets are implemented. Higher range - higher cost, or MUCH higher cost.
We talk about bidirectional communications over in #116 .
There's just not much coming BACK that the game engine by itself doesn't give us for free. (Like the camera view showing you exactly what the vessel status is.)
As for budget-based balance. Doesn't make too much sense. Some sense, but not a lot.
I should take my commo book with me and just see if I can't pull something out of the antenna section. Dipoles, monopoles, arrays, parasitic or otherwise.
I seem to be missing the point here. At least when I'm playing, I'm using omnis for communications around a given body, and directional antennas between bodies. I don't feel the omnis are neglected, because they "just work".
Maybe I'm missing something, but as far as I'm concerned, this is how it should be.
@pjf
The point I'm making is that we have over half a dozen omnidirectional antenna that are only distinguished from each other by range and power consumption. And right now, it's just too easy to pick the 'powerful' antenna and leave it at that. Which means that we are using less than half of the available antennae to do everything there is to do full stop. At which point you have to ask yourself: "Why have these others when 'That One Antenna' is the magic bullet that does all things?"
Just to chip in, I feel that the only antenna that is redundant at the moment is the EXP-VR-2T. The Communotron 16 is the early-game antenna. The Reflectron DP-10 is obviously one-of-a-kind. The Communotron 32 is That One Antenna, but only once you unlock it. The EXP-VR-2T, on the other hand, is basically a more expensive C-16. So my preference would be to focus on the balance between the EXP-VR-2T and the Communotron 32 as the two late-game omnis, and (somehow) encourage people to use the EXP-VR-2T in situations where they don't need the Communotron 32's extra power.
However, I also feel that it's too early to be worrying about this. We have lots of issues to fix with the existing game, including rule changes (e.g. how cones work, how targeting works, etc.). Part redundancy is something we can address once the core game is stable.
@Jyro117, something similar to your idea is already in the game as the MultipleAntennaMultiplier option. The main difference is that it uses a linear scaling with number of antennas, rather than the more realistic square-root law.
It's never too early to think about something like this. Either we think about it now, or we think about it later, but we have to spend the same amount of time thinking about it. Might as well poke at ideas now and trickle some thought into it.
Also, consider that mods like AEIS add the Commtech antennas. You suddenly have a whole redundant set, including the Commtech 12 Mm. Who needs a commutron 32 when you have a radio box the size of a toaster oven that can talk at 12,000 kilometers and runs on D-cell batteries?
EDIT: never mind, I think I get what you're saying. You want to nip the problem of unbalanced third-party mods in the bud by adding more variables to part design, right?
AIES doesn't add RT antennas, it adds parts without RT module. Users do write configs for them. But I don't remember vanilla RT having omni this potent ever. In any release.
@AdmiralTigerClaw Oh! Sorry, I thought you were saying you'd always pick a dish antenna and never use any omnis. Do carry on. :)
@Starstrider42 Yes I am aware of the MultipleAntennaMultiplier, but I found the linear scaling without diminishing returns makes it too easy to abuse (using large values) or not worth the effort (using small values).
@Starstrider42
Something to diversify the antennae so players don't just gravitate towards using the same part for everything. Like I said, I've been using the same AIES commtech antenna on every sat for its Omni with the only exception being the 500 km 'always-on' dipole antenna.
Also, I'm like to suggest not tailoring the parts to fit into career mode.
See, the problem is that career mode brings an RPG-esque grind with it. And an RPG grind introduces a ladder climb mindset where each successive new or unlock becomes inherently 'better' and you tend to ignore the old stuff for newer, 'higher level' parts. And eventually you end up with the usual pile of 'level one' components you don't use anymore in lieu of the shiny level 20 with the buffed stats.
Real life doesn't always behave like that, despite what Apple iphones would like you to believe. So really, the parts should be considered and balanced as if you are already completely at the endgame with everything unlocked, and after the parameters are tweaked, look at them and decide where in the tech tree they belong.
So there needs to be a reasonable advantage to swap between the various components. Using the 'always-on' has the advantage of operating in all conditions short of vehicle destruction but has short range. A long range commutron 32 has the advantage of its range once you get it out of the atmosphere or park it somewhere. But there's no reason to go beyond those two with current setup.
One mechanic I could see is the addition of interference via noise. A longer antenna can pick up lower frequencies, and the universe loves its radio noise. So the longer the antenna, the more frequencies of background noise the system has to filter out. Of course, that doesn't equate directly to power because more power doesn't necessitate bigger antennas.
Also: THAT involves creating a 'noise' mechanic to interfere with power and that is both coding work, and could lead to frustration. And noise would really only work well with the square cubed power and threshold model I suggested. (Where noise would mask signals of low enough power and effectively shorten ranges in a localized manner for each satellite involved.)
Ok, in that case my pre-edit point still stands: we are not, and should not be, responsible for balancing other people's mods. If AIES (or whoever made the RT2 config for it) wants to create horribly overpowered antennas, nothing we can reasonably do will stop them.
As for not using tech level as a balancing factor, I concede the point -- I tend to forget also that some people prefer sandbox to career mode. For the record, though, I've still found uses for the two shorter-range omnis in cases where I simply don't need the extra range and power drain -- for example, on rovers where I have a comsat in orbit.
The C-32 does have two limitations: its high power requirements and its extreme frailty. However, the first is not quite high enough to be a good deterrent, and the second is useless as a balancing tool because most people don't know the exact limits at which antennas break (also, halving the antenna strength makes little difference in practice if you do the math). I do like jdmj's idea of making it heavier, though. The question is, can we find a mass that's heavy enough to discourage use but still light enough to be plausible for the model size?
Probably up the power consumption for the range and mass it based on what the TX assembly under the hood would weigh.
Radios generate a lot of heat, especially when you start pumping big power into them. Utilize the WasteHeat resource module from the Community Resource Pack. Maybe the C16 is small enough to radiate it's heat efficiently, but the C32 is going to require a radiator or you risk overheating your comsat and losing a node(and possibly several critical links down the line) until you can get someone out to service it.
You should also consider having size also be something to take into account. Typically the larger an antenna is, the higher the gain, and therefore the easier it is to pick up the signal, which is what limits range to begin with. I think physical size and weight as well as power usage is what should primarily used to balance antenna. But I also am for aiming to balance the mod mostly towards Career, but that can also be done with "upgrades" in the same way the interstellar mods do it instead of separate parts altogether. Which would add an interesting element where you send up a team to upgrade the antenna on your comm sat in career mode, gaining improvements to existing designs, instead of having duplicate parts that are tiered. This would mostly just annoy the sandbox people because it adds a lot of parts.
I prefer to use Root and 2 BoxSat 4-ways with 2 BoxSat Dishes. All my Sats go up this way, regardless of mission. When 'Go Here, Do This' is done, It becomes a ComSat at location. The variance of power to the antennae seems like a great way to balance the golden combo. more range = more power = Heavier with batteries/gens/panels. If that were implemented, I would not be able to use my current one-for-everything sat. Please consider this '+/- power <-> range' on all the antennae. with diminishing return on increasing power, a rethink on bats/panels/gens (overall mass) is mandatory for mission planning.
One thought: if the antenna is scaled up from the communotron 16, twice the height would be 8 times the weight, and still not as sturdy.
This suggests a mass of 0.04, regardless of other balance features, and perhaps a certain amount of frailty - maybe you want the shorter, sturdier aerial for those rovers that are careening around the countryside, while the long ones risk snapping in the bouncing.
A side thought to that could be if the com-16 were able to handle 'relatively' more atmospheric load - not totally proof like the reflectotron, but subsonic comms, perhaps? For those times that 500km is too short while 0.5 ton is overkill. Aircraft have flown with antenna festooned on their noses for a long time, after all.
That way everything is an upgrade as you continue down career mode, but the humble 16 still has merits on your more ruggedised designs even despite its relative obsoleteness.
Is this issue still active? I'd like to pitch in as well. I've just started trying RT on sandbox mode and I noticed that the Communotron 16 values make no sense. The regular C-16 requires 0.13 EC/second, while the C-16S uses 0.02 EC/second. This makes no sense for what should essentially be the same radio. At the same time, the Reflectron DP-10 uses 0.01 EC/second, which is a negligible difference WRT the C-16S (in absolute terms, 0.01 and 0.02 hardly differ, except for very long missions on battery power). I have no reason to install a DP-10 anywhere, as the C-16S is better and also cheap in consumption. Also, I am seriously considering deprecating the regular C-16 for my satellites, as the surface mount model is much cheaper in EC, so the extra 10 Kg I get by carrying a C-16S are offset by not having to carry as many batteries.
I propose setting the power consumption value the same for both Communotron-16 types to something intermediate, somewhat closer to the regular C-16, like 0.07. This would turn the DP-10 into a good secondary antenna (cheap but short range), while normal communications would be done with the C-16 family (trading mass for atmosphere tolerance with the C-16S vs the C-16).
In that case, you could have an always-on DP-10 and do active control on the others. The DP-10 would also be great if using part failure mods as a backup antenna with the new EC values.
