Diversified omnis...

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

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.

[Jyro117]

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.

[jdmj]

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.

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

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.

[ddproxy]

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.

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

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.

[ddproxy]

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.

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

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.

[pjf]

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.

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

@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?"

[Starstrider42]

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.