Rotational Correction: A bug that's existed for years now...

[Murky Dregs]

Haven't played for a spell, I heard my pet bug was fixed but alas... it's still ever present. The one that completely mucks with FA-off flight inside of orbitals.

Slingshots your ship to the right when the magnetics detach on launch, makes landing a screwy experience in terms of lining up on the pad being very touchy.

It really kills immersion.

Any word on this? And... can someone point me to the Issue Tracker, I forgot where it's located.

o7

 

[aRJay]

I was under the impression that rotational correction was a part of the Flight Assist software suite, like the gravity compensation bit that stops you falling to a planets surface when you zero the throttle, except you can switch it off and leave the rest of the system running.

 

[Pigletslastand]

You can now either switch it off or leave it on.. It is one keybind away cmdr. Enjoy!

You will however still get flung slightly sideways off the pad in FA off.. tbh at this stage most of us have got used to it and don't even notice anymore. I personally land and take off all the time in FA off and just automatically correct for rotation in those areas. It's a small price to pay for all the moving parts but I get that you're annoyed coz it never used to be a thing.

 

[Murky Dregs]

You can now either switch it off or leave it on.. It is one keybind away cmdr. Enjoy!

You will however still get flung slightly sideways off the pad in FA off.. tbh at this stage most of us have got used to it and don't even notice anymore. I personally land and take off all the time in FA off and just automatically correct for rotation in those areas. It's a small price to pay for all the moving parts but I get that you're annoyed coz it never used to be a thing.

Lol, the switch/keybind has nothing to do with the bug.

I'm happy that you know how to fly around the bug.

So do I.

It's bad code.

And larger ships can get flung under certain elements on certain pads in stations and get stuck. Nothing like a bug that forces you to exit and restart game.

It doesn't change the fact that landing is exceptionally, and unrealistically sensitive due to the bug; compared to landing on the carrier, terrestrially, or outposts for instance.

It's a flight model bug.

It should be fixed.

 

[Markov Chaney]

If this is happening when you move from the "surface" of the station (ie just inside the skin) to further inside the skin then that is, I am afraid, an emergent property of moving around inside a rotating object in a static Galilean frame of reference, and you will need to report this bug to Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis.

He will suggest using a rotating frame of reference but unfortunately if you do that you'll be even more confused when you go outside the orbital...

(Seriously however, this is accurate to Galilean inertia (which everyone on this forum persists in calling "Newtonian") and there was indeed a bug. The bug was when this wasn't happening.)

 

[Murky Dregs]

If this is happening when you move from the "surface" of the station (ie just inside the skin) to further inside the skin then that is, I am afraid, an emergent property of moving around inside a rotating object in a static Galilean frame of reference, and you will need to report this bug to Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis.

He will suggest using a rotating frame of reference but unfortunately if you do that you'll be even more confused when you go outside the orbital...

(Seriously however, this is accurate to Galilean inertia (which everyone on this forum persists in calling "Newtonian") and there was indeed a bug. The bug was when this wasn't happening.)

You'll need to explain in more laymen terms if you could.

Nevertheless, when the pad retracts, rotates, and reemerges it's all within the same rotating structure.

When the magnetic coupling disengages upon launch the ship is immediately flung opposite the direction of rotation.

It is my understanding that there should be zero relative velocity upon release because the ship is already moving at the same rotational velocity in a zero g environment.

This bug didn't exist prior to Odyssey.

 

[Markov Chaney]

You very nearly have explained it yourself.

If you think of the line from the centre of rotation out to the pads as "height," any time you change height, you will experience something called "Coriolis force." (Some engineers get sniffy about calling it a force, because it's an apparent effect, not a force applied willfully or with an impulse.)

Suppose the orbital is rotating at such a speed that the pad's forward motion around the "orbit" - because it is in effect orbiting the centre of the orbital - is 100mph. You take off. Now your ship is a dozen feet "over" the pad so your orbit is actually a little bit smaller and your surroundings at that height only need to do 99mph to complete the orbit in the same time as the pad does, because you are just that bit closer to the centre of the station now.

You are still circling the centre of the orbital, along with all the parts of the orbital. But your linear speed along that orbit now should be 99mph for you to orbit the centre of the station in the same time that the pad does.

Unfortunately when you took off from the pad with a thrust along the height axis, it only affected your "vertical" speed. Your actual speed in the other dimensions is still close to that 100mph because you share, through inertial principles, the velocity of the pad you took off from.

So - the pad continues at 100mph along a circle, you continue at 100mph but now along a slightly smaller circle because you gained "height."

Your surroundings at your height are travelling the same smaller circle but at 99mph. Thus you appear to have magicked up 1mph from somewhere. Since you can't gain speed by magic, that implies there was a force. This phantom force is named Coriolis force.

 

[Florenus]

It is my understanding that there should be zero relative velocity upon release because the ship is already moving at the same rotational velocity in a zero g environment.

Except there is atmosphere inside the station and although air certainly also moves around with the station, it provides resistance that will immediately reduce craft velocity.

 

[Markov Chaney]

It is my understanding that there should be zero relative velocity upon release because the ship is already moving at the same rotational velocity in a zero g environment.

Short version of the essay I just wrote: the misunderstanding here is trying to apply Galilean principles of inertia (which I think is where you got "zero relative velocity" from) to a rotational frame of reference. (If you're using "up, down, towards exit, away from exit" on a rotating orbital then you're using a rotating frame of reference and those are non-inertial so the understanding you had for linear frames of reference can't be used directly.)

ETA: Another way to remind yourself there's two frames of reference here. You are sitting on the edge of a moving roundabout in a playground. You throw a tennis ball along the direction of rotation. "Ha ha," you think, I've seen this trick question before. I know the ball will go in a straight line and this guy was expecting me to fall into the trap of thinking it will be a curve!"

Well, I got news for you. From your point of view it does move in a curve - because your path around the roundabout takes you away from it in a curve.

 

[Murky Dregs]

You very nearly have explained it yourself.

If you think of the line from the centre of rotation out to the pads as "height," any time you change height, you will experience something called "Coriolis force." (Some engineers get sniffy about calling it a force, because it's an apparent effect, not a force applied willfully or with an impulse.)

Suppose the orbital is rotating at such a speed that the pad's forward motion around the "orbit" - because it is in effect orbiting the centre of the orbital - is 100mph. You take off. Now your ship is a dozen feet "over" the pad so your orbit is actually a little bit smaller and your surroundings at that height only need to do 99mph to complete the orbit in the same time as the pad does, because you are just that bit closer to the centre of the station now.

You are still circling the centre of the orbital, along with all the parts of the orbital. But your linear speed along that orbit now should be 99mph for you to orbit the centre of the station in the same time that the pad does.

Unfortunately when you took off from the pad with a thrust along the height axis, it only affected your "vertical" speed. Your actual speed in the other dimensions is still close to that 100mph because you share, through inertial principles, the velocity of the pad you took off from.

So - the pad continues at 100mph along a circle, you continue at 100mph but now along a slightly smaller circle because you gained "height."

Your surroundings at your height are travelling the same smaller circle but at 99mph. Thus you appear to have magicked up 1mph from somewhere. Since you can't gain speed by magic, that implies there was a force. This phantom force is named Coriolis force.

LMAO!

Fully understood.

You'd think that engineers in the 33'rd century plus would have anticipated such a simple physics problem and would launch the ship at such an angle to counter the velocity discrepancy in question.

(I do not enjoy FA-on... it just doesn't feel right...)

IOW it's still a dumb FDev bug.


That doesn't explain the pad sensitivity though (?)...the hard counter being hit the bullseye with such velocity it seems the game doesn't have time to screw things up.

 

[Markov Chaney]

You'd think that engineers in the 33'rd century plus would have anticipated such a simple physics problem and would launch the ship at such an angle to counter the velocity discrepancy in question.

I like this idea. Since the ship is launched to a fixed height (but not by FA, see below) and most orbitals are the same size it's feasible.

Pad launch is the responsibility of the Advanced Docking Computer (evidence: the Docking Computer doesn't do it, you have to have the Advanced one) so it isn't strictly speaking Flight Assist. But you're right, the ADC ought to know about this stuff!

 

[Arioch]

Haven't played for a spell, I heard my pet bug was fixed but alas... it's still ever present. The one that completely mucks with FA-off flight inside of orbitals.

Slingshots your ship to the right when the magnetics detach on launch, makes landing a screwy experience in terms of lining up on the pad being very touchy.

It really kills immersion.

Any word on this? And... can someone point me to the Issue Tracker, I forgot where it's located.

o7

The sideways shunt appeared after the bug regarding FAOff around Stations was fixed - and it was a hefty shunt that would easily crash you into pad-adjacent geometry. This was eventually “fixed” but sideways shunts still occur, just not as forceful as they used to be.

 

[Murky Dregs]

There's still something definitely wrong here... the strength of the "shunt," actually can change. I had an issue today, taking off with a combat fitout Cutter (heavy...) and as soon as the magnetics released, I shunted sideways, got my wing-bits stuck under structures, and no amount of thruster could get me loose.

I exited the game, came back in, launched again, got knocked sideways as expected, but with less velocity, and thrusters were more responsive.

Once I exited the orbital I went to the 4 panel and turned Rotational Correction, even though it's supposedly off when in FA-off and notably, no vocal cue/feedback from COVAS.

I then jumped to my carrier and when I dropped on it out of SC I then got the vocal cue from COVAS.

Something is definitely up with this, and it is certainly not fixed.
If others reading this thread could investigate when they have the opportunity and post some feedback that would be appreciated. o7

 

[Unknown Zombie]

I shunted sideways, got my wing-bits stuck under structures, and no amount of thruster could get me loose.

Lol.. Reminds me of a (now fixed) issue the T-10 used to have.

The animation of the little winglets was broken for quite a while, and they did not move upwards enough while the landing gear was extended. This caused them to clip into the geometry surround the landing pad in asteroid bases. Upon launch the game would violently push the T-10 away from the pad because of the collision boxes embedded inside of each other.

They eventually fixed the winglet animations, and they moved far enough upwards while gear was extended again, and the T-10 catapult was no more.

 

[DjVortex]

Haven't played for a spell, I heard my pet bug was fixed but alas... it's still ever present. The one that completely mucks with FA-off flight inside of orbitals.

Slingshots your ship to the right when the magnetics detach on launch, makes landing a screwy experience in terms of lining up on the pad being very touchy.

I genuinely do not understand what exactly is the "bug" here.

If there is no flight assist nor rotational correction, then the space station is rotating and your ship isn't compensating for it. If you are landed on the pad, then the ship will be rotating alongside the station. If you launch, and there is no flight assist nor rotational correction, then inertia will smash your ship immediately back onto the pad or the ground around it (unless you manually compensate using the ship's thrusters).

Unless you mean that the inertia isn't being accurately simulated and instead it acts in a physically unrealistic manner?

 

[Murky Dregs]

Unless you mean that the inertia isn't being accurately simulated and instead it acts in a physically unrealistic manner?

^^^Larger ships, especially the Cutter, simply don't have the thrusters with which to compensate in time to prevent smashing into obstructions and potentially getting hung up. This was not the behavior in Horizons until Odyssey came out. Before Odyssey, you detached from the pad and could use thrusters to maneuver like a helicopter taking off.

Another thing to note is the "sensitivity," of the landing pad in a spinning orbital versus an outpost, station, or carrier... on those you simply line up, minimizing any lateral movement and use your verts to gently drift down onto the bullseye... no problem. In an orbital, it's far more touchy, with no explicable reason.

 

[DjVortex]

Another thing to note is the "sensitivity," of the landing pad in a spinning orbital versus an outpost, station, or carrier... on those you simply line up, minimizing any lateral movement and use your verts to gently drift down onto the bullseye... no problem. In an orbital, it's far more touchy, with no explicable reason.

Maybe because it's a moving target?

 

[Murky Dregs]

Maybe because it's a moving target?

Uh... not when there's zero relative motion. The whole point of FA-off is to neutralize relative motion if need be. Do you fly FA-off regularly?

 

[aRJay]

I presume you are allowing for the fact that the further away from the axis the faster the speed in m/s needs to be to match the rotation in degrees/s.

 

[Northpin]

Before Odyssey, you detached from the pad and could use thrusters to maneuver like a helicopter taking off.

Which seemed really awkward (and buggy) to me