Difference between revisions of "Talk:Navball"

Latest revision as of 03:37, 5 November 2014

Image change requested

In the image, and in some of the text actually, the prograde and retrograde markers are referred to as Orbit prograde and Orbit retrograde markers, but they are only Orbit if Orbit is selected as the Point of Reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCSquared (talk • contribs)

Maybe the new image should use numbers instead of text to make future translations easier. And don't forget signing your posts with --~~~~. — xZise [talk] 11:18, 21 June 2013 (CDT)

Those different symbols on the left side are already visible later, so the new image doesn't need to feature them. — xZise [talk] 11:26, 21 June 2013 (CDT)

Didn't visit here for some time and forgot to put the page on my watchlist. Good idea to split the labeling Done that, also removed the indidivual markers now that we have the fancy vector drawings. I'm unhappy with the Navball image quality, but I haven't figured out how to get this in better quality so far except by investing some Photoshop time. Maybe using B.O.S.S. for making the screenshot would allow proper high-res? —Senshi (talk) 05:37, 8 August 2013 (CDT)

Maybe use two different images? One original which isn't changed, and a vector graphic which mustn't be a complete recreation, but allows a larger image. — xZise [talk] 06:34, 8 August 2013 (CDT)

Extra detail requested

Could this be updated so that the RCS and SAS lights are indicated, just saying where they are what represent, just to help make it fully comprehensive. Thecoshman (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

More navball info requested

I'd like to see more about the info about the numbers and text on the navball itself, i.e. the cardinal directions, degree system and anything else that may be relevant.

E.g. I don't understand the degree/heading system. The navball is a sphere, yet it's divided in 360 degrees, just like a circle.Ostermann (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2013 (CST)

If I'm not mistaken it is the angle relative to north. So on launch when tilting to the east your heading should be about 90°. And File:Navball.png shows a heading of 69° with the level indicator being halfway between 45° and 90°. So if you cut the sphere at the current “latitude” you have then a circle ;) — xZise [talk] 16:00, 24 December 2013 (CST)

When to thrust most efficiently in maneuvers

Currently the "Maneuver Information" section describes three methods to interpret the provided info on when to burn for best results. I'm a bit confused by this, because I always was very sure that mathematically, the most efficient way is to use the "half" method: Burning half the deltaV before reaching the node and the other half past it. This approach should guarantee the least loss of thrust due to being off-angle, right? Can someone shed light on why "opinions vary" on this subject or explain a case where another approach would be more fuel-efficient? If there is a perfect way to conserve fuel during maneuvers, only this should be recommended in that section. --Senshi (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2014 (CST)

I personally would agree, and Scott Manley would too. But some time ago I saw a video where the uploader meant that some developer said the burn actually needs to finish on T=0. As I'm neither a physicist nor a rocket scientist I can prove that. And orbital mechanics are also very counter intuitive, so maybe it's something completely different. — xZise [talk] 08:51, 1 March 2014 (CST)

prograde-retrogade

Man! The "prograde and retrogare" section even was not similar, and how can I write now the sub-orbital and escape orbit correction (for gravity assist - yep: tutorial: gravity assist is a poor article) use of the markers in the maneuver node page: the gravity turn ascending and landing even not possible to make with nodes, and for the correction there is no time and reason to mess with the nodes! May write it into this page? NWM (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2014 (CST)

I admit removing also pro/retrograde might be a bit over the top. But the other four were straight copied. But what is now missing which isn't explained already in maneuver node (although there might be a better article for that and also maneuver node should link to that). I'm trying to avoid duplication of complete paragraphs because that why there are links. A short introduction to give a reader a short glimpse about that is fine but not copying complete sections. — xZise [talk] 08:22, 4 November 2014 (CST)

If you are talking about my edit, I did so as a place holder until it could be changed to something more appropriate. Sorry --Benargee (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2014 (CST)