You find that the reaction wheels are unrealisticly powerful?

[Gaarst]

Just now, Braker said:

There is a different between "full realistic", "stupidly OP" and 'balanced"...

I just want to make the reaction wwheels "balanced"... In order to make the RCS more useful.

There are a lot of things which are "stupidly <something>" in KSP. Reaction wheels are balanced when compared to the rest of the game. RCS can be used for docking so it is far from useless (you can dock without RCS ofc, but it's not the point here). In KSP's simplified model, having LFO for engines, reaction wheels for orientation and RCS for fine tuning and translation makes perfect sense.

And as said above, you can edit your reaction wheels configs or not use them to get more realistic gameplay. I play with RSS and a whole lot of other mods for realism (list in sig), but I'm not asking them to be stock.

[tater]

Yeah, they make RCS useless for anything but translation. You can use them to flip a lander right side up. They're pretty silly as it.

1 hour ago, Braker said:

There is a difference between "full realistic", "stupidly OP" and 'balanced"...

I just want to make the reaction wheels "balanced"... In order to make the RCS more useful.

The people that argue against anything being more realistic always claim it's all or nothing, since that would be silly, when All we'd like is for it to make more sense.

[Braker]

1 hour ago, Gaarst said:

There are a lot of things which are "stupidly <something>" in KSP. Reaction wheels are balanced when compared to the rest of the game. RCS can be used for docking so it is far from useless (you can dock without RCS ofc, but it's not the point here). In KSP's simplified model, having LFO for engines, reaction wheels for orientation and RCS for fine tuning and translation makes perfect sense.

And as said above, you can edit your reaction wheels configs or not use them to get more realistic gameplay. I play with RSS and a whole lot of other mods for realism (list in sig), but I'm not asking them to be stock.

For me, the reaction wheels should be an help to control and stabilize your vessel, but not the main way to do that...

I think that the RCS should be the main system to control the attitude.

There is no "punishment" to the player when he's out of monoproplant.

14 minutes ago, tater said:

Yeah, they make RCS useless for anything but translation. You can use them to flip a lander right side up. They're pretty silly as it.

The people that argue against anything being more realistic always claim it's all or nothing, since that would be silly, when All we'd like is for it to make more sense.

I ask for more balance, not a full realistic game.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Braker

[Adoelrome]

Reaction wheels too strong, it is obvious.
of course we can make "a mod for it".
But this is a large number of parts in different mods and each mod will have to be corrected separately.

There should be one general rule which will follow creators of mods.
SQUAD should rebalance the reaction wheels.

[purpletarget]

Braker, Reaction wheels are balanced in stock for gameplay in accordance with how the game is meant to function. Is it fully realistic?? Of course not. Neither is the impossible (IRL speaking) density of Kerbin to get earth like gravity in 1/11th scale planet. Some decisions is KSP are made to make it realistic as possible, but also concessions are made to make sure the gameplay is also fun!

The problem is that if you relied on "realistic" reaction wheels, you'd need to keep your finger on the ASWD keys for several minutes to get an attitude adjustment up to a couple degree's a minute. It's not a "FUN" way. Even RCS is ridiculously OP relative to IRL counterparts, and maneuvers would not be enjoyable or playable as a game when setting for a single maneuver would take 30 minutes or more of constant attention for small attitude adjustments.

 

This particular issue comes up intermittently, but was pretty much settled out about 3 years ago when the Pod torque systems was pushed to the electric charge dependent reaction wheels as currently implemented in v0.21. There was plenty of these polls prior to that... what's in the game is a reflection of how the dev's and playerbase overall felt about the gameplay balance of reaction wheels. 

So you can run as many polls as you like and argue your point with everyone that disagree's on you. But the plain and hard truth my friend, is that if you want reaction wheels to be adjusted to your preference, you'll need to mod it yourself, pick up someone else's mod.... or...the Stock solution provided is called "Toggle Torque" or something to that effect on the pod's right click menu... turn off the reaction wheels, and load up RCS to your heart's content. 

It's your game... and you have the options in stock to play it as you like... but that doesn't mean it is going to be "balanced" to suit only your style of play. There's a bunch of other people who just want to blow things up, or make crazy physics defying weirdness. Welcome to KSP. 

 

[Braker]

10 minutes ago, Adoelrome said:

Reaction wheels too strong, it is obvious.
of course we can make "a mod for it".
But this is a large number of parts in different mods and each mod will have to be corrected separately.

There should be one general rule which will follow creators of mods.
SQUAD should rebalance the reaction wheels.

Happy to learn that I am not alone...

9 minutes ago, purpletarget said:

Braker, Reaction wheels are balanced in stock for gameplay in accordance with how the game is meant to function. Is it fully realistic?? Of course not. Neither is the impossible (IRL speaking) density of Kerbin to get earth like gravity in 1/11th scale planet. Some decisions is KSP are made to make it realistic as possible, but also concessions are made to make sure the gameplay is also fun!

The problem is that if you relied on "realistic" reaction wheels, you'd need to keep your finger on the ASWD keys for several minutes to get an attitude adjustment up to a couple degree's a minute. It's not a "FUN" way. Even RCS is ridiculously OP relative to IRL counterparts, and maneuvers would not be enjoyable or playable as a game when setting for a single maneuver would take 30 minutes or more of constant attention for small attitude adjustments.

 

This particular issue comes up intermittently, but was pretty much settled out about 3 years ago when the Pod torque systems was pushed to the electric charge dependent reaction wheels as currently implemented in v0.21. There was plenty of these polls prior to that... what's in the game is a reflection of how the dev's and playerbase overall felt about the gameplay balance of reaction wheels. 

So you can run as many polls as you like and argue your point with everyone that disagree's on you. But the plain and hard truth my friend, is that if you want reaction wheels to be adjusted to your preference, you'll need to mod it yourself, pick up someone else's mod.... or...the Stock solution provided is called "Toggle Torque" or something to that effect on the pod's right click menu... turn off the reaction wheels, and load up RCS to your heart's content. 

It's your game... and you have the options in stock to play it as you like... but that doesn't mean it is going to be "balanced" to suit only your style of play. There's a bunch of other people who just want to blow things up, or make crazy physics defying weirdness. Welcome to KSP. 

 

"The problem is that if you relied on "realistic" reaction wheels, you'd need to keep your finger on the ASWD keys for several minutes to get an attitude adjustment up to a couple degree's a minute. It's not a "FUN" way. Even RCS is ridiculously OP relative to IRL counterparts, and maneuvers would not be enjoyable or playable as a game when setting for a single maneuver would take 30 minutes or more of constant attention for small attitude adjustments."

You can use RCS no ?

 

And what do you think about this (written in another post): change the reaction wheels torque according to the game dificulty ?

Edited April 30, 2016 by Braker

[Adoelrome]

10 minutes ago, purpletarget said:

It's your game... and you have the options in stock to play it as you like... but that doesn't mean it is going to be "balanced" to suit only your style of play. There's a bunch of other people who just want to blow things up, or make crazy physics defying weirdness. Welcome to KSP. 

It means that there has to be an option that everyone could make it stronger or weaker voluntarily.
At least.

And this option should to affect ALL parts in game.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Adoelrome

[Braker]

                                                              /|\

                                                               |

An option in the difficulty settings for example...

[Gaarst]

1 minute ago, Braker said:

                                                              /|\

                                                               |

An option in the difficulty settings for example...

And then we'll have an option for engines gimbal up to 10° (like real engines), for strength of control surfaces, for solar panel power, for orbital decay, for cargo bay opening speed, for n-body physics, for autopilot, for real sized solar system...

As @purpletarget explained it, you cannot accomodate everyone's preferences in the game, that is what mods are for.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

Module Manager allows one to test tweaks pretty easily- I recommend trying it out to find a setting that you think is appropriate and sharing it here. Honestly, if you think they are cheaty, don't use them. I think probe cores are cheaty for many Kerballed missions (eg probe core + scientist to a moon) so I simply adjust my play style accordingly.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Waxing_Kibbous

[Starwhip]

I would have to say no. Hardly ever is it a good idea to change an aspect of a game (especially a single-player sandbox game where there is no "cheating") when there's a large amount of disapproval for said change, especially when the people who feel it needs to be changed have been given the (very easy to use) tools to do so themselves.

Really. The devs have gone out of their way to make this game easy to modify to a player's own liking.

[regex]

Agree that they're too powerful but you have to readjust a lot of the game's balance to fix it.  Just off the top of my head you'd have to move a lot more parts to the starting tech node in career (which should really happen anyway).  Plus, as you can see, the fanbase hss already responded about it.  Anyway, Module Manager is a good choice to fix this; I fix the ridiculous docking ports in the same manner.

[Braker]

53 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

And then we'll have an option for engines gimbal up to 10° (like real engines), for strength of control surfaces, for solar panel power, for orbital decay, for cargo bay opening speed, for n-body physics, for autopilot, for real sized solar system...

As @purpletarget explained it, you cannot accomodate everyone's preferences in the game, that is what mods are for.

The point of realism that you given as examplesare off-topic. The reaction wheels causes problem on RCS utility.

The cargo bay opening/closing speed is just no factor...

More RCS needs ==  monoproplant needs == heaviers rockets == more challenge...

So modify the ractions wheels torque according to the difficulty level is totally adequate or me.

22 minutes ago, regex said:

Agree that they're too powerful but you have to readjust a lot of the game's balance to fix it.  Just off the top of my head you'd have to move a lot more parts to the starting tech node in career (which should really happen anyway).  Plus, as you can see, the fanbase hss already responded about it.  Anyway, Module Manager is a good choice to fix this; I fix the ridiculous docking ports in the same manner.

"but you have to readjust a lot of the game's balance to fix it."

Is just the task of the devs'... Readjust, balance, and fix...

Edited April 30, 2016 by Braker

[worir4]

I don't think performance of parts should change because of the difficulty. It would make the sharing of craft not as fun. At least for me any way.

''Here I made an awesome shuttle, but it only works on easy mode.''

[Braker]

5 minutes ago, worir4 said:

I don't think performance of parts should change because of the difficulty. It would make the sharing of craft not as fun. At least for me any way.

''Here I made an awesome shuttle, but it only works on easy mode.''

No reason that your awsome shuttle don't work in hard mode... It will just be hardest to control the attitude without RCS...

 

EDIT: hardest, but possible... More challenge.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Braker

[tater]

The reaction wheels should certainly be turned down, but as reggae said, the parts would need to be moved down the tech tree. Frankly, it's bizarre that RCS isn't all tier 0 since the pods all have mono and crazy reaction wheels built in.

[Red Iron Crown]

5 minutes ago, tater said:

reggae

I must resist the urge to call him that at every opportunity.  

[Braker]

13 minutes ago, tater said:

The reaction wheels should certainly be turned down, but as reggae said, the parts would need to be moved down the tech tree. Frankly, it's bizarre that RCS isn't all tier 0 since the pods all have mono and crazy reaction wheels built in.

They can...

[tater]

24 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I must resist the urge to call him that at every opportunity.  

You'd think autocorrect would learn, mon. 

What's funny is that it doesn't prompt, then changes it later. 

 

[Wallygator]

I think the reaction wheels are perfectly realistic for the stock unrealistic planetary system in which they exist. 

Now, in my RSS/RO install they are nearly realistic for the nearly realistic planetary system in which they exist. 

Oh, and I read all the thread media and also didn't vote - just like I do in real life. Also realistic!!!! Bonus!!!

[Braker]

4 minutes ago, Wallygator said:

I think the reaction wheels are perfectly realistic for the stock unrealistic planetary system in which they exist. 

Now, in my RSS/RO install they are nearly realistic for the nearly realistic planetary system in which they exist. 

Oh, and I read all the thread media and also didn't vote - just like I do in real life. Also realistic!!!! Bonus!!!

If you have read the entire thread, you have a point of view about adding an item in the difficulty options...

[Nich]

No reation wheels are not op just like ions are not op. I do not want to wait 2 hours to rotate my ship 180 degrees. They are game play balanced.  No mater how weak you make reaction wheels they are still to only way to set your attitude rcs is only used to desaturate.

[Braker]

8 minutes ago, Nich said:

No reation wheels are not op just like ions are not op. I do not want to wait 2 hours to rotate my ship 180 degrees. They are game play balanced.  No mater how weak you make reaction wheels they are still to only way to set your attitude rcs is only used to desaturate.

If you don't want to wait 20 seconds to rotate your 20 km length ship, use RCS...

[Wallygator]

25 minutes ago, Braker said:

If you have read the entire thread, you have a point of view about adding an item in the difficulty options...

No I don't.

[Kerbart]

Of course there's no "approved" way of playing the game, but in the end KSP is a "friendly" space ship simulator. Certain changes have been made to make the game easier to play:

• The Kerbal universe is scaled down. Launching rockets and traveling within the Kerbol system happens a lot quicker than it would take on a Solar scale (remember, it took New Horizons ten years to reach Pluto, and it did so much faster than any other craft that went to the outer planets)
• Ion engines are overpowered. Because nothing says “fun” like burning your ion thrusters for days, right?
• SAS is magic! For reasons

Now the fun thing is, if you think things are wrong and detract from the game, you can actually play around it. Ion thrusters overpowered? Gizmo them down to 1% For some remedies you'll have to use mods, but nothing stops you from not using SAS for attitude control if you think it's unrealistic.

Requesting the game to enforce all these kind of “realisms” (you wouldn’t be so silly to think it should be just SAS, right? If we want realism we have to go the full Monty!) upon every single player would be silly, I think. The current system where one can opt to play in a realistic way makes much more sense.