How well can you fly without SAS?

[cantab]

Its probably quickest to list the situations where I have it On rather than what I can do without it.

I use it to control my RCS and therefore attitude when circularising small payloads on SRBs or other non-gimballing engines.

I use the retrograde hold to make suicide burns.

Otherwise its usually off, I have no Torque on any of my ships anyway so it doesnt do anything unless my RCS is lit or im in atmosphere with control surfaces.

Or you have engine gimballing - SAS will make good use of that, so long as the engines are behind the centre of mass.

[Whirligig Girl]

I can fly without SAS. I had to back in the pre-0.21 days, and currently I'm using the demo to host a Kerbal Space Race at my school, so I have to be able to fly without SAS there.

[Yakky]

One of my proudest achievements in KSP was getting to the Mun and back in hard career mode, fairly early in the game with no patched conics and no SAS. The no SAS was accidental -- I forgot to select a Kerbonaut who was a pilot and didn't realize my mistake until after liftoff. The experience definitely made me a better keyboard jockey...

... but being able to fly without SAS doesn't mean I enjoy it. It's a lot of work and a lot of stress. It quickly puts your left hand at risk of carpal tunnel syndrome!

[Thomas988]

Mmmmmeuuuuughhh...

...not really that good, to be honest. I'm not a good aircraft-builder in the first place, so usually I need SAS to keep my planes from flipping and flopping all over the place.

[Delta7]

Several of my launchers wobble out of control with SAS, so I have to be able to launch without it. In space, I prefer to have it, but can fly without it. Landing, I need it.

[brianorca]

I once took a rescue contract before I had SAS, pilot XP, or maneuver nodes. Tricky, but I got it done.

The joystick helps.

[CG_Kerbin]

Well I'm a bit ashamed almost 50 hours into playing ksp did I find out it existed XD I never noticed their was me sitting their tapping a key to keep it straight

[Epthelyn]

After having to fly Bill to the Mun to rescue Jeb on my first career save of the latest version, I can safely say the answer is "Badly". In fact Bill was also trapped there and I gave up the save entirely due to lack of funds.

I'm too used to having a system kicking into prevent spinning and phantom yawing on demand, and without it maneuvers that I can perform whilst taking SAS for granted because nightmarish.

I would really like to give SAS-less missions a go though. Added challenge = more fun. Ineptitude barrier, away with thee!

[nimbim]

I've landed and returned from everywhere without SAS, but only because the old SAS was of almost no use. When I turn it off now I can handle it, but it's obvious that I've gotten very used to the new comfy SAS. Torque is of course very relevant, a tiny probe with too much torque is uncontrollable without the new SAS.

[QuantumInc]

It's quite possible, I've lanched rockets without it, and turning SAS off can often make turning around easier. However it is obviously easier, and sometimes it is nice to be able to take your hands off of the keyboard.

[Renegrade]

I can do pretty much any mission in KSP without SAS, on a keyboard/mouse setup. It's unnecessary (and wasteful of RCS). That being said, I do find it to be a quality-of-life enhancer.

[michaelsteele3]

Imagine a disco ball without a string. The string is the SAS. The string disappears. Yeah.

There ya go.

[michaelhester07]

I can't fly without sas because I WASD for control. The keyboard has 2 speeds: full bore and nothing.

[zarakon]

It's a pain, but not a major problem as long as I don't have way too much rotation force.

The part of career mode when the stayputnik is the only probe I have unlocked is really annoying. Even the smallest reaction wheel is waaaay too strong for tiny craft, so it becomes really hard to control.

Airplanes depend largely on how well-balanced they're built, but I use a gamepad with analog sticks so I can manage to handle just about anything that isn't outright unstable. I actually don't really like the current version of SAS for planes - I much preferred the old avionics nosecone that would dampen movements but not lock to a heading.

Edited March 24, 2015 by zarakon

[michaelsteele3]

it's like trying to operate it with fists

-i am wildcat

-===(300th post)===-

[Guest]

(Ex) flight sim buff here -- haven't flown one in years, but put hundreds of hours into them, like, 10 years ago or so. I.e. out of practice but not clueless.

I'm very unhappy flying planes either way. With SAS they jerk all over the place (and likely go into pieces from too much aerodynamic force, if they're heavy ones). Without SAS they just sort of wallow, constant inputs are needed, and the inputs always seem like they're way too big. I just can't tap a key briefly enough to do what I want most of the time, even with caps lock down.

That's a shame because building them is cool, and it wouldn't take much to make it way more enjoyable. For starters, fix SAS for atmospheric flight: it should behave like an autopilot that just lets you tell it where you want to point the craft, and it'll take it from there. That is: make it give much more gentle inputs instead of jittering all over the place ten times a second, make it account for the way the vehicle responds so it doesn't constantly overshoot and get into those oscillations, and have it attempt to hold the other axes when adjusting one (e.g., when adjusting roll, have it automatically adjust pitch to keep the angle constant. Oh, and add a proper stall warning while you're at it.)

Once that's fixed, make non-SAS flight enjoyable: adjust the control inputs so fine control "feels right," and fix the trim controls: give them their own markers on the dials instead of just moving the center point of the regular ones so we can see how it's set. Additionally fix the way SAS and the trim controls interact: right now if I switch off SAS and I have been adjusting trim previously, as likely as not the plane will flip out of control immediately as the controls will reset. Instead, leaving SAS should set the trim to whatever the SAS had been holding (say, averaged out over the previous second). Moreover, trim resets should be applied gradually instead of instantaneously.

I believe these relatively simple changes to the control scheme would make atmospheric flight much more fun: non-flight-sim-buffs could just fly with SAS reasonably well, and flight-sim-buffs could get a measure of if not realistic at least somewhat realistic-feeling flight, instead of having to fight the controls all the time as now.

[Temeter]

I've once made a mars mission where I forgot all solar panels, hence the only way to control my craft via SAS was directly after burns (alternator) or, most of the time, using the RCS of my lander.

Still managed to succesfully finish the mission. If you only move your craft when you absolutely need it, then you'll be able to be very efficient. Just takes care and patience.

Also was did a lot preparing me for Realism Overhaul.

---------------

If you mean the automatic systems during planeflight or rocket launchs: Yes of course, its easy to fly without SAS. Just very annoying.^^

Edited September 12, 2016 by Temeter

[Kevin Kyle]

On 3/21/2015 at 5:59 AM, Xaver said:

I can fly without SAS like a drunken bumblebee.

Had to quote this one even though I can fly without it depending on ship design.

[KerikBalm]

In my main career save, I sent a 3 kerbal mission to dres... it was one of those destinations I committed to go to without use of ISRU. I also committed to fully reusable, so I was trying to save all the mass I could. I should have put on a probe core.

The lander was slightly asymmetrical, and I wanted all 3 kerbals to get down to the surface, I had a pilot, engineer, and scientist. I had fuel for 5 landings. That meant the scientist went down3 times, and it was a major pain all three times. Luckily one can engage time warp to null rotation, but it doesn't work when firing the engines, which is when I needed SAS the most because of the slight asymmetry (due to science stuff and trying to counterbalance with batteries).

Never again...

[zeanomourph]

No SAS no problem, for me. It depends a lot on the rocket though, started a new career recently and been doing loads of tourist contract missions with nothing but a stayputnik for control. Just going to orbit and back with super light, super simple, super cheap rockets seems perfectly fine without it. But I wouldn't want to launch anything over say 50T without it, that gets out of hand pretty quickly.

Had to do a docking manoeuvre yesterday where I'd run out of LFO and battery and only had a scientist on board, so only control I had was RCS and didn't even have SAS to keep that stable. Got it docked with only about 3.5 units of monoprop left over (most of it went on the braking move since I didn't have the main engine to slow me down).. that one was seriously difficult, but still nothing compared to trying to dock a 15-20m long solar module with my only control over it being a 'construction probe' attached to the back of it about 10m behind the CoM, so much torque every time I tried to move it even SAS couldn't keep it from spinning. Not recommended!

[Diche Bach]

Stayputnik or Engineer or Scientist = No, I will not do it.

Pilot or one of the probe cores that have some reaction wheel = no problemo.

[Superfluous J]

The only two times I fly with SAS off:

1. Long turns when I have plenty of time and low power/reaction wheels. Start the turn, turn SAS off, and 4x warp around.
2. Immediately after liftoff after my pilot has gotten out to plop down a flag, and I forget to turn it on before taking off. This is some of the most surreal stuff in the game, where my brain tries in vain to process the information my eyes are giving it. But I'm getting better. I usually figure it out in seconds and on rare occasions, even remember before takeoff.

[Bill Phil]

I'm not that good without it, but my skills are passable.

[W. Kerman]

I am a bad rocket builder. This means I build 1700 ton vehicles to go where others make 12 ton vehicles. 1700 ton launchers are not easy to fly even with SAS on. 

 

SAS for the win! 

[Diche Bach]

11 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

The only two times I fly with SAS off:

1. Long turns when I have plenty of time and low power/reaction wheels. Start the turn, turn SAS off, and 4x warp around.
2. Immediately after liftoff after my pilot has gotten out to plop down a flag, and I forget to turn it on before taking off. This is some of the most surreal stuff in the game, where my brain tries in vain to process the information my eyes are giving it. But I'm getting better. I usually figure it out in seconds and on rare occasions, even remember before takeoff.

Same here! You've particularly captured the effect of #2

 

@Brikoleur (person who reopened the thread) . . . I agree in general about the planes. I too have a bit of experience with flight sims, and I find the planes in KSP to have the same sorts of problems you describe.

That said, one can (sort of) get the hang of it, and through a combination of (a) building them the 'right' way; as well as (b) using the authority control settings on the control surfaces, they can be flown reasonably reliably.

There was a thread I started a while back "Aircraft Design: Need Help" I believe it was titled. Several of the players who are knowledgeable and experienced with aircraft design responded to that thread and it proved to be a watershed for me. I went from making planes that were functional but less than optimal and flights that were literally gripping and unfun, to planes that are quite good (though perhaps still not 'perfect') and flying with considerable success and ease.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Diche Bach