You find that the reaction wheels are unrealisticly powerful?

[Braker]

30 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

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.

Too much fun killing fun.

[N_Molson]

IMHO commands pods should have some integrated RCS thrusters rather than overpowerful reaction wheels. It makes plain sense, as they already have an internal Monoprop tank. It would also help to limit the part count. You would be able to toggle them on/off, so that they wouldn't interfere with other RCS thrusters in your ship (which still would be necessary to achieve translational control which is highly recommended for docking purposes).

That already would help balancing things. Cost of the almighty Reaction Wheels parts should be boosted, so that they would be a bit less interesting that the Monoprop RCS.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

10 hours ago, Braker said:

Yeah, I already know that...

And yes, I ask for a balance in the stock game...

Not to point out the obvious but...

If you made a mod that tweaked reaction wheels to be weaker and everyone loved it and downloaded it by the thousands...

You'd have a much stronger case to bring to Squad that this was what the community as a whole wanted.

[Temeter]

9 hours 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.

So you want to make them only 100 times as strong as real life reaction wheels while ignoring basic, physical rules?

That totally sounds balanced and not stupidly op.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Temeter

[SpaceplaneAddict]

And by the way, RCS has a perfectly good use: translation. You know, the kind of movement that helps you dock? Pretty sure torque can't help you, seeing as it can only move your attitude.

SAS, RCS, and torque wheels are fine as is, and of course, KSP doesn't really have rules as a sandbox...

*Determination.

[sgt_flyer]

real life Control Moment gyroscopes (the things used in spacecrafts, it's not 'simply' a flywheel) are extremely powerful in real life. it's just that real life CMGs can saturate (and lose effectiveness for turning in one direction), and as a mechanical object, wear down and end breaking up. if anything's amiss from the game's reaction wheels, it's that they can't saturate

 

as a comparison with ksp's : Each of the four ISS cmgs weight around 270kg, and produce 4800 Nm of torque. KSP's small RW weights 50kg and produce 5000Nm of torque. it's a bit more effective than IRL, but it's not that imbalanced in regards to the strength of it.

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/space/spacestation/systems/docs/ISS%20Motion%20Control%20System.pdf

 

Edited May 1, 2016 by sgt_flyer

[RocketSquid]

So, three things:

First of all, this is not by any means the first time this has been suggested. People have believed the reaction wheels to be witchcraft for years.

Second of all, guess what happens if you do tweak it:

"Hmm, I think I'll go read the suggestions section."

First thread: "RCS is too overpowered"

In the thread: "So, currently the RCS thrusters are so overpowered that they make all reaction wheels completely obsolete. Even with generators, reaction wheels are just so slow that RCS thrusters are better in every situation, and are far, far better than real world counterparts. Please decrease the thrust of the hideously broken RCS thrusters to more reasonable levels."

 

Lastly, as the post above mine stated , the reaction wheels are actually somewhat realistic, at least in terms of torque. However, they are very light, which I would say is rule of fun, and doesn't make them too broken.

Also, gyroscopes have spooky magic powers. Demonstration (dramatized):

 

[klgraham1013]

A little saturation is all they need in my modest opinion.

[NathanKell]

There is Saturn V, there is Project Orion launching a cubesat, and then there is KSP magictorque.

[Braker]

7 hours ago, sgt_flyer said:

real life Control Moment gyroscopes (the things used in spacecrafts, it's not 'simply' a flywheel) are extremely powerful in real life. it's just that real life CMGs can saturate (and lose effectiveness for turning in one direction), and as a mechanical object, wear down and end breaking up. if anything's amiss from the game's reaction wheels, it's that they can't saturate

 

as a comparison with ksp's : Each of the four ISS cmgs weight around 270kg, and produce 4800 Nm of torque. KSP's small RW weights 50kg and produce 5000Nm of torque. it's a bit more effective than IRL, but it's not that imbalanced in regards to the strength of it.

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/space/spacestation/systems/docs/ISS%20Motion%20Control%20System.pdf

 

 

7 hours ago, RocketSquid said:

So, three things:

First of all, this is not by any means the first time this has been suggested. People have believed the reaction wheels to be witchcraft for years.

Second of all, guess what happens if you do tweak it:

"Hmm, I think I'll go read the suggestions section."

First thread: "RCS is too overpowered"

In the thread: "So, currently the RCS thrusters are so overpowered that they make all reaction wheels completely obsolete. Even with generators, reaction wheels are just so slow that RCS thrusters are better in every situation, and are far, far better than real world counterparts. Please decrease the thrust of the hideously broken RCS thrusters to more reasonable levels."

 

Lastly, as the post above mine stated , the reaction wheels are actually somewhat realistic, at least in terms of torque. However, they are very light, which I would say is rule of fun, and doesn't make them too broken.

Also, gyroscopes have spooky magic powers. Demonstration (dramatized):

 

 

7 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

A little saturation is all they need in my modest opinion.

So you will for an implementation of the reaction wheels saturation in the stock game?

Edited May 1, 2016 by Braker

[DaMichel]

For me, reaction wheels are quite a bit OP. For additional challenge, i therefore add RCS thrusters to most of my creations.

I would like to try playing with saturable reaction wheels. There is no mod for it, is there?

And since i like playing with RCS on board, i would appreciate if there were bigger RCS thrusters in stock, and also thrusters that are angled 45 degrees.

Edited May 1, 2016 by DaMichel

[Vermil]

The only thing I find "overpowered" with the 'reaction wheels' is lack of bulk. But given the building system of KSP which doesn't really support installing equipment inside equipment, I think the model is acceptable, ...for a game. In other ways, the game's control wheels are unrealistic in their total lack of speed of accuracy. A real CMG goes from attitude [a, b, c] to attitude [g, h, j] with a dead stop just like that. In the game, we're oscillating all over the place for a great deal of time. Also, I suspect the game's control wheels draw too much power. As for 'saturation', that's really just relevant for single wheel systems, alternatively systems not complemented by RCS. I don't see the need for simulation of this in the game.

If - we're going to have simulation of such effects, I think we're really going in a completely different direction: An ambitious detailed simulation where we ourself are designing the CMG and writing the control software as relevant for the particular vehicle.

So, IMO this thread is just a waste of time.

 

[DaMichel]

10 minutes ago, Vermil said:

The only thing I find "overpowered" with the 'reaction wheels' is lack of bulk. But given the building system of KSP which doesn't really support installing equipment inside equipment, I think the model is acceptable, ...for a game. In other ways, the game's control wheels are unrealistic in their total lack of speed of accuracy. A real CMG goes from attitude [a, b, c] to attitude [g, h, j] with a dead stop just like that. In the game, we're oscillating all over the place for a great deal of time. Also, I suspect the game's control wheels draw too much power. 

Well, the wobble is due to the controller that is not perfectly tuned for the specific craft. Happens with RCS, too, which can be quite wasteful with RCS fuel. Playing with KB controls, i find it sometimes easier to turn off SAS when rotating a ship. I turn it back on to hold the final orientation.

Quote

As for 'saturation', that's really just relevant for single wheel systems, alternatively systems not complemented by RCS. I don't see the need for simulation of this in the game.

Hm ... I suppose this is true. For the stock game anyway.

[rkman]

22 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

No one has a problem with the reaction wheels the way they are.

Why presume to speak for everyone? The poll belies your statement.

Overly enthusiastic steering in KSP generally (not only SAS but also instantaneous gimbal movement - though not instantaneous flap movement, planes have gotten more love than rockets) is the cause of excessive wobble during launch and is the cause of small craft twitching like nervous guppy fish when 'hold relative position' is active.

[John FX]

I`d be in favour of a slight nerf for the reaction wheels but I run RWSaturatable and PersistentRotation anyway and still would even if the wheels got changed so it`s not a matter that bothers me much.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

1 hour ago, rkman said:

Why presume to speak for everyone? The poll belies your statement.

Overly enthusiastic steering in KSP generally (not only SAS but also instantaneous gimbal movement - though not instantaneous flap movement, planes have gotten more love than rockets) is the cause of excessive wobble during launch and is the cause of small craft twitching like nervous guppy fish when 'hold relative position' is active.

63% like them the way they are, the poll supports my opinion.

If it's not what the majority of players want for stock KSP then it's mod territory.

Overly enthusiastic steering is a result of your sensitivity setting being too high in the options menu. I haven't had any problems with excessive wobble or twitchy craft in 1.1 personally.

[Mjarf]

I often supplement reaction wheels with RCS thrusters as reactions wheels can be quite sluggish, so I often use RCS thrusters for attitude control as well as translation. For crafts weighing triple digit tons reaction wheels aren't that effective and have to be assisted with RCS thrusters or the main engines to not take forever to turn. At least this is my experience in the matter, I don't really find the reaction wheels OP, I often use oversized reaction wheels on relatively small crafts as I'm not the most patient or the most precise pilot. 

[rkman]

4 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Overly enthusiastic steering is a result of your sensitivity setting being too high in the options menu.

Really not, has no effect on SAS 'hold relative position'.

[Braker]

5 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

63% like them the way they are, the poll supports my opinion.

If it's not what the majority of players want for stock KSP then it's mod territory.

Overly enthusiastic steering is a result of your sensitivity setting being too high in the options menu. I haven't had any problems with excessive wobble or twitchy craft in 1.1 personally.

65% is not 100%... Is just 15% more than 50%.

So your sentence "No one has a problem with the reaction wheels the way they are." is false...

35% of peopole have a "problem" with the reaction wheels the way they are. And only 60 members voted this poll (about 0.01% of the KSP players).

Edited May 1, 2016 by Braker

[Gaarst]

9 hours ago, DaMichel said:

For me, reaction wheels are quite a bit OP. For additional challenge, i therefore add RCS thrusters to most of my creations.

I would like to try playing with saturable reaction wheels. There is no mod for it, is there?

Yes there is.

[HoloYolo]

KSP isn't made to be 100% realistic. I think it should stay as it is. Monoprop weighs a lot and people want light crafts. I think it's good as it is.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

2 hours ago, rkman said:

Really not, has no effect on SAS 'hold relative position'.

 

7 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I haven't had any problems with excessive wobble or twitchy craft in 1.1 personally.

 

1 hour ago, Braker said:

65% is not 100%... Is just 15% more than 50%.

 

7 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

If it's not what the majority of players want for stock KSP then it's mod territory.

 

[LeuZ]

RCS doesn't make much sense with such op reaction wheels. So I think they should be less powerful and so more used for fine controls.

[Braker]

9 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

If it's not what the majority of players want for stock KSP then it's mod territory.

65% of 60 players is not the majority...

[N_Molson]

If reaction wheels were so simple to use, all real-life spacecraft engineers would prefer them to a RCS which requires amongst other things a complex plumbing setup and at least one (relatively heavy, often two) propellant(s) tank(s), usually extremely corrosive and hazardous materials. Monopropellant is a possibility but hypergolic propellants (that react spontaneously when mixed, like NTO/MMH) are very common, as they are more efficient (have a better ISP).

Edited May 1, 2016 by N_Molson