Jump to content

Should capsules have RCS thrusters built-in?

Starwhip
 Share

Recommended Posts

m4v

m4v

Posted
Posted

My first reaction is no. RCS aren't like reaction wheels in the sense that can be placed anywhere and still work. Having a bunch of RCS ports that have their position fixed will make placing the rest of the vessel's RCS ports more complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
m4v

m4v

Posted
Posted
have the ability to turn them off for the pod, problem solved.

Here is another way of solving the problem: don't assume that the texture that the artist put in a pod is meant to be a RCS port.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tater

tater

Posted
Posted
Which ones? the ones in Porkjet's mk2 cockpits? porkjet said that those aren't RCS ports.

I've never looked much at them, I don't do spaceplanes.

I just looked at them, they certainly look like RCS jets on the mk2 as well. If not, what are they, exactly? There are 4 right under the windscreen, and they are symmetric. If they are instruments, what 4 are they?

Those even have scorch marks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tater

tater

Posted
Posted

stupid_chris, is it possible to make a zero-thickness part that could be like the flags, but are in fact "inset" RCS parts? Then you could apply them to a capsule as a unique part. Perhaps they would be customized as 1.25m for the mk1, and 2.5 for the mk1-2? Maybe as a complete "ring" so that this one part would do for each (and they would be scaled to exactly fit those pods).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GreeningGalaxy

GreeningGalaxy

Posted
Posted

I'm inclined to cast my vote against pre-placed RCS thrusters, just because it reduces the flexibility of your designs - you probably don't want to mount surface-attached parts over a thruster port (even if it works anyway, grumble grumble). Having thruster ports user-placed is nice because you can build whatever ludicrous design you want and not have to worry about covering up anything that you can't move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DSKY

DSKY

Posted
Posted
It's not a question of should they. It's a question of can they. And the answer is no. the RCS module basically is bugged and RCS thrusters don't work correctly if they are a root part of a vessel.

So you're saying Squad CAN'T add a suggested feature because they have some buggy code? That has some discouraging implications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sumghai

sumghai

Posted
Posted
It's not a question of should they. It's a question of can they. And the answer is no. the RCS module basically is bugged and RCS thrusters don't work correctly if they are a root part of a vessel.

I thought this (along with the pods-with-integrated RCS) issue was fixed in the past?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stupid_chris

stupid_chris

Posted
Posted (edited)
stupid_chris, is it possible to make a zero-thickness part that could be like the flags, but are in fact "inset" RCS parts? Then you could apply them to a capsule as a unique part. Perhaps they would be customized as 1.25m for the mk1, and 2.5 for the mk1-2? Maybe as a complete "ring" so that this one part would do for each (and they would be scaled to exactly fit those pods).

Probably, but then what's even the point, you'd have to place that part yourself. That's a very very bad solution overall IMO.

So you're saying Squad CAN'T add a suggested feature because they have some buggy code? That has some discouraging implications.

Do you want me to make a list of all the bugs modders have found in Squad's code, told them how to fix it, and that none of it has been taken care of more than a year later? Because such a list can be made. So yes, that's exactly what I was saying. Until Squad shows interest into fixing that kind of bugs, this whole discussion is pointless.

I thought this (along with the pods-with-integrated RCS) issue was fixed in the past?

No it wasn't. RCSFX fixed it but it's a mod.

Edited by stupid_chris
Link to comment
Share on other sites
John FX

John FX

Posted
Posted
Do you want me to make a list of all the bugs modders have found in Squad's code, told them how to fix it, and that none of it has been taken care of more than a year later? Because such a list can be made. So yes, that's exactly what I was saying. Until Squad shows interest into fixing that kind of bugs, this whole discussion is pointless.

It would be a long list...

IMHO KSP is not ready for 1.0 until there has been at least one pure bugfix passthrough. No extra features, fix the dumb bugs already!

Even an update where bugfixing was a major stated priority would be a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwhip

Starwhip

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Even an update where bugfixing was a major stated priority would be a good thing.

Like 1.0 is supposed to be? We'll see. :)

Anyways, there are some interesting responses here. And it seems that this has turned into "How should SQUAD fix their bugs?", rather than a discussion on the thruster ports, which it was supposed to be. ;)

So, let's assume that, magically, it would work. Should they have them then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
m4v

m4v

Posted
Posted
It's not a question of should they. It's a question of can they. And the answer is no. the RCS module basically is bugged and RCS thrusters don't work correctly if they are a root part of a vessel.

That was fixed in 0.24.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KSK

KSK

Posted
Posted
There needs to be a very low thrust RCS set added. Probes need them, and pods need them. This should be an early tech item.

I'd like to see some in-line RCS rings. They'd be about the same size and mass as the reaction wheel parts. Functionally they'd be equivalent to a small flat monopropellant tank with four integral, symmetrically placed 'mini-quad' RCS blocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegrade

Renegrade

Posted
Posted

I'd love to see built-in thrusters operational, but only if you can tweak 'em on and off.

The only problem is that the RCS thrusters are too expensive to spam them

1x command pod MK1 = 600 funds

1x RV-105 RCS thruster = 450 funds

REALLY?

4x RV-105 + FL-R25 = 2600 funds

One ludicrously overpowered reaction wheel = 600 - 1200 funds

One 650KN Skipper engine: 2850

These are clearly placeholder-quality values. I sincerely hope they address this insanity in 1.0 (if not, I will be very angry with Squad and write them a letter telling them how angry I am etcetc)... Until then, my Horrible Nerf takes care of that price balance issue nicely~

There needs to be a very low thrust RCS set added. Probes need them, and pods need them. This should be an early tech item.

Yes please. Also bidirectionals and 45-degree ones.. like in RLA Stockalike :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RainDreamer

RainDreamer

Posted
Posted
Vens Revamp enabled the Mk1-2 pod RCS thrusters and I never experienced any bugs.. The only problem was balancing them.

Yeah, no bugs for me too. And I tend to either used them along with a very short propulsion module (engine + fueltank and complementary RCS for balancing) attached below for use as a small crew transport vehicle, or disable them entirely and enable them for course correction during reentry. Either way, they are nice to have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...