How come stock KSP doesn't have Size 3 torque wheels?

[Xyphos]

I like using torque wheels for rotational movement which saves on mono propellant and allows RCS port placement specifically for translational movement.

However, stock KSP doesn't have Size 3 OR Mk3 torque wheels which I find odd, and so I'm forced to use TweakScale or spam multiple torque wheels wherever possible.

What's up, Squad?

[treejoe4]

it doesnt seem to be in very high demand

[waterlubber]

The Control tab is pretty empty. I could use some more reaction wheels control motion gyroscopes.

However if you want more control with size 3 use the Verneir thrusters, as the fuel used by those is so little compared to the giant 3.75 tanks.

[eviator]

it doesnt seem to be in very high demand

There's no demand because it doesn't exist LOL!

[Temeter]

I found the big, radially attached wheels of KW Rocketry to be insanely usefull. Can only recommend them if you ever need strong wheels.

[Sky_walker]

As if SAS would be the only thing missing for size 3...

[sjwt]

I think the basic thought would be if your main lift off stage needs them, then you're already in trouble =>

[Warzouz]

Well there are the Verner RCS parts to rotate the ship. But as for a design point of vue, a bigger wheel could be nice.

[Xyphos]

As if SAS would be the only thing missing for size 3...

You mean... Size 3 batteries?

[FishInferno]

You mean... Size 3 batteries?

and docking ports, and RCS tanks

[moogoob]

Size-3 docking ports?

EDIT: Ninja'd!

[Temeter]

Use Vernours when you're going for size 3. More part and fuel efficient than RCS. Not sure what you'd ever do with 3.75m RCS tanks.

[FishInferno]

Use Vernours when you're going for size 3. More part and fuel efficient than RCS. Not sure what you'd ever do with 3.75m RCS tanks.

build giant interplanetary refueling ships

[Temeter]

build giant interplanetary refueling ships

Which are better served with vernours: Less parts, more fuel efficient than RCS.

[FishInferno]

Which are better served with vernours: Less parts, more fuel efficient than RCS.

But they use up the fuel supply for the engines

- - - Updated - - -

and there are no four-way vernour thrusters

[Temeter]

But they use up the fuel supply for the engines

- - - Updated - - -

and there are no four-way vernour thrusters

They use less fuel than an RCS thruster of the same size would use monoprop. And otherwise you'd just carry unused monoprop around, so it's by design more efficient than RCS.

As for four ways, you need 10 (or 12) vernours to get full control. E.g. one (or two) forward/backwards, and each 4 radials high and low on the rocket.