Ha ha. Rover brakes need to be a lot better. [It's a bug actually]

[Temeter]

For one thing, this isn't Need for Speed. We are designing rovers, not sports cars. With the equipment we have there should be zero expectation of any real awesome performance. That would be where mods can come in if you actually wanted to drive a humvee or lamborghini on the Mun.

Doesn't mean moon rovers can't share principles with sport cars. Latter are high performance vehicles, and similarly space equipment tends to be extremly specialized and optimized. E.g. a sports cars center of mass is usualy very low to give them a lot more stability when cornering. Same rule applies for rovers trying to avoid tumbling, especially at low gravity. Construction and stability means a lot when your vehicle is supposed to move at 22m/s at 4xtimewarp.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Temeter

[katateochi]

Folk have already mentioned Claw's stock bug fix as the solution to the brakes being too weak, so all that left to say on that is "go Claw!!"

But even before the current issue with brakes, fast rovers on low gravity planets do tend to need additional stopping power so I always have put some forward facing RCS ports on them. Since 1.0 is does require a bit of a re-jig of key-bindings to get it so that pressing S will driving in docking mode also fires the forward thrusters but it's still a good extra brake.

And because the whole "rovers aren't meant to go fast" thing has been mentioned....I totally agree, real rovers are high value 1 off bits of kit carrying important stuff (science/astronauts) on unfamiliar and potentially dangerous terrain so they need to go slowly. But in real life the terrain is also highly detailed and very interesting, this is not the case in KSP. The terrain is sparse and uninteresting, so the inclination is to get through it quickly to reach the few points of interest that it has. It also doesn't have enough level of detail to convey a sense of speed so 50m/s feels pretty slow when in fact it's 180 kph (~110 mph).

I respect the wish for realistic speeds in rovers, but the game also has to recognise it's terrain is unrealistic and needs to offer a counter to that. Either make the terrain more detailed (much more work, higher burden on our computers) or let us drive at unrealistic speeds (just make the wheels tougher) so using rovers is still something that is fun.

[LN400]

One thing I noticed when I got my first rovers to Mun in 0.1-something (I forgot), both ultra lights (first and not a bright idea) and heavier ones was how easy it was to lose traction if I went much faster than 2-3 m/s. Came up with some ideas, some were ok, others were ludicrous. An ok idea was to keep the speed down and enabling brakes on the rear (uphill) wheels and disabling the brakes on the front (downhill) wheels. One of the more ludicrous ideas was to use the SAS to stabilize, raise the front and ride like a madman on the rear wheels hammering down the B key until I either 1) reached the bottom of the slope or 2) the wheels tore themselves up except when I totally didn't see this fairly large crater further down the canyon. That didn't end well when I returned to ground level. Exploding steel plates are fascinating. Then again, this is KSP and in KSP I demand explosions!

The icy surface is one that did perplex me though. Even on relatively flat ground, the rovers would slide off too easily. Haven't got around to try the v1.0.2 yet but I'm gonna keep an eye on this buggy brake/sliding business.

[anarkhon]

For one thing, this isn't Need for Speed. We are designing rovers, not sports cars. With the equipment we have there should be zero expectation of any real awesome performance. That would be where mods can come in if you actually wanted to drive a humvee or lamborghini on the Mun.

With TTModularWheel's you can build a car/rover with better physics and handlings than Need for Speed,i can beat any "real awesome performance" with a rocket on my rover's back,and of course if i want the real speed i can use KerbalFoundries Repulsors (hovers).

proof:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

.

[cephalo]

Yeah... Just installed Claw's bugfix mod, and it's a different world. You guys saved my science bus! Now it doesn't matter that I'm almost out of fuel because not only do I have brakes now, but I can climb hills with only battery power! How does fixing brakes accomplish that? Anyway, I don't even need RCS at all anymore as long as I'm careful. Big thanks to Claw for putting in that fix. I see now that rovers were supposed to be viable and fun even on the Mun.

[Arsonik]

There's a bug at the moment, where the brake torque isn't being set correctly. It's ok for a newly installed wheel, but as soon as you open the right-click menu it's getting set to a fraction of what it should be, in some cases to 10% or less than what it should be by default.

If you know what you are doing, edit your save file and you'll find that you have cases of "brakeTorque = 30" on some rover wheels. Set that to a more appropriate value, e.g. "brakeTorque = 300". You can check the default values in the cfg files in GameData/Squad/Parts/Wheel, it's different for each wheel:

$ grep brakeTorque GameData/Squad/Parts/Wheel/*/*.cfg
GameData/Squad/Parts/Wheel/roverWheelM1/roverWheelM1.cfg:		brakeTorque = 300
GameData/Squad/Parts/Wheel/roverWheelS2/roverWheelS2.cfg:		brakeTorque = 180
GameData/Squad/Parts/Wheel/roverWheelTR-2L/roverWheelTR-2L.cfg:		brakeTorque = 500
GameData/Squad/Parts/Wheel/roverWheelXL3/roverWheelXL3.cfg:		brakeTorque = 200
$ 

It will break again as soon as you right-click the wheel, but should stay at the correct value if you don't touch them. The culprit seems to be brakeTorque_UIFlight's maxValue, so you can also set that much higher, which I believe should prevent the value getting clobbered (untested, not sure if setting a higher value there actually sticks). Each new craft will launch broken, these things only fix it for craft already in flight. I've not tried actually fixing the part cfgs themselves.

If the above made about as much sense as a novel written in a random mixture of Dutch and Chinese combined, you probably shouldn't be messing with your save file (or at least don't complain to me if it all goes horribly wrong for you).

How about setting the configs to read only? Might this work?

[Robotengineer]

Just make a ModuleManager config, much simpler and less dangerous than messing with your save or cfg files.

[The Yellow Dart]

Yeah... Just installed Claw's bugfix mod, and it's a different world. You guys saved my science bus!

I hadn't even run into that bug yet when I installed it a few days ago. I was just super excited that my radial parachutes didn't clip into each other any more. That drives me crazy! For me, it is another one of those " I can't believe they didn't fix this before 1.0" things.

[boxman]

No, no. That's not even true on Kerbin. Try stopping a rover on the slope that leads from the runway to the KSC. You can't. I've designed two rovers so far, one small and one large, and it doesn't matter how slow you are going on a slope. Nothing will stop you except powerful, wasteful RCS.

Are you actually using the brakes or are you just hitting reverse?? There is a big difference between using B to brake and just using reverse. Hitting B did at least in past brake so much that it could actually flip your rover if it is not build well.

[katateochi]

I hadn't even run into that bug yet when I installed it a few days ago. I was just super excited that my radial parachutes didn't clip into each other any more. That drives me crazy! For me, it is another one of those " I can't believe they didn't fix this before 1.0" things.

Yeah I also hated the way chutes clipped into each other, so I was also ecstatic that Claw's mod fixed that too.

Are you actually using the brakes or are you just hitting reverse?? There is a big difference between using B to brake and just using reverse. Hitting B did at least in past brake so much that it could actually flip your rover if it is not build well.

The brakes not working properly is a confirmed issue since 1.0 (and the fix is in Claw's stock bug fixes mod).

[Merinsan]

How about setting the configs to read only? Might this work?

The problem is not in the config file. The problem is in the save file, and setting the save file read only would be a bad idea!

[cephalo]

Check out the confidence with which I can approach the cliff edge! Wouldn't have dared this before brakes were invented.

[Levelord]

Check out the confidence with which I can approach the cliff edge! Wouldn't have dared this before brakes were invented.

http://oi62.tinypic.com/11w65c6.jpg

You only seem daring, but it's because you have rockets to bail you out if anything went wrong.

[cephalo]

You only seem daring, but it's because you have rockets to bail you out if anything went wrong.

Nah, if anything went wrong I would just panic and mash buttons. That's my style. Rockets just make the failure more spectacular.

Edited May 29, 2015 by cephalo

[-ELF-]

Nah, if anything went wrong I would just panic and mash buttons. That's my style. Rockets just make the failure more spectacular.

That's what I call "kerbal way"...

Can I sig-quote that, please?

[Overland]

I generally set the rear most traction wheels on my locomotive to inverted steering but once uncoupled light-engine she needs to be set to normal steering or crabbing occurs.. eg.. runs sidewards vector..

I set the related wheels to an action group when in SPH, generally 5 key.. that way they can be set without right clicking anything..

in a similar ideal on your rover, try experimenting to assign the steering/non steering on your rovers wheel to an action group so you can set it without having to right click and undo the brake effect..

also there is a brake bug fix mod floating around, I use it.. it works wonderfully.. the brake bug was one of the first things I noticed.. as one does driving a 50+ ton train around the place

you can obtain it here

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97285-KSP-v1-0-2-Stock-Bug-Fix-Modules-%28Release-v1-0-2d-3-18-May-15%29?highlight=brake+fix

one thing to note with the torque settings eg right clicking.. im not sure if its linux version I now traverse.. or indeed a change to 1.0+ but space plane assembly hanger no longer seems to apply one setting to both wheels in a wheelset as in both sides..

as such if your setting the brake torque make sure it matches up across your wheels where you intend it..

this bug for me caused 4408 II to veer left everytime I applied the locomotive brake due to not having torque on each wheel identical, off by a few points... becomes rather scary at times..

increasing brake torque stock to astronomic values isnt all that nice.. especially since the above bug fix works wonderfully..

as without it if you do.. and brakes DO suddenly work.. well

Ive had bogeys rip off the underside of a loco when the rest of the train kept going but the wheels didnt..

t'was an impressively entertaining sight.. but not what everyone wants to do a million miles from home on the moon perhaps

Edited May 29, 2015 by Overland

[problemecium]

Wait I'm confused now. 30 and not 300 is a bug? Did SQUAD say it was supposed to max out at 300 for the orange wheels or something?

If so I must raise a mental eyebrow, because 30 seems decently strong already. I can only imagine the acrobatics my rovers would do if their brakes were ten times as powerful ._.

[Murph]

Wait I'm confused now. 30 and not 300 is a bug? Did SQUAD say it was supposed to max out at 300 for the orange wheels or something?

If so I must raise a mental eyebrow, because 30 seems decently strong already. I can only imagine the acrobatics my rovers would do if their brakes were ten times as powerful ._.

Read the config that I posted on the first page of the thread. The default configured value for medium rover wheels is 300 (and all others are similarly vastly higher than 30). The new tweaking UI for it has a major bug which clamps all of them to 30, and hits the first time you open the UI. If you have a wheel that you have never opened the UI for, from the very first point you clicked on it in the part chooser, it will use the correct default. Click on it just once either while building/editing the craft, or "in flight", and the brakes are effectively completely broken.

[Mister Kerman]

I generally set the rear most traction wheels on my locomotive to inverted steering but once uncoupled light-engine she needs to be set to normal steering or crabbing occurs..

Is crabbing in that context a word?? Never mind, I don't care. I'm gonna give you rep regardless. That tickled me.

[Murph]

Is crabbing in that context a word?? Never mind, I don't care. I'm gonna give you rep regardless. That tickled me.

Yes, it's a very old usage of the word (but still quite current, at least in the UK).

Giving it an aeronautical slant, one of the RAF's very long standing nicknames is "crabs", sometimes attributed to sideways movement (debatable whether it's due to the sideways movement of old tail dragging planes when taxiing, or any plane in a crosswind landing; or whether it's due to the RAF's drill movements allowing an unlimited number of sideways paces, unlike the other 2 services). There is another more military explanation (and less family friendly), but I won't post that here.

[waterlubber]

When I was droving (portmanteu intented) on Minimus one day, I found that setting H and N to rover wheels (if you haven't already) and using SAS greatly improved my traction. The wheels were firmly shoved into the ground by my heavy torque.

[cephalo]

;1980103']That's what I call "kerbal way"...

Can I sig-quote that' date=' please? [/quote']

Oh yes please.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait I'm confused now. 30 and not 300 is a bug? Did SQUAD say it was supposed to max out at 300 for the orange wheels or something?

If so I must raise a mental eyebrow, because 30 seems decently strong already. I can only imagine the acrobatics my rovers would do if their brakes were ten times as powerful ._.

I did extensive testing with the 30 torque brakes while learning how to design rovers, and they aren't even noticeable much less stop anything except the tiny-est of rovers.

[Overland]

Thankyou and thanks for the rep too I actually didnt realise when I typed it that its a word that's rather oldish in use.. ive heard the term used for cars on highways with defective steering and or joints crabbing down highways.. in a similar way an aircraft coming into a cross wind.. in KSP when the auto steering arrangement kicks in from a newly uncoupled locomotive the former reversed steering trailing wheel set reverts so its natural state.. having both the front bogey and this now trailing wheel all facing the same direction and everything moving like a diesel electric angry crab.. it has its uses in shunting operations to line up a stray wagon.. and or docking to other parts though maybe others can discover the crab and it become a thing

maybe next time i'll put "giant enemy" infront of any crab reference to make it more modern

[Murph]

maybe next time i'll put "giant enemy" infront of any crab reference to make it more modern

Hehe. By "very old usage", I didn't mean "and obsolete/outdated", just that it's been used that way for long time, i.e. I don't view it as obscure or a new usage.