Request Tweak of SAS - RCS vs. Gyros

[bewing]

I would like to see a toggle in the tweakables of every command module, to set how SAS should handle RCS if RCS is available. In the current version, SAS overuses RCS to a huge extent and causes a lot of problems with docking. So much so that you often need to make sure that one or the other is always off.

So I would really prefer to be able to set a tweakable to either completely prevent SAS from using RCS, or to have the SAS system rely much more heavily on gyro stabilizers, even if the RCS system is turned on.

PS. Oh, and things like Mk2 fuel tanks should mass slightly less than the equivalent Mk1 tanks. They are supposed to be higher tech, so there should be a benefit (besides a little lift) from using them (and going to all the effort to unlock them) -- you shouldn't be punished for it.

 

Edited January 24, 2016 by bewing

[GeneralVeers]

Seconded.

I would like the option to restrict a thruster so it responds only to RCS translation commands (i.e. the IJKLHN keys) and isn't part of the SAS system. My designs use SAS only for rotation, and (try to) use RCS only for translation.

Other option I just thought of: if you have RCS thrusters ahead of and behind the center of mass, would it be possible to have the RCS system throttle the two jets so the resultant force translates the ship without rotating it?

[Nich]

4 hours ago, GeneralVeers said:

Seconded.

I would like the option to restrict a thruster so it responds only to RCS translation commands (i.e. the IJKLHN keys) and isn't part of the SAS system. My designs use SAS only for rotation, and (try to) use RCS only for translation.

Other option I just thought of: if you have RCS thrusters ahead of and behind the center of mass, would it be possible to have the RCS system throttle the two jets so the resultant force translates the ship without rotating it?

I believe that is how docking mode works RCS is only transitional

[SpaceplaneAddict]

On 1/24/2016 at 10:02 PM, bewing said:

PS. Oh, and things like Mk2 fuel tanks should mass slightly less than the equivalent Mk1 tanks. They are supposed to be higher tech, so there should be a benefit (besides a little lift) from using them (and going to all the effort to unlock them) -- you shouldn't be punished for it.

As it was explained to me earlier, let me say:
-High crash tolerance
-Body lift (Don't take it for granted)

 

 

Lastly,

[bewing]

21 minutes ago, SpaceplaneAddict said:

As it was explained to me earlier, let me say:
-High crash tolerance
-Body lift (Don't take it for granted)

 

 

Lastly,

i sympathize, if all you are doing is building spaceplanes. But otherwise, I have to disagree. High crash tolerance is worthless unless you crash your stuff -- which is a silly thing to do. And body lift only has value in atmosphere. I mean, I like building and flying jets, sure, but there is a lot more to the game than that.

The way that it stands, then, when you are traveling outer space: MK1 parts are lighter, they cost less, and they have more benefits. So, this is the desired end result of all that R&D? Populating all of space with rockets built from MK1 parts? It's nonsensical.

 

[SpaceplaneAddict]

14 minutes ago, bewing said:

i sympathize, if all you are doing is building spaceplanes. But otherwise, I have to disagree. High crash tolerance is worthless unless you crash your stuff -- which is a silly thing to do. And body lift only has value in atmosphere. I mean, I like building and flying jets, sure, but there is a lot more to the game than that.

The way that it stands, then, when you are traveling outer space: MK1 parts are lighter, they cost less, and they have more benefits. So, this is the desired end result of all that R&D? Populating all of space with rockets built from MK1 parts? It's nonsensical.

 

May I remind you that the main reason for mk2 parts existing is to provide a sleek fuselage for spaceplanes

[bewing]

6 hours ago, SpaceplaneAddict said:

May I remind you that the main reason for mk2 parts existing is to provide a sleek fuselage for spaceplanes

Heh. OK, fine -- so where are the sleek fuselages for high-tech rockets, then? The game has both rockets and planes, but only planes get upgraded parts?

And I want to add one more request to my original list. When you go from being orbital to sub-orbital, or vice versa, the game changes the orientation of your craft. If your craft is an EVA suit, this makes you tumble like crazy. But don't change my orientation while I'm thrusting, dammit!

 

[SpaceplaneAddict]

2 minutes ago, bewing said:

Heh. OK, fine -- so where are the sleek fuselages for high-tech rockets, then?

Riddle me this:
2.5 metre fuselage
1.25 metre fuselage
3.75 metre fuselage
 

I think there are three valid fuselages for rockets. I mean, have you ever really look at rockets and their shape? Cylinders.

[StrandedonEarth]

On 2/14/2016 at 5:24 PM, GeneralVeers said:

Other option I just thought of: if you have RCS thrusters ahead of and behind the center of mass, would it be possible to have the RCS system throttle the two jets so the resultant force translates the ship without rotating it?

If I'm not mistaken, this happens when you press 'Caps Lock' to put the RCS in 'fine control' mode