The_Rocketeer Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) Something I noticed today experimenting with stock bearings is there seem's to be no natural gyroscopic stabilisation in KSP (if I'm wrong about this please correct me). To explain this simply, bicycles fall over fast when standing still, but they take much longer to fall over when rolling forward because of the force I'm talking about. I conceive this as a process that reads how quickly your craft is rotating on the 3 axes, and uses this to produce a resistance factor that's applied to forces causing rotation on the other 2 axes. Single or slow rotations wouldn't have much effect, but a spindle rapidly rotating along it's y axis should tend not to drift much on the x or z axes. Edited June 8, 2016 by The_Rocketeer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EpicSpaceTroll139 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 (edited) Gyroscopic stabilization already is a mechanic in KSP. Try sending a spaceship tumbling in random directions, and then pressing q or e for several seconds. It should end up stabilizing. (This is all with SAS off) Might I ask what about bearings suggest a lack of gyroscopic stabilization mechanic? Edit: also you can even make a top right on the launchpad Edited June 8, 2016 by EpicSpaceTroll139 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rocketeer Posted June 8, 2016 Author Share Posted June 8, 2016 In my experience the spindle of a stock bearing is never gyroscopically stable despite very high rotation speeds and minimal off-rotational-axis force input. Ever have they been thus - it's probably the biggest pain to fix when making stock bearings. It's interesting what you say about tumbling craft in orbit, but I have my doubts that this is proof of what I'm talking about already existing. I don't know what a 'top right on the launchpad' is. U mean a spinning-top? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EpicSpaceTroll139 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 What kind of bearing are you using, and what are you spinning with it? I've found bearings to commonly catch on themselves and exert destabilizing forces. There's also an angular velocity limit which means good mass is necessary for stabilization. Also, I'm pretty sure that gyroscopic stabilization isn't so much a directly programmed feature, as it is a result of basic physics being applied to all the parts. It is because of physics that we see the artifact that we call gyroscopic stabilization. And yes I am talking about a spinning top. I gtg to work now but maybe I can show proof of GS later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rocketeer Posted June 8, 2016 Author Share Posted June 8, 2016 I'm not really looking for bearings advice, I just observed that stability arising from rotation didn't seem to be happening. FWIW this one was a turbofan using jet-thrust to drive an impeller, ultimately will have a thrust-prop on the end but atm just a shaft. I guess ur probably right about it being an effect rather than a force, but if it does exist in KSP it seems pretty feeble compared to my expectations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathair Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 21 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said: To explain this simply, bicycles fall over fast when standing still, but they take much longer to fall over when rolling forward because of the force I'm talking about. Actually... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snark Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 To be clear, in physics terms, "gyroscopic stabilization" isn't a thing. Conservation of angular momentum is. The game already models conservation of angular momentum, and therefore of "gyroscopic stabilization". Not because anyone sat down to code it as a "feature", but because it has to-- it happens automatically, it can't help it. It's a natural outcome of the physics simulation. Any physics-based simulation has to model moment of inertia and angular momentum, if it's going to be at all believable. If it didn't, then any time you see one object bonk into another object, the motion of the objects before/after the collision would be visibly "wrong" and bizarre-looking. So it's an absolute must-have feature; you can't ship without it. Fortunately for writers of physics-based engines and games, it's also pretty straightforward to model mathematically, as long as the objects you're dealing with are rigid (which, in KSP, they are). So you write the code and you model the thing until it does the physically correct behavior, and then you're done. So yes, this is a feature that's already there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rocketeer Posted June 9, 2016 Author Share Posted June 9, 2016 Well this seems pretty well tied up, guess I was just very wrong. Request the thread be closed please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Iron Crown Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Closed at OP request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts