Explore even More with a Good Set of Wheels!

[Columbia]

So, just because wheels aren't fully flawless and still have issues, it should not be placed as an advertising point? What? 

I mean, aerodynamics in the game aren't flawless either, does that mean they're practically of no worth in the game, and something that should be advertised as such? Is this just to poke hate at Squad for not fixing wheels, or their "poor" job at 1.1?

What do you want Squad to do? Keep their asses glued to their seats until the whole forum can rejoice at a better 1.1.4?

Edited July 25, 2016 by Columbia

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, Columbia said:

So, just because wheels aren't fully flawless and still have issues, it should not be placed as an advertising point? What? 

I mean, aerodynamics in the game aren't flawless either, does that mean they're practically of no worth in the game, and something that should be advertised as such? Is this just to poke hate at Squad for not fixing wheels, or their "poor" job at 1.1?

What do you want Squad to do? Keep their asses glued to their seats until the whole forum can rejoice at a better 1.1.4?

See no reason why you don't want maximum friction, if you have high center of gravity like an upright rocket you would rater reduce acceleration and braking who should be tuneable.
Else friction depend on wheel type and real friction should depend on gravity making it easy to spin on an low gravity world with an light rover. 

[KerikBalm]

4 hours ago, Alshain said:

Funny, I don't see any chains on the KSP wheels.  Also, I don't know of any wheels in real life that have no friction, a physically impossible case.  We both know that isn't the reason its there, its a workaround for crappy wheels.  Properly working wheels shouldn't need the friction slider.

right, you don't see chains, you don't see little studs on the treads, you don't see ridges on the tires, etc.

The way I see it, its like choosing what sort of tire your have on your wheel. The following would all give different traction/frictions

 

The only problem I see is a change on the go system - it seems it should be set in the VAB like spring and dampner strength - or at least require a skilled engineer to eva out and interact with the part (which just gave me an idea for another engineer skill).

The way they have it now just makes it easier... which seems to be something you would agree with seeing as how you're one of the biggest complainers about these wheels being too hard to use - like that other thread where you were showing an inherently unstable craft as an example of "broken wheels"

 

 

[klgraham1013]

5 hours ago, Alshain said:

Funny, I don't see any chains on the KSP wheels.

He said it's an abstraction.

[Alshain]

5 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

right, you don't see chains, you don't see little studs on the treads, you don't see ridges on the tires, etc.

The way I see it, its like choosing what sort of tire your have on your wheel. The following would all give different traction/frictions

Traction, not friction.  Those are two different concepts that have two different behaviors.  Changing the tread on the tire alters traction, but not friction.  Traction would also behave differently.  Rather than your vehicle sliding completely out of control, lower traction would be more likely cause the wheel to turn in place without moving the vehicle (have you ever gotten your car stuck in the mud? That's a lack of traction)*.  If you wanted to allow us to alter traction, that would be fine.  However it is not the same, and simply considering the friction control to be traction is incorrect.  They are closely related so I can understand the confusion.  Modelling traction properly would be quite the task, as it is also dependent on surface material.  Traction on the asphalt runway would be a lot different than traction on the dirt runway, would be a lot different than traction on the grass... or mun... or wherever.  Simply offering a slider or renaming friction to traction would be silly because it would still be constant across all surface material.

I would love to see traction implemented if done correctly, but it wouldn't simply be a slider.  It could have a 'tread' slider I suppose, but only so much as the craft would be engineered for a specific surface and setting a tread for asphalt and landing it on the ice of Minmus would cause problems (this would be no different than @Arsonide's chain example, that too is traction).  That simply isn't the effect of the friction slider, which to reiterate, is still breaking the laws of physics.

 

EDIT: * Relating to active wheels, like the rover wheels.  The effect for aircraft, with free spinning wheels would be different than both this and the behavior of the friction slider.  In that case, the plane simply wouldn't slow down very fast (unless it had ample air braking).  It might spin out of control if the traction were low enough to make the steering ineffective, but that assumes you are steering.  Where as friction control has effects even when not steering.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Alshain

[Vermil]

My opinion is that the wheels are perfectly okay for making the good-enough illusion of a working wheeled vehicle. Just go for the engineering approach: Look for working solutions.

There's no point in trying to explain to each other how wheel physics "should" work, because the models they are using, Unity-whatever, aren't even close. It's not just some detail that is "wrong" and "should be fixed". They have nothing in common with wheel physics, they're just a hack that is intended to give the feel of being a wheel.

 

[Hevak]

On July 24, 2016 at 9:48 AM, klgraham1013 said:

KSP's 1.0 trailer openly laughed at a catastrophic rocket failure, and the imminent death of two astronauts.

 Squad has never been the best at PR.

They did no such thing at all. People are just trying to twist it that way In this, I must find something to be offended about time of the world..

many rocket failures look similar to the challenger, or any other space craft failure. Because things tend to move that way when they fail under those circumstances.  I watched the challenger disaster many compared it to  live as a child, I have no problem with the video and only see basic similarities.  I see no astronauts about to die in their video. Kerbals are fake creations, and part of ksp is the failures. I saw nothing wrong with the 1.0 video, but then again I'm not one of those, must find something to offend me today types.  

Forum jockeys have never been the best at getting beyond finding reasons to get upset at game companies. 

Edited July 26, 2016 by Hevak

[kBob]

On ‎7‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 1:34 PM, pandaman said:

I can understand why many players are having difficulty though, especially when existing designs no longer work as they did.

This would certainly account for my near lack of problems.  I only built one rover in early KSP and never used it much.  It's only in 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 that I have built real rovers so I had no preconceived idea of how they once worked or "should" work.  An hypothesis anyway.  That said they do seem to slip a bit too easily and the friction slider hasn't had much effect on that as far as I can tell, I've certainly driven ATVs up some pretty steep hills with less slippage .

 

18 hours ago, Alshain said:

Also, I don't know of any wheels in real life that have no friction, a physically impossible case.  We both know that isn't the reason its there, its a workaround for crappy wheels.  Properly working wheels shouldn't need the friction slider.

Hah!  You should have seen the tires that came with my last truck, so bald I could barely make it up the hill to my house--no snow, no rain just dry pavement and a 5-6% grade, they sure seemed frictionless...even worse on my driveway which is 9% grade .  Of course I got some real tires for it and that helped immensely so let's hope Squad comes up with a truly "good set of wheels" that everyone likes.

[Kermanzooming]

On 7/24/2016 at 9:33 PM, KerikBalm said:

Wheels are perfectly usable for me. People just remember how they acted, and don't like change.

I'm doing things with rovers that I never could before.

Agree. Wheels work for me, and I have been using them more than ever.

I'm even finishing the design of modular components based on legs and a wheeled base, so for me they are perfectly usable. Not perfect, but good enough to do things with them.

[SorryDave]

A picture of a rover? Why not a train?

[HazelPine]

The wheels are working better than ever before IMO. Before, you couldn't  make any rover that could go past 30 m/s without applying some extremely fancy part abuse, and now the wheels are capable of reaching speeds closer to their rated top speeds. Also, rovers are less prone to tipping since wheels can slip about now. Sure, the grip uphill right now is kinda bad, but that didn't stop me from making rovers. After all, this was the first time they let the new wheels out for the general public as a release, and now they are probably (or should be) listening to the feedback. So, instead of complaining, let's just discuss what they need changed and why, like anemic uphill power, which makes no sense as is.

 

Also, KSP is really open to any kind of solution for a problem, so if stock wheel behavior is upsetting you, improvise!

Spoiler

 

[KerikBalm]

16 hours ago, Alshain said:

Traction, not friction.  Those are two different concepts that have two different behaviors.  Changing the tread on the tire alters traction, but not friction.  Traction would also behave differently.  Rather than your vehicle sliding completely out of control, lower traction would be more likely cause the wheel to turn in place without moving the vehicle (have you ever gotten your car stuck in the mud? That's a lack of traction)*.  If you wanted to allow us to alter traction, that would be fine.  However it is not the same, and simply considering the friction control to be traction is incorrect.  They are closely related so I can understand the confusion.  Modelling traction properly would be quite the task, as it is also dependent on surface material.  Traction on the asphalt runway would be a lot different than traction on the dirt runway, would be a lot different than traction on the grass... or mun... or wherever.  Simply offering a slider or renaming friction to traction would be silly because it would still be constant across all surface material.

I would love to see traction implemented if done correctly, but it wouldn't simply be a slider.  It could have a 'tread' slider I suppose, but only so much as the craft would be engineered for a specific surface and setting a tread for asphalt and landing it on the ice of Minmus would cause problems (this would be no different than @Arsonide's chain example, that too is traction).  That simply isn't the effect of the friction slider, which to reiterate, is still breaking the laws of physics.

" TRACTION can be defined as the friction between a drive wheel and the surface it moves upon. It is the amount of force a wheel can apply to a surface before it slips. A wheel will have different traction on different surfaces; as described above, the coefficient of friction is based on pairs of surfaces.  "

Traction is a specific kind of friction, thus using the word friction for the slider is not so inaccurate. Yes it would be nice if static friction and kinetic friction were different for different surfaces, and if there were a difference between on road and off road. However, there was no difference before, and there is no difference now, and people are complaining about the *change* - so I thing this point is just misdirection. In theory aside from the tread, we could also change the material of the wheel. Steel vs rubber vs a plastic coating would all make big differences on the friction coefficient. There are ways to change friction coefficients by changing the design of a wheel, and I figure that's what the friction slider is abstracting.

I find it hard to believe that you'll complain about this realism when before wheels never slipped at all except on extremely low gravity worlds... when ts not so much wheel slipping as the craft coming off the surface at a slight force.

[klgraham1013]

11 hours ago, Hevak said:

They did no such thing at all. People are just trying to twist it that way In this, I must find something to be offended about time of the world..

many rocket failures look similar to the challenger, or any other space craft failure. Because things tend to move that way when they fail under those circumstances.  I watched the challenger disaster many compared it to  live as a child, I have no problem with the video and only see basic similarities.  I see no astronauts about to die in their video. Kerbals are fake creations, and part of ksp is the failures. I saw nothing wrong with the 1.0 video, but then again I'm not one of those, must find something to offend me today types.  

Forum jockeys have never been the best at getting beyond finding reasons to get upset at game companies. 

I apologize for thinking there's so much more to advertise about KSP in a 1.0 launch trailer than a bit of tasteless dark humor.  

Mark another one down for the "Kerbal's are little green men" excuse.

[Columbia]

1 hour ago, klgraham1013 said:

I apologize for thinking there's so much more to advertise about KSP in a 1.0 launch trailer than a bit of tasteless dark humor.  

Mark another one down for the "Kerbal's are little green men" excuse.

Let me guess, you find KSP failures dark because it resembles Challenger in a way. Or get offended when your ship gets destroyed by re-entry heat, because that resembles Columbia somewhat. Nice.

Also, how does his argument amount to "Kerbals are little green men"? He mentions that Challenger isn't unique-- It can look similar to any other failure during launches. 

And don't tell me that having a catastrophic failure amounts to disrespect of actual victims, it's a normal and essential part of KSP -- Trial and error. 

 

 

 

On 7/25/2016 at 4:51 PM, magnemoe said:

See no reason why you don't want maximum friction, if you have high center of gravity like an upright rocket you would rater reduce acceleration and braking who should be tuneable.
Else friction depend on wheel type and real friction should depend on gravity making it easy to spin on an low gravity world with an light rover. 

It's in fact a set of issues of wheels, but does everyone need to get so upset about a single advertisement which isn't offensive in any way?

 

[Alshain]

9 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

" TRACTION can be defined as the friction between a drive wheel and the surface it moves upon. It is the amount of force a wheel can apply to a surface before it slips. A wheel will have different traction on different surfaces; as described above, the coefficient of friction is based on pairs of surfaces.  "

Traction is a specific kind of friction, thus using the word friction for the slider is not so inaccurate. Yes it would be nice if static friction and kinetic friction were different for different surfaces, and if there were a difference between on road and off road. However, there was no difference before, and there is no difference now, and people are complaining about the *change* - so I thing this point is just misdirection. In theory aside from the tread, we could also change the material of the wheel. Steel vs rubber vs a plastic coating would all make big differences on the friction coefficient. There are ways to change friction coefficients by changing the design of a wheel, and I figure that's what the friction slider is abstracting.

I find it hard to believe that you'll complain about this realism when before wheels never slipped at all except on extremely low gravity worlds... when ts not so much wheel slipping as the craft coming off the surface at a slight force.

I didn't say the slider was incorrectly named, I said the slider was breaking the laws of physics, and it is.  The slider is definitely not traction control and that is the problem.  You are throwing up a straw man argument.

[Red Iron Crown]

12 minutes ago, Alshain said:

I didn't say the slider was incorrectly named, I said the slider was breaking the laws of physics, and it is.  The slider is definitely not traction control and that is the problem.  You are throwing up a straw man argument.

I've seen offroad vehicles that can adjust wheel friction on the fly, do they violate physics, too?

[Alshain]

28 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I've seen offroad vehicles that can adjust wheel friction on the fly, do they violate physics, too?

You've seen offroad vehicles that can adjust traction on the fly.

[Red Iron Crown]

2 minutes ago, Alshain said:

You've seen offroad vehicles that can adjust traction on the fly.

Yes. They adjust tire pressure using a central inflation system, which changes the tire contact patch size and thus traction.

[something]

What's the argument about? Don't understand it.

Temperature changes the behaviour of rubber and hence its friction. Heating tires changes the way a car can drive. And now please argue, whether it is possible to change the tire temperature with a slider.

[Alshain]

6 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Yes. They adjust tire pressure using a central inflation system, which changes the tire contact patch size and thus traction.

Exactly

[Vermil]

1 hour ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Yes. They adjust tire pressure using a central inflation system, which changes the tire contact patch size and thus traction.

Which only works on loose or soft ground. It works because the traction problem is that the ground breaks and is sheared off by the lateral driving force. Spreading the force gives the surface a chance to hold up better.

In racing there is a reversal of this. Very soft rubber is used in order to imprint on the roughness of the tarmac, for a greater grip than friction coefficient 1. But if the lateral load is too high or the rubber too soft, the rubber just gives and creeps. So it has to be balanced by the contact patch size.

Normally, with sufficiently hard rubber and hard surface, none of the above holds true. You have the same grip regardless. Increasing the contact surface only increases the rolling resistance.

 

Edited July 26, 2016 by Vermil

[Red Iron Crown]

1 minute ago, Vermil said:

Which only works on loose or soft ground. It works because the traction problem is that the ground breaks and is sheared off by the lateral driving force. Spreading the force gives the surface a chance to hold up better.

In racing there is a reversal of this. Very soft rubber is used in order to imprint on the roughness of the tarmac, for a greater grip than friction coefficient 1. But if the lateral load is too high or the rubber too soft, the rubber just gives and creeps. So it has to be balanced by the contact patch size.

Normally, with sufficiently hard rubber and hard surface, none of the above holds true. You have the same grip regardless. Increasing the contact surface only increases the rolling resistance.

 

Nonsense, there's a reason that road racers use the widest tires permitted, and dragsters use tires with long, wide contact patches. Contact patch size has a huge influence, tire-tarmac friction is more complicated than F_r = μN.

[Vermil]

2 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Nonsense, there's a reason that road racers use the widest tires permitted, and dragsters use tires with long, wide contact patches. Contact patch size has a huge influence, tire-tarmac friction is more complicated than F_r = μN.

It's not nonsense. The hardness of the rubber is balanced to the contact surface. They use extremely soft rubber to 'grip' the tarmac.

"Traction" appears to be a property of limiting structural strength of the contact surfaces. Friction is the force that can be transferred before slipping, provided none of the surfaces give.

[pandaman]

Also, we have a 'traction control' slider, if the 'friction' slider was called 'traction" it would be confusing.

[SelectHalfling0]

Frankly, the only issue I've had with wheels is that my kerbals tend to evaporate if they come in contact with them. What most people forget is that ksp's units are always in m/s. When I'm driving my rover on the mun at a nonchalant 20 m/s I'm really going 44 mph! Taking into account that the mun has lower gravity and its surface is made of a powder-like material (assuming it's an exact analogue for our moon), no wonder it slides when I attempt a turn.

Edited July 26, 2016 by SelectHalfling0