Noob question - unassisted flight

[mason]

Hi. I've been playing off and on a little bit, and I'm noting that it's exceedingly hard to keep to the target in the "Go for Orbit" tutorial. It seems somewhat like cheating to use the autopilot, but I fail most of the time doing it unassisted, only recently making it once or twice. I find that in atmosphere I fishtail like mad, and outside of atmosphere the briefest possible tap on my keyboard overcompensates badly. Am I doing it wrong, or is this just not meant to be done without autopilot?

In other news, I need to figure out where to report bugs. It's unfortunate that I can't reset to launch in the tutorials, as if I try it, I find myself on the launch pad, but evidently the script that allows certain actions at certain times doesn't reset, so I have to exit the simulation and restart from the menus. I'll find a place to report that, but for now I'd love to know why keeping on-target is so difficult in that tutorial.

Another question: Are there mailing lists? I really dislike web fora but I'd love to subscribe to a list or three.

Thanks!

[FullMetalMachinist]

18 minutes ago, mason said:

It seems somewhat like cheating to use the autopilot, but I fail most of the time...Am I doing it wrong, or is this just not meant to be done without autopilot?

I would say don't worry about 'cheating'. SAS is there for a reason, go ahead and use it. 

19 minutes ago, mason said:

In other news, I need to figure out where to report bugs.

http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com

Note that you'll have to create an account, your forum account doesn't carry over or anything. 

20 minutes ago, mason said:

Another question: Are there mailing lists? I really dislike web fora but I'd love to subscribe to a list or three.

Not sure. I know that you can subscribe to threads, and that there are email notification options, but I've never messed with it. Perhaps someone else can chime in. 

Oh, and welcome to the forums! 

[mason]

4 minutes ago, FullMetalMachinist said:

I would say don't worry about 'cheating'. SAS is there for a reason, go ahead and use it. 

This is probably silly since I'll never go to space, but does the experience of actual astronauts include something like the SAS? I can imaging modern rockets having flight assist like that pretty trivially, but I'm wondering if Gemini and Apollo era astronauts had anything like it.

 

4 minutes ago, FullMetalMachinist said:

http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com

Thank you!

[DrLicor]

You made me curious about your SAS question, so I did some research. 

 

[Aegolius13]

The basic SAS setting is pretty much a necessity.  The advanced settings less so, though hold prograde is pretty helpful for launch.  In any event, I think of all the SAS settings as a little helping hand, rather than an autopilot that plays the game for you.

[Clipperride]

It might help to think in terms of Stability Assist rather than Autopilot.  It's claimed that, for example, the USAF Stealth series of aeroplanes would be impossible to fly manually.  You're telling the rocket where to go and the electronics are making the little corrections that (try to) keep the vechile pointing that way.  Using SAS is no guarantee of getting into orbit, especially as you start to build heavier and more complex rockets.

One tip though. SAS can cause problems of its own, with larger rockets, the system over compensates and the whole stack starts to fishtail towards destruction. Adding fins at the bottom (to increase stability while in the atmosphere) and reducing the amount the engines can gimbal (move to direct the thrust) are the two best weapons against it.

Welcome aboard 

[Guest]

SAS is a necessity, it's not cheating. Flying without it is incredibly tedious in orbit, and ... harrowing, in the atmosphere. 

(It is possible to make craft that fly in the atmosphere well without SAS -- lots of thrust, heavy and pointy nose, lots of control surfaces in the back -- but they're usually limiting in other ways. You'll probably only want to do this as a special challenge, or early in the career if you're dealing with a Stayputnik which doesn't have SAS.)

[Long Finger]

Quote

On 7 October 2016 at 1:48 AM, mason said:

This is probably silly since I'll never go to space, but does the experience of actual astronauts include something like the SAS? I can imaging modern rockets having flight assist like that pretty trivially, but I'm wondering if Gemini and Apollo era astronauts had anything like it.

 

I watched a documentary on Apollo 11 just recently. Most piloting tasks were automated but the astronauts had the option to over-ride functions or had to manually start them. The Lunar Module was only automated to a preset height above the moon from which it had to be manually landed. I think this was so they could visually check the landing site. No point going all that way just to land on a slope and topple over KSP stye!

[Clipperride]

8 hours ago, Long Finger said:

I watched a documentary on Apollo 11 just recently. Most piloting tasks were automated but the astronauts had the option to over-ride functions or had to manually start them. The Lunar Module was only automated to a preset height above the moon from which it had to be manually landed. I think this was so they could visually check the landing site. No point going all that way just to land on a slope and topple over KSP stye!

The Lunar Module could land itself, but as you say, none of the Commanders actually used the automated system all the way down to the surface.  Partly that was, as you say, to avoid local hazards and partly because they were test pilots who simply couldn't resist a "hands on" landing.  

In the early days of Apollo (when at least 2 missions a year were planned throughout the early 1970's) there were plans to send missions with 2 landers.  One would carry the astronauts and land conventionally and the second would be automated and carry extra equipment for extended stays. - Robert Goodwin's "The Lunar Exploration Scrapbook (Apogee Books) has some wonderful drawings showing plans to make use of the LM modular design.

If you worry about SAS being a "cheat", remember that even the first Mercury flights could be "flown" by a chimp!

 

[Ty Tan Tu]

I don't know what platform you are on, but with PCs, if you right click on the engine you can limit the thrust. One of the more useful things I learned. Drop it down to 20% or even lower.

[mason]

Thank you all! I like that I have reading material now.

Long Finger, can you note what documentary you watched? I'm about finished with a biography of Neal Armstrong that's fascinating and it does talk about some of the issues they had flying - the Gemini VIII stuck thruster comes to mind. I'd love to take in more.

Thanks!

[Long Finger]

19 hours ago, mason said:

Long Finger, can you note what documentary you watched?

I think it was this one: Man on the moon.

[mason]

4 minutes ago, Long Finger said:

I think it was this one: Man on the moon.

Thank you!

[AeroGav]

That rocket they use in the tutorial isn't a very nice to fly design,  it actually caused me to give up on rockets altogether and I ended up making my first orbit with a spaceplane.

You can build rockets that fly nice however.  I'm not great at this,  but it just requires a Centre of lift behind the centre of mass (fins)  ,  and one which remains so as fuel burns off and you separate stages.

Think of it like this, a rocket is like a pencil that's been stood on end.  It wants to topple over.  As you launch, give it a very brief nudge in the eastward direction.  This ensures it topples over in the direction you want.    At the start of the flight, you probably want to slow the rate of toppling, switching on SAS to lock the current heading is good for this.   Turn off SAS or put the autopilot in Prograde mode when you want to resume your gravity turn.     If the rocket has nice handling, this is all you ever have to do with the controls.

I design my spaceplanes for control with pitch trim.      Control the angle of attack and climb rate with pitch trim whilst SAS is OFF,   use the Aero Data GUI to monitor AoA, Lift vs Weight ,  lift - drag ratio and total drag vs total thrust.   Manually correct roll deviations with normal keyboard input on W and E  (since it's impossible to design a plane that won't deviate in this physics engine) and leave YAW to the passive stability of the aircraft.

Above 24km or so it can start to bob and weave so i lock current heading with SAS.   Due to the curvature of the planet this actually leads to a slow increase in nose up angle at high speed.  Pressing any flight control ( W, A, S, D, Q  or E) will cause the SAS to momentarily stop trying to maintain the nose angle which will have the effect of causing the nose to fall towards prograde, before it resumes stability assistance and tries to maintain the new attitude.  Bear this in mind before making any roll/heading corrections,  however it can be useful if the pitch is rising too much under SAS.

Prograde can of course be useful to help your plane accelerate through the sound barrier or to level off for a speed run.

Here's a video of me flying to orbit with pitch trim, then locking SAS when the thin air starts to make the plane wander.   When this 1.2 patch goes live later on today, all that locking/unlocking fuel tanks nonsense will be unecessary