Saturatable Reaction Wheels?

[cyberKerb]

Just wondering if there were any plans for Saturatable Reaction Wheels in KSP2? Or a hint of alternative tech / methods...

[shdwlrd]

This is something that is unnecessary from a game play prospective. If you want to mimic real life, sure add it. But it doesn't add any value to the game itself.

[KerikBalm]

I for one would like it if it comes with persistent rotation.

That said, I doubt that it would be included

[shdwlrd]

43 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

I for one would like it if it comes with persistent rotation

Since Nate has confirmed that you will need telescopes to find the new star systems, I think persistent rotation would be included.

[KerikBalm]

@shdwlrd Why? You need sentinel telescopes to find asteroids in ksp, but there is no persistent rotation

[shdwlrd]

16 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

@shdwlrd Why? You need sentinel telescopes to find asteroids in ksp, but there is no persistent rotation

To study a certain region of space of course.  Seriously, you would need to focus more time on one region of space to figure out which stars are not apart of the skybox. Since the beginning, Nate has alluded that the new solar systems will be hidden and you have to discover them. It would make sense you would have to find the stars that are moving compared to the static positions of the ones in the skybox. That's what my train of thought is anyway. 

It would also make sense for comm satellites to keep one of the dishes pointed at the surface for communications, and for survey satellites to be able to continuously image the surface too. It would also be nice to keep a station in the same relative orientation to a planet or star during its orbit.

[cyberKerb]

On 12/9/2020 at 2:30 AM, shdwlrd said:

This is something that is unnecessary from a game play prospective. If you want to mimic real life, sure add it. But it doesn't add any value to the game itself.

I was more thinking along the lines of, if the super powers of KSP1 reaction wheels are planned to be continued. Currently it reduces any need for RCS on small / medium craft. 

Edited December 10, 2020 by cyberKerb

[K^2]

Can we just make this a difficulty setting? Along side re-entry damage and things like that?

[shdwlrd]

22 minutes ago, cyberKerb said:

I was more thinking along the lines of is the super powers of KSP1 reaction wheels are planned to be continued. Currently it reduces any need for RCS on small / medium craft. 

Well, the super OP'd reaction wheels was responsible for the stock props before BG was released. But that need really isn't there anymore. I could see reducing the overall torque they produce initially. Then let the player increase it as they see fit using a slider or something in the VAB. 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

I for one would like it if it comes with persistent rotation.

That said, I doubt that it would be included

Persistent rotation was confirmed in one of the early interviews, I don't remember which one.

[YNM]

16 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

This is something that is unnecessary from a game play prospective.

11 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

you will need telescopes to find the new star systems, I think persistent rotation would be included.

Why would saturatable CMGs be not necessary but persistent rotation be necessary ? If all you need to find new planets is just point them in the rough direction then there'd be little need to do much with keeping your spacecraft rotating (wrt distant stars) to scan out the sky while being unloaded / in warp. You could do it in one sitting and that's that.

[KerikBalm]

12 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

To study a certain region of space of course.  Seriously, you would need to focus more time on one region of space to figure out which stars are not apart of the skybox. Since the beginning, Nate has alluded that the new solar systems will be hidden and you have to discover them. It would make sense you would have to find the stars that are moving compared to the static positions of the ones in the skybox. That's what my train of thought is anyway. 

Nate has confirmed (in a reply to one of my posts no-less) that the star systems will be visible already, and you will need telescopes to detect planets and gather rough data on the planets around them.

Furthermore, IRL, more movement is seen from parallex as earth goes around the sun, then from drift due to motion around the galactic center, IIRC. Anyway, the motion is expected to be small relative to a telescope's FOV, so the telescope could just have a fixed orientation. 

Additionally, we don't know if the star systems move relative to each other (around some sort of pseudo-galactic core), or if they are fixed relative to each other (as nearby stars are, for practical purposes over human lifespans).

Also, they could just have you select a star to observe, disregarding telescope orientation, as the KSP1 sentinel telescopes disregard orientation (only factoring in orbital parameters). I expect KSP2 to be more polished, but it is not strictly neccessary.

Anyway, apparently persisten rotation = confirmed.

12 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

It would also make sense for comm satellites to keep one of the dishes pointed at the surface for communications, and for survey satellites to be able to continuously image the surface too. It would also be nice to keep a station in the same relative orientation to a planet or star during its orbit.

Yes, these things would be nice, good to hear that persisistent rotation = confirmed.

Now the question will be if comm net dish orientation will matter (strictly speaking, comm net isn't even confirmed)

If orientation matters, I hope we have robotics and automation tools to help keep alignment of dishes without having to rotate the whole craft, and match rotation rates just right.

[vv3k70r]

W can mimic the desaturation just by spending monopropelant if we like. So wheels could drain a insignificant amount of monoprop all the time or have a constant desaturation, or have a button to do that at one move, or turn the vehicle "randomly" without it when they set back or... But there be lot of micromanagment so it would be automatised and playability of such a complexity would decrease or be unnoticed when automated. And if automated there be Q&A why reaction wheels eat monoprop.

[DerkyJerkyWreaksHavoc]

Instructions/ Recipe for Saturatable Reaction wheels:

Get (1) Reaction wheel

Pour it in pan.

Add (300mg) of salt

add half a liter of water

Stir on high heat for 10 minutes then add Kraft Mac&cheese powder

Stir for another 5 minutes then bring it onto bowl.

Cool for 5 minutes

Serve either plain or with herbs or spices.

Enjoy!

 

[Corona688]

16 hours ago, cyberKerb said:

I was more thinking along the lines of is the super powers of KSP1 reaction wheels are planned to be continued. Currently it reduces any need for RCS on small / medium craft. 

There's a (somewhat bad) reason for that - RCS thrusters are rather down the tech tree, you need something else first.

[DerkyJerkyWreaksHavoc]

2 hours ago, Corona688 said:

There's a (somewhat bad) reason for that - RCS thrusters are rather down the tech tree, you need something else first.

Such as: MOAR BOOSTERS!

[KerikBalm]

9 hours ago, vv3k70r said:

W can mimic the desaturation just by spending monopropelant if we like. So wheels could drain a insignificant amount of monoprop all the time or have a constant desaturation, or have a button to do that at one move, or turn the vehicle "randomly" without it when they set back or... But there be lot of micromanagment so it would be automatised and playability of such a complexity would decrease or be unnoticed when automated. And if automated there be Q&A why reaction wheels eat monoprop.

Well, absent small things that add up over time like photon pressure, residual drag, and tidal forces, reaction wheels would only saturate if they are expected to apply torque in one direction for too long (such as fighting a thrust imbalance), and thus saturation shouldn't be a problem in most cases.

Of course, then one might make the counter argument that if the above is true, why bother...

I guess that depends if people will use reaction wheels in ways that are abusive or not... if not used in an abusive way, then there's not likely to be a saturation problem.$

But I imagine there will be fighting thrust torque from STS style launchers, craft that become unbalanced when docking another craft to it, and perhaps some hammer-throw like decouplings.

I'm still in favor of saturatable reaction wheels, but I'm not expecting them.

They wouldn't work properly without persistent rotation (hence, wouldn't work well in KSP1), so since that is in, it shouldn't be too much to add them. Each wheel can have an X, Y, and Z torque-seconds threshold. It starts at 0, and torquing clockwise along the X axis increases the toroque-seconds count, until it reaches the maximum, then no more torquing clockwise along the wheel's X axis, but you can still torque counterclockwise along  the X axis to bring that back down to zero, and then if you torque longer, it goes to the negative threshold value, and stops being able to produce counter-clockwise torque.

I'd have a button to desaturate the wheels automatically... and then you just deal with whatever rotation that imparts to your craft. Then with reaction wheel torque off, you use RCS to stop the rotation - RCS on, reaction wheels off, SAS on... done... reaction wheels fully desaturated.

I don't think it would be too much of a problem or be too hard to implement.

[vv3k70r]

19 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Well, absent small things that add up over time like photon pressure, residual drag, and tidal forces, reaction wheels would only saturate if they are expected to apply torque in one direction for too long (such as fighting a thrust imbalance), and thus saturation shouldn't be a problem in most cases.

It is what I took in consideration. Reacion wheels just keep expense in monoprop in reasonable area.

20 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

I guess that depends if people will use reaction wheels in ways that are abusive or not... if not used in an abusive way, then there's not likely to be a saturation problem.$

Most people could not get to orbit without this overpowered reaction wheels. Game would be propably not so playable.

21 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

I'm still in favor of saturatable reaction wheels, but I'm not expecting them.

Already we can chenge their values to more resonable range of result and in such a case would be not much of use for them in the game for thing we are using them now. And a lot of micromanagment after docking. I guess most scrap docked on orbit by players are not well balanced to make any reasonable manouver with thrusters placement as it is.

23 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Each wheel can have an X, Y, and Z torque-seconds threshold.

Most people would not grasp how it works and why that way. There be a lot of Q&A about it "my craft lost control!".

Using momentum in both dircetion (of rotation) on given axis with accelerating and slowing motor could be hard do explain for most people. And planing how to set it for future, expected manouvers is a job for engineers - it is not much playable.

27 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

I don't think it would be too much of a problem or be too hard to implement.

Depend which way - if we get to every technical detail of real solution for every part of the craft it would not be a game any more. But could have educational value.

If we add how long and how much diferent bearings can handle it would not sell good.

1 hour ago, DAFATRONALDO2007 IN SPACE said:

Such as: MOAR BOOSTERS!

Always!

When I showed my son that striping off his rocket from most of srb he placed there give him higher dV he start to understund what TWR is about and why spacecraft must be light.

[OHara]

In KSP with Breaking Ground we can use the servos as more realistic reaction wheels.   We can assign the position controls of three servos to the pitch/yaw/roll 'axis groups', in incremental mode, to turn a probe with WASDQE, and the rotation stops when we release the key.  It would be nice to have a smaller part containing 3 servos for probes.

KSP1's reaction wheels output a torque on each keypress, so before a player gets SAS, touching a key leaves the craft tumbling.  Learning to control orientation with torque-control was a memorable early challenge in KSP, but not one of the fun challenges.  Having a physically realistic wheel that gives a finite angular rotation per input command would be easier for the new player.

In the atmosphere, realistic reaction wheels are vastly weaker than aerodynamic forces, so players would need to use fins, steerable fins for some rockets, and engine gimbal.    

I play that way now (except with stock reaction wheels instead of the BG servos) using reaction wheels only in space, and like it.

[KerikBalm]

9 hours ago, vv3k70r said:

Most people could not get to orbit without this overpowered reaction wheels. Game would be propably not so playable.

Well their strong torque is a separate issue.

They could still have a high saturation threshold, sufficient for a small-mid sized beginner craft to get to orbit. Besides, if one uses controllable fins, or a gimballing engine, it wouldn't be a problem until a coast phase.

Ksp2 is supposed to have better tutorials anyway

Furthermore, in ksp1, already we have some command pods with built in rcs thrusters, and monoprop storage.

You could also tweak that so that q new player should have sufficient monoprop for control in space for their first orbit. You could even have rcs automatically activate when no other control option is available... disable-able of course, with a popup hint when it switches for newbies

[vv3k70r]

38 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

They could still have a high saturation threshold, sufficient for a small-mid sized beginner craft to get to orbit. Besides, if one uses controllable fins, or a gimballing engine, it wouldn't be a problem until a coast phase.

Look at Q&A - most do not get why rockets wobling. There is many factors to consider just during design, if there be more factors complexity would move market far to the edge of belles curve where is not much people that can handle it. Now we in kind of a crisis so these people have some free time to spend on intresting game, but it would not last forever. It will make very small market.

42 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Ksp2 is supposed to have better tutorials anyway

They are very good as for me, but I asked kids about it and read-understund-execute exactly as stated is something that expect reading at first when they expect playing game.Orbital mechanics was hard to grasp for real pilots in early days and I understund my sons stories about friends that targeting da Mun and be disapointed when not reach it. They consider - game is cheating them, it dosent work properly, it must be a bug. Customer expectations.

47 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

You could also tweak that so that q new player should have sufficient monoprop for control in space for their first orbit. You could even have rcs automatically activate when no other control option is available... disable-able of course, with a popup hint when it switches for newbies

Complexity. Someone have to implement all of this and someone else have to pay for the product.

[KerikBalm]

1 hour ago, vv3k70r said:

They are very good as for me, but I asked kids about it and read-understund-execute exactly as stated is something that expect reading at first when they expect playing game.

a tutorial with  a bunch of reading may not be a good idea. Just have a tutorial that has you fly rockets with/without various control mechanisms, in a regime where you encoutner their limits, with popup hints when those limits are reached... like when egine shuts off, it pops up with "note that engine gimballing cannot control your rocket when the engine isnt firing"... or the tutorial purposefully has you use up all your rcs, then it tells you what happened.

anyway, yes i dont expect saturation in the game, much as i want it

[vv3k70r]

10 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

a tutorial with  a bunch of reading may not be a good idea

There is a lot of basic mechanic that kid do not know about. So it includes reading. I treat such games more like a reason to educate kids. So I like the aproach KSP deliver because it is acurate to my needs - there is anough reading, enough playing and enough extra questions that end up with more reading and counting.

21 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

anyway, yes i dont expect saturation in the game, much as i want it

If we like we can just waist some monoprop right away and consider it desaturation.

22 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

in a regime where you encoutner their limits, with popup hints when those limits are reached... like when egine shuts off, it pops up with "note that engine gimballing cannot control your rocket when the engine isnt firing"

And the kid wilk ask "why" which lead us to enother "why" and so on. So You have to make a tutorial explaining why and how work aerodynamics, then thrust in atmospheric presure, and drag, then thrust in low pressure, then aerodynamics in low pressure and high speed, then thermal issues, them thrust and directions in vacum, then heat in vacum without convection...

I think as it is now it is balanced enough for kids to play without considering any magic power that keep all this together. Good enough for my pourpose. Anything better would be a more mature simulator but it has a narrow market.

I have an example of one of such "why" - "why I do not have electric power" which came to how solar panels works, how they are manufactured, from what kind of silicon and purity, how much energy does it cost, why the Sun shine, how it works, what are cycles, what is hydrogen, helium and so on, what is a table of all substances, whay they are numbered after protons number, what are isotops and isomers, what are electron layers, how to count them, what is state of electron and so on. Somehow we ended up in technical civilisation where kids in school are not teached about how all this works because teacher must be cheap. And cheapness came with consequences.

[KerikBalm]

3 hours ago, vv3k70r said:

 why the Sun shine, how it works, what are cycles, what is hydrogen, helium and so on, what is a table of all substances, whay they are numbered after protons number, what are isotops and isomers, what are electron layers, how to count them, what is state of electron and so on. Somehow we ended up in technical civilisation where kids in school are not teached about how all this works because teacher must be cheap. And cheapness came with consequences.

I would be shocked if kids aren't taught the above facts in school. However, I would also ask what age are you talking about.

Teaching about electron layers comes up quickly in chemisty, as is what they are numbered after, etc. Isotopes aren't gone into detail until later (other than acknowledging that they exist and have different numbers of neutrons).

So I wouldn't expect this to be taught to an 8 year old yet, but I would expect it to be taught at some point in school.

Also, its good if they ask why, but I think many kids will just understand more mechanical stuff intuitively, like how angling an engine can make you turn, and how offset thrust can make you turn... I mean really, if you can understand why thrust needs to be balanced, you can understand how RCS works.

If you can't understand that, you won't get far anyway.

I, for one, do not want to see KSP dumbed down any further. It doesn't have to be "smartened up", and it can have more tutorials to try to explain things better, but the core gameplay should not be dumbed down just to reach poorly educated children.

[vv3k70r]

1 hour ago, KerikBalm said:

I would be shocked if kids aren't taught the above facts in school. However, I would also ask what age are you talking about.

11yo. But no - current school is more about equality and other political stuff. Question about "why Sun shine" turn out to be "because it is hot" (good) and after questioning why hot he came up with "volcanos?". So when we reaction wheels came up I took him to press deparment, blowed some dust from old 670kN excentric press I have and started it to show what it is all about with motor, flywheel and way of distribution for momentum.

1 hour ago, KerikBalm said:

So I wouldn't expect this to be taught to an 8 year old yet, but I would expect it to be taught at some point in school.

Question in school should be answered before they are even asked.

1 hour ago, KerikBalm said:

Also, its good if they ask why, but I think many kids will just understand more mechanical stuff intuitively

It works well in factory and workshop - they get really fast when they do the job.

1 hour ago, KerikBalm said:

I mean really, if you can understand why thrust needs to be balanced, you can understand how RCS works.

In daily life we have aerodynamics and gravity to put a given threshold in oposite forces so things stop spinning, moving and so one. In vacum situation is diferent and only big vacum avilable for me is a soldering stove (I do not know a propper name in english)  which make quite complicated to show what is going on inside - cables for camera will not go throu two layers of chassi.

1 hour ago, KerikBalm said:

I, for one, do not want to see KSP dumbed down any further.

I think it is good enough, meyby stifnes and struts are overpowered but KSP works - there is no reason to fix it.

1 hour ago, KerikBalm said:

It doesn't have to be "smartened up", and it can have more tutorials to try to explain things better, but the core gameplay should not be dumbed down just to reach poorly educated children.

Question who is the target of such a game. If old nerds - fine, but to explain all this complexity to kid where any mistake lead to a failure takes a while. You never know what is in kids imagination.

Meyby there should be some stock tutorial machines that work and tutorial for them teaching about flying, landing, manouvers starting from planes of diferent configurantion between propulsion, COM and lift. Because now You have to design a plane to fly and this designing proces is quite unintuitive when You do not fly. Meybe... I do not know. I do this that way. Designing is complex so I help with this, but flying is on his own.