The game badly needs more than one size of RCS thruster.

[hikerchick29]

They’re basically too small to be usable on large ships

[Kerbart]

The vernier RCS thruster delivers 12 kN of thrust. You need more than that?!

[rjbvre]

Verniers are a pain to set up on all axes, require methalox which nuclear (and more advanced) ships won't necessarily have, and can be underpowered themselves on the size of ships we'll be building. We definitely need some more RCS options

[Kerbart]

Is carrying a methalox tank for RCS purposes any different from carrying a monopropellant tank?

[rjbvre]

For the most part no, that's definitely the weakest of my points. But it is adding an additional resource when pods already have monoprop. 

There's also the realism aspect. You wouldn't bring lox/rocket fuel for deep space attitude control. I know a lot of players don't care about that as much, but those of us who do should have the tools to play within those constraints if we want.

We definitely need more parts for this

[shdwlrd]

I'll add that smaller sizes would be good too. Probes and satellites can make use of RCS too.

[regex]

36 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

I'll add that smaller sizes would be good too. Probes and satellites can make use of RCS too.

This. We should have at least three sizes, probably more when we get the truly titanic ships.

[MechBFP]

6 hours ago, rjbvre said:

For the most part no, that's definitely the weakest of my points. But it is adding an additional resource when pods already have monoprop. 

I am curious what you are doing with RCS thrusters that large that the small amount of monopropellant in the pods would be able to accomplish. 

[rjbvre]

42 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

I am curious what you are doing with RCS thrusters that large that the small amount of monopropellant in the pods would be able to accomplish. 

I've had several times when the Cockatoo pod had enough monoprop for a simple orbital rendezvous, but the small RCS thrusters on a ship that size made it sluggish and annoying

[Sea_Kerman]

for the huge stuff perhaps we could be allowed to control our regular engines with the RCS controls

[Periple]

I would love to be able to use Sparks or Ants as RCS!

[Bej Kerman]

On 1/8/2024 at 4:52 AM, Kerbart said:

The vernier RCS thruster delivers 12 kN of thrust.

Do they really? Hadn't noticed, I thought the gas plumes were there to look fascinating.

On 1/8/2024 at 4:52 AM, Kerbart said:

You need more than that?!

Of course not. Real players such as yourself and I would rather wait a microcentury for their larger vessels to turn around

On 1/8/2024 at 1:20 PM, Kerbart said:

Is carrying a methalox tank for RCS purposes any different from carrying a monopropellant tank?

One point addressed, two to go:

"Verniers are a pain to set up on all axes, require methalox which nuclear (and more advanced) ships won't necessarily have, and can be underpowered themselves on the size of ships we'll be building"

On 1/9/2024 at 2:27 AM, Sea_Kerman said:

for the huge stuff perhaps we could be allowed to control our regular engines with the RCS controls

In all seriousness, it's a wonder KSP 1 never got this, forget KSP 2.

[mikeman7918]

Some of the pre-alpha footage from dev diaries have shown larger RCS blocks.  It seems they are already in the works.

(Look at the left side of the screenshot)

I imagine they are not in the game yet mostly because they appear to be the size of a MK1 command pod, and that makes them a bit excessive for anything we can build in the game right now.  They do have the massive radial monopropellant tanks in the game already though despite them also being super excessive for anything that exists right now, which is a little confusing.

Though some more mid-range RCS thrusters would be nice too.

[rjbvre]

49 minutes ago, mikeman7918 said:

I imagine they are not in the game yet mostly because they appear to be the size of a MK1 command pod, and that makes them a bit excessive for anything we can build in the game right now.  They do have the massive radial monopropellant tanks in the game already though despite them also being super excessive for anything that exists right now, which is a little confusing.

Good catch! I get the impression they're trying pretty hard to only show parts that are intended for release in trailers/footage.

I was also pretty confused when I first saw those giant tanks.

[Kerbart]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Of course not. Real players such as yourself and I would rather wait a microcentury for their larger vessels to turn around

Yes, at least we understand each other here. The less technically inclined think it's important their interstellar ship, en route for decades, needs to spin around in a matter of seconds, but we realize that at ships that size, the crew at the far end of the ship is going to pass out from g-forces if you try to spin it in less than half a minute.

[rjbvre]

22 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Yes, at least we understand each other here. The less technically inclined think it's important their interstellar ship, en route for decades, needs to spin around in a matter of seconds, but we realize that at ships that size, the crew at the far end of the ship is going to pass out from g-forces if you try to spin it in less than half a minute.

Are you under the impression that rcs is only for rotations around the short axis, or that any of us are currently building interstellar ships?

[Bej Kerman]

48 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

The less technically inclined think it's important their interstellar ship, en route for decades, needs to spin around in a matter of seconds

Perhaps they need it to spin around at all.

[steveman0]

I wouldn't mind them spinning slow if they did so under time warp. I don't want to sit in 1x time warp for 5 minutes for my ship to turn around. KSP 1 reaction wheels were overpowered, but it made for better gameplay. I'm all for realism where it can be done in a fun, educational way, less so when it turns the game into a tedium of waiting for things to happen.

[NexusHelium]

On 1/8/2024 at 12:52 PM, regex said:

This. We should have at least three sizes, probably more when we get the truly titanic ships.

Weird thing is... we used to have at least two sizes of the standard monopropellant RCS motor back in KSP 1

5 hours ago, Kerbart said:

the crew at the far end of the ship is going to pass out from g-forces if you try to spin it in less than half a minute.

That and the fact that you have all the time in the world, or the galaxy at that note, to turn around.

4 hours ago, rjbvre said:

or that any of us are currently building interstellar ships?

Eh, I wouldn't put it past the community.

[Kerbart]

10 hours ago, rjbvre said:

Are you under the impression that rcs is only for rotations around the short axis, or that any of us are currently building interstellar ships?

Using RCS for translation is usually associated with docking. In turn, unless one is, let's just say, unorthodox, docking is done by making the smaller ship dock with the larger ship. Pray tell what behemoth sized ship you have that is the smaller one that needs mainsails as RCS thrusters?

[Ultimate Steve]

23 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Using RCS for translation is usually associated with docking. In turn, unless one is, let's just say, unorthodox, docking is done by making the smaller ship dock with the larger ship. Pray tell what behemoth sized ship you have that is the smaller one that needs mainsails as RCS thrusters?

This is Kerbal Space Program we are talking about here. If a player wants to be able to dock two kilometer long spaceships together, they should be able to do so. I often forget that myself with how deep I get into hyperoptimizations and low mass missions. Not everyone plays for realism or for things that would make sense from an engineering perspective.

I do find it odd how we have a 60 ton RCS tank in the game right now but no RCS thrusters larger than default.

[Hotel26]

It's quite easy to doppelgang, trippelgang, vervierfachengang, ... RCS thrusters.

Spoiler

Also: don't know if CFE is a thing in KSP2 but in KSP1 increasing the thrust percentage above 100% almost certainly works.

 

Edited January 11 by Hotel26

[rjbvre]

4 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Using RCS for translation is usually associated with docking. In turn, unless one is, let's just say, unorthodox, docking is done by making the smaller ship dock with the larger ship. Pray tell what behemoth sized ship you have that is the smaller one that needs mainsails as RCS thrusters?

Docking is a primary purpose for RCS yes, but you missed mid course corrections, emergency maneuvers, and backup deorbit burns (there are others, but they really don't apply to KSP). My Eve return lander which I dock to a mothership would absolutely benefit from larger thrusters. And there are more scenarios than just larger ship/smaller ship. That mother ship I docked it to was constructed in orbit from relatively equal halves, both of which were sluggish and annoying to maneuver with current thrusters.

Even if we leave out futuristic designs, and focus entirely on copies of current/past spacecraft we're left with ships that vary in mass over several orders of magnitude. Are you really arguing that one size of RCS thruster makes sense for this? Is there a gameplay benefit to limiting players like this? Do you think it mirrors real life spacecraft?

[Bej Kerman]

7 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Pray tell what behemoth sized ship you have that is the smaller one that needs mainsails as RCS thrusters?

Why do you think the developers gave us mainsails, and why do you think the developers plan on giving us far bigger engines? There's no point in implying people besides yourself are odd for needing bigger RCS thrusters when you know exactly why bigger RCS thrusters are needed in a game with bigger vessels.

[Jeq]

They could make just one RCS thruster, which size is determined about how much thrust you put into it at VAB.