Wheel "low gear" or other torque solutions

[regex]

A low gear tweakable option should be introduced which gives increased torque but lower speed.

Alternatively, a "transmission" part could be added that globally adds torque or introduces gearing options.

Just in general we need more torque but it should be configurable so that low-gravity rovers don't instantly flip. I want to be able to climb some actual slopes in high gravity but the wheels that exist are completely anemic unless I'm driving a feather. We need more options in this area.

Edited April 23 by regex

[The Aziz]

I know you're passionate about rovers, but would you be so kind to share what kind of slopes are you expecting to be able to conquer? Cuz from what I've seen, some people expect the rovers to climb slopes normally reachable by rock crawlers.

[kdaviper]

You can always add moar boosters!

[Meecrob]

22 hours ago, regex said:

Snip

A transmission is a brilliant idea!

 

12 hours ago, The Aziz said:

I know you're passionate about rovers, but would you be so kind to share what kind of slopes are you expecting to be able to conquer? Cuz from what I've seen, some people expect the rovers to climb slopes normally reachable by rock crawlers.

I think there is a happy medium between the current wheels that seem more at home racing around the runways at KSC and the "rock climbing" style wheels Regex would like.
 

[regex]

15 hours ago, The Aziz said:

I know you're passionate about rovers, but would you be so kind to share what kind of slopes are you expecting to be able to conquer? Cuz from what I've seen, some people expect the rovers to climb slopes normally reachable by rock crawlers.

I would like to build a rock crawler.

For an idea of the slopes I think a rover should be able to drive, just head straight north from KSC for an hour or two. You'll figure out soon enough that the normal wheels can't handle even mild off-roading, no matter how good you get with switch-backing and doing dumb tricks to gain speed. It's a real shame. I'm not talking about 45 degree grades either, although it would be nice to have a very low gear that could actually drive up one of those, but to even maintain speed going up a 10~12 degree grade would be a godsend.

9 hours ago, kdaviper said:

You can always add moar boosters!

More weight which means less speed which means torque is less effective overall. Lack of refueling options in the field is also a problem, especially on Kerbin (good luck finding flat ground to align your docking ports deep in the northern mountains).

[Fizzlebop Smith]

Rovers is what bothers me the most. I enjoyed cruising across the alien landscapes.

 

Currently impossible. Rover leaps into air and does figure 8's .. and continues without any control inputs.

 

The advanced tweakables for many parts I  KSP1 allowed us to tune what's "under the hood".

Even a tiny RC car can overcome the obstacles my rover struggles with. Torque increase should decrease over all RPM of the drive.

I'm not asking to have a bunch of sliders tp adjust gearing ratios across the transmission

But

You should ABSOLUTELY be able to design a rock crawler if you so choose. 

[dr.phees]

On 4/24/2024 at 9:29 AM, The Aziz said:

I know you're passionate about rovers, but would you be so kind to share what kind of slopes are you expecting to be able to conquer? Cuz from what I've seen, some people expect the rovers to climb slopes normally reachable by rock crawlers.

Why shouldn't I send a rock crawling rover to another planet if I want to?

[The Aziz]

Let's see

They don't tend to be powered by electricity (no, RC don't count, they don't weigh half a ton). They require VERY flexible, completely independent suspension. (not possible, all springs are directly connected to the wheel and there aren't separate parts for that) And most importantly, have you seen the wheels on these things?

Ability to attack steep slopes aside, can make your KSP rover do that? 

You may want to, but can you with available parts? Don't think so.

It's a science operation first and foremost. MadMax is out of the game's scope.

[regex]

50 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

It's a science operation first and foremost. MadMax is out of the game's scope.

Yes, but I can't get to the science without a good rover that can actually climb a > 10 degree grade. Have you seen the new terrain? They've given us all this wonderful new scatter and hills and stuff while making it nearly impossible to traverse.

Now, I can probably agree that we don't need exactly rock crawlers but the rovers should at least be useful and being able to produce enough torque for a non-featherweight contraption to climb a good percentage of the terrain we've been given would be ideal. How are you going to set up supply routes with rovers hauling tons of goods?

[Flush Foot]

40 minutes ago, regex said:

this wonderful new scatter and hills and stuff while making it nearly impossible to traverse

That is actually something that terrifies me... if they were to make all scatter have collision, I'd probably give up landing / driving anywhere except the Minmus Flat (not Flats anymore because it's all one giant biome now )

[The Aziz]

43 minutes ago, regex said:

Have you seen the new terrain? They've given us all this wonderful new scatter and hills and stuff while making it nearly impossible to traverse.

I've driven on it in the past. With mixed results, none of which related to inclination though.

2 minutes ago, Flush Foot said:

That is actually something that terrifies me... if they were to make all scatter have collision, I'd probably give up landing / driving anywhere except the Minmus Flat (not Flats anymore because it's all one giant biome now )

i think you'll be fine.

 

[regex]

38 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

I've driven on it in the past. With mixed results, none of which related to inclination though.

Yes, everyone experiences that. I've literally willed myself north on Kerbin through all those dumb physics resets, that's not what I'm talking about, nor am I talking about scatter specifically. A reasonable size rover simply can't navigate the terrain they've created because it doesn't have enough torque to move itself up a slight incline. I've definitely created a featherweight that can fly up hills but if I'm carrying any sort of mass (in my case just that big cockpit) that changes instantly. How are we supposed to lay out supply routes and mining expeditions? How can we drive our glorious creations over rough terrain? Why am I getting so much pushback for a minor tweakable suggestion?

If the game gives us wheels and big rover cockpits they should be up to the challenge. Right now they're not.

Edited April 30 by regex

[The Aziz]

12 minutes ago, regex said:

Why am I getting so much pushback for a minor tweakable suggestion?

I'm not.

But I've made it to the mountains south of KSC without much trouble (except for physics glitch). And I see you have conquered some hills as well (back in 0.1.1 by the looks of it)

No I'm just trying to place that suggestion within reasonable margin of sorts. I'm holding off on playing KSP simply because of certain errors that throw my ships off their trajectory on load, so I'm unlikely to head in to review the rover capabilities until at least 0.2.2; it's clear that the game made it already more game-y than any safety measures would allow (going 30m/s [about 100km\h] on the surface of the Mun isn't particularly brave but the rovers can do it) so we've got the speed to our advantage already. But I'm also leaning towards the opinion that traversing the uncharted terrain shouldn't be too easy, so you can't just zoom across it in straight line no matter what's ahead. Steep hill? Slalom your way up or go across. Within reason, but based on my (limited) experience, it's very close to that reason.

[regex]

44 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Steep hill? Slalom your way up or go across.

I'm assuming you mean "go around"? In certain cases that simply isn't possible. Note also that when I request a low gear I expect it to act like an actual low gear IRL: lower speed for more torque, not talking about flying up hills (which you can actually do if you build a featherweight with TR-2Ls). I'm also not asking for the ability to simply go straight up a mountain what I want to see is larger, heavier rovers having the torque they should have. Right now doing switchbacks to climb a mild hill is just infuriating.

[Flush Foot]

2 minutes ago, regex said:

doing switchbacks to climb a mild hill is just infuriating

Pretty sure that is what @The Aziz meant by 'slalom'

[regex]

1 hour ago, Flush Foot said:

Pretty sure that is what @The Aziz meant by 'slalom'

Yes, I know. It's a stupid way to drive a rover, especially because you're spending half your time going backwards.

[Flush Foot]

Just now, regex said:

Yes, I know. It's a stupid way to drive a rover, especially because you're spending half your time going backwards.

I agree, especially since we do now know that many electric-motors have crazy amounts of torque at their disposal <see: many EVs>

[Sea_Kerman]

I concur on wanting a "low gear"