[v1.2]KSP - Silisko Edition

[Tiberion]

You only need one ASAS per ship, having more than one is bad actually, since it basically boosts how much (or little) they react to, and how much much counter-force they apply.

So the 1m ASAS on a high stage will be sufficient - though it suffers from the same issues all ASAS suffers from currently - a design issue which causes them to 'feather' the controls.

[Zeroignite]

Lander engine fuel consumption increased to 1.5 (was 1)

Oh dear. My Mun rocket might still be able to make it back but I\'ll need to really hone my piloting skills...

[zuff]

Um... why, exactly would it be needed?

Are you replying to me? If so please use 'quote' it helps

Do you only need one ASAS to function across your whole ship? I figured you needed to use them like SAS where they need to be connected to the rocket it stabilizes.

EDIT: Oh nvm, missed the last page of this thread. Thanks Tiberion

[Tiberion]

Nova: Are you happy with the 2M Engines/tanks? I noticed you had some issues with them last night on the stream - I haven\'t had too much luck flying them either. They seem to be rather fuel-sucky and the tanks seem to run out awefully fast.

The big engine needs vectoring too, in my opinion.

[Cik]

imho nova, your 2m tanks aren\'t great. they seem inferior in almost every way to a 1m only rocket. i have tried many times to make a mammoth rocket capable of reaching and returning from the mun, and i\'ve never gotten close. earlier i created a 1m contraption(?) of half the size and fuel capacity, and reached it without much trouble. perhaps a tweak to the fuel capacity of these tanks? as for the solid boosters, i think they are fine, and much, much preferable to the vanilla ones.

[swamismurf]

More Fuel = More mass. More mass = Lower Thrust to Weight ratio. Lower LTW = less delta-v overall. In rockets, smaller is better.

[Zeroignite]

More Fuel = More mass. More mass = Lower Thrust to Weight ratio. Lower LTW = less delta-v overall. In rockets, smaller is better.

This is truth. My favorite Mun rocket is relatively tiny compared to some of the monsters I see people flying about with.

[Tiberion]

More Fuel = More mass. More mass = Lower Thrust to Weight ratio. Lower LTW = less delta-v overall. In rockets, smaller is better.

Wow, someone should have told NASA, they didn\'t need that Titan rocket, they could have just strapped the Apollo ship on an Atlas rocket and went.

Pardon my sarcasm, but that\'s a rather simplistic view on the rocket equation, MORE fuel isn\'t always bad, EXTRA fuel is bad. You need more fuel to power a bigger rocket to offset increased payload. It takes a considerable amount of DeltaV to toss something to the moon, even in KSP.

It just seems that the 2m parts aren\'t particularly good at getting themselves in orbit, much less a payload - they burn fuel fast and each time you add a tank, that is a LOT of weight.

I would imagine that the answer lies somewhere in the volume to weight ratio; that the weights shouldn\'t progress linearly as you go up in sizes

[icefire]

i have tried many times to make a mammoth rocket capable of reaching and returning from the mun, and i\'ve never gotten close. earlier i created a 1m contraption(?) of half the size and fuel capacity, and reached it without much trouble.

I thought this was one of the main points of the mod. Nerf giant obnoxious inefficient rockets.

[Jarnis]

My first reaction to 'ASAS only' was one of dread, but I decided to give it a go. Plenty of RCS fuel and... off I went.

Only problem is that even with using SAS only during burns to keep the ship stable, I ran out of RCS fuel about 5 seconds before touchdown - and this includes the four micro tanks on my upper stage (which, for whatever reason, were used *first* not last, but...)

Also there seems to be a bug in KSP relating to showing RCS fuel quantity when you have, say, 8 tanks in same stage. You use them one by one, but all others in the same stage appear 'empty' and it becomes bit of a guessing game as to how much RCS fuel you actually have left.

Heavy Krow-B has landed etc.

[JuggernautOfWar]

I\'m trying to attach fairings around my 2m engines, but no dice. What am I doing wrong?

Are there any plans to add 1m fairings for those engines? Looks hideous having a big space around an exposed LFE.

---

[Kryten]

You\'ve not got a decoupler below the engine-that\'s your problem.

[frenchie16]

I understand the rationale for removing SAS, but frankly ASAS is just not at the point yet where SAS is no longer needed. While ASAS and all the control features (articulated fins, gimbaling engines, RCS, the command pod) on my rocket should be plenty to stabilize it, ASAS loves to oscillate the inputs from all the way in one direction to all the way in the other, resulting in the rocket wobbling all over the place.

So, while it is possible to design around this (smaller rockets :\'() or just deal with it and fly, it makes the game a lot less fun (at least for me).

[Senji]

I understand the rationale for removing SAS, but frankly ASAS is just not at the point yet where SAS is no longer needed. While ASAS and all the control features (articulated fins, gimbaling engines, RCS, the command pod) on my rocket should be plenty to stabilize it, ASAS loves to oscillate the inputs from all the way in one direction to all the way in the other, resulting in the rocket wobbling all over the place.

Adding SAS modules doesn\'t actually help this, it just adds *more* control points. The only solution is better tuned ASAS.

[DFM]

Is there an option to turn off engine gimbaling? Because ever since that was added using the ASAS at all causes any rocket I make to kind of pretzel in on itself and flail, flopping in an oscillating circle through the air not unlike a dildo made of wet noodles in a manner that I\'m relatively certain is inefficient or at the least goofy looking. These are mid-sized three stage rockets that don\'t use any 2m parts. I haven\'t checked Vanilla KSP yet to see if its something with your mod specifically or a problem in the original game as well.

[frenchie16]

Adding SAS modules doesn\'t actually help this, it just adds *more* control points. The only solution is better tuned ASAS.

Not really. SAS doesn\'t respond to user input, and only applies force at the position of the SAS part itself. So, yes, it adds more 'control points' (if I understand your use of that term correctly), but it also doesn\'t use other control points and is much better tuned so that it doesn\'t simply oscillate from full-left to full-right.

For instance, with SAS on a rocket with gimbaling engines, articulated fins, and RCS, the only forces that will be applied when you aren\'t giving the rocket any control input are at the SAS part itself, and at the command pod (and the forces at the command pod are miniscule since its SAS only dampens rotation).

However, the same rocket with ASAS on will be applying the maximum amount of torque the rocket can apply through all of its control devices, wildly oscillating back and forth. Even the command pod will now be applying much more torque, since its internal SAS DOES respond to user, and therefore ASAS, input.

A better-tuned ASAS would help immensely. However, ideally, we need a way to manually enable or disable individual engine gimbals, RCS blocks, and other torque sources so rockets can be controllable (but not overly-so) in all stages of flight. The optimal control weights for each part will be quite different between lower atmosphere, upper atmosphere, and vacuum; even more so when you consider staging of the rocket. Finally, what if ASAS could detect all of the nuances of a rocket\'s control systems and, for instance, not apply torque to the command pod when all that will do is make the rocket wobble?

TL:DR: ASAS has a long way to go and SAS is a good, if imperfect, stopgap that should be kept until ASAS works.

[Tiberion]

I too can confirm that the little RCS pod tanks are being used first.

[NovaSilisko]

I\'m trying to fix the ASAS wobble issue. I\'m confident it can be solved by enough tweaking of parameters.

As for RCS, I really never run into that many problems with it. I also need to decrease the amount of RCS in the service module, since in the future it won\'t be -just- RCS.

[Tiberion]

So? its an arbitrary number.

We seriously don\'t need LESS RCS fuel, man.

And good luck with ASAS tweaking - you might solve the wobble on certain builds, but you\'ll mess it up for other sizes

[NovaSilisko]

I\'m really annoyed at RCS, honestly. It takes hundreds of the things to rotate a large ship, but you can take off from the moon with four of them.

It\'s like translation has more power than rotation. I have no idea what to do.

[NovaSilisko]

ASAS seems to be working good with this rocket, but I still need to test it with bigger ones.

Edit: As expected, the normal ASAS isn\'t doing a very good job...

[Tiberion]

Well eventually we should have better control over which RCS blocks we use.

For now, you can just expand on what you did.

Make a big, heavy RCS tank that holds like 1000, built for lower stages, make the RCS blocks intended for it use large amount of fuel, so that they\'re useful for control during the big stage, but the efficiency and weight makes them unsuitable for landers.

Just gotta make sure the tanks are used in the right order, mine is still using the pods first.

[tvizz]

I think RCS works better for translation if you have them grouped towards the top of the rocket.

That being said, you should put the regular SAS back in the pack. Considering the ASAS makes gimballing rockets go wild, it\'s really not usable. Also, the regular SAS in needed for landers. Since the ASAS takes control, I can\'t use RCS to kill lateral momentum like I prefer too.

3m Fairing is needed for landers.

[Aiyel]

Here\'s some suggestions:

1: I\'m not especially a fan of the rebalanced lander engne, but I have a possible solution:

Currently, it\'s got a thrust of 50, which is massively overkill for landing on or taking off from the Mun with a simple lander. I\'d suggest a thrust of 25, and a consumption of .5-.55

Another option is to make the lander engine heavier, and give us an ascent/Kerbin Return rocket that\'s lighter, has just enough thrust to lift the module, a parachute, a decoupler, itself, and a tiny fuel tank from the mun and on course back to kerbin. Since it would be so weak, it would probably need to be gimballed for steering.

2: On the issue of RCS, my suggestion would be to increase the power of the heavy RCS module, but also make it punishingly heavy, and make it about half as fuel efficient. More efficient placement should be the desired goal. I\'m hoping Harv eventually gives the option to tie specific RCS modules to specific stages, so a lander\'s much lighter but less powerful RCS modues aren\'t wasting fuel trying to push around a very large rocket.

3:

[NovaSilisko]

Been doing some tweaking to efficiency values. Also I decreased the amount of RCS fuel in the service module, and increased the weight of RCS in general. The lander engine is now vectoring capable, to make landings less taxing on RCS.