Come back old ASAS - all is forgiven!

[korda]

REALLY

The devs have put so much effort into making this feature so much better! especially C7 and you are just say how bad it is? Wow come on guys

REALLY

I don't care that much how much actual effort they put in it, I care mostly about effects. They can spend 6h laying in jacuzzi and 2h coding but if final product satisfies me I don't really care.

[Vanamonde]

Guys, please don't get caught up in which kind of control surfaces I'm using. Remember, I tried the regular flap-types first, and only switched to canards in the hope that they would be stronger. But the problem was the same either way. However, to further confuse matters, in reponse to somebody's suggestion I just unplugged my joystick and then flew 2 test flights in which there was little to no deviation. This can only mean one thing; I have no idea what the F is going on. And on that note, I'm knocking off for the night.

　

And just to be clear, I am not at all angry with the developers, and merely trying to figure out what's causing the problem.

[syfyguy64]

Solar panels are your friends.

At least stick 2 on, and turn on reaction wheels.

[Guardian_Gryphon]

Apropos my earlier post; I stuck some Soviet Voskhod-style freaky antennae to the side of my Kerbal-X-i's CSM; it held perfectly to on-orbit headings with SAS engaged, even when I randomly extended the antennae.

I then launched a probe with a communication dish tucked inside a capped docking port (my cheaty way of putting a faring over a probe comm dish); I know from experience that opening the comm dish, once the docking port covers have been cycled open, messes with the physics in spectacular fashion. I can report that with an Inline SAS attached, the probe very quickly returned to the original heading I had locked it to when I opened the comm dish. However, I should note that it was not under thrust at this time, and therefore the issue with the velocity vector vs heading wouldn't apply.

After further RCS+SAS testing with Kerbal-X-i and planes; I've found that the SAS is indeed, as others have described, woefully 'wimpy' when it compensates, resulting in it doing a very slow-ballet of ping-ponging until it finally reaches a locked state. I've also noticed that continued and thrice-accursed tendency to pull towards the velocity vector, rather than the actual desire heading, requiring micromanagement of the craft until the velocity vector and pipper are both aligned to the desired heading or node simultaneously.

This can be most easily seen when trying to yaw violently, or complete a 'combat turn' (roll 90 degrees left or right, then pull elevators-up to turn) in a plane.

[stupid_chris]

Guys, please don't get caught up in which kind of control surfaces I'm using. Remember, I tried the regular flap-types first, and only switched to canards in the hope that they would be stronger. But the problem was the same either way. However, to further confuse matters, in reponse to somebody's suggestion I just unplugged my joystick and then flew 2 test flights in which there was little to no deviation. This can only mean one thing; I have no idea what the F is going on. And on that note, I'm knocking off for the night.

　

And just to be clear, I am not at all angry with the developers, and merely trying to figure out what's causing the problem.

Oh, wait! In the video interview with PD, C7 said if you're using a joystick, you'll have to manually adjust the deadzones else the system is overreponsive! That might be your problem!

[Fleb]

Guys, please don't get caught up in which kind of control surfaces I'm using. Remember, I tried the regular flap-types first, and only switched to canards in the hope that they would be stronger. But the problem was the same either way. However, to further confuse matters, in reponse to somebody's suggestion I just unplugged my joystick and then flew 2 test flights in which there was little to no deviation. This can only mean one thing; I have no idea what the F is going on. And on that note, I'm knocking off for the night.

　

And just to be clear, I am not at all angry with the developers, and merely trying to figure out what's causing the problem.

That sounds like your joystick was sending random control input spikes, due to not enough deadzone.

[Guardian_Gryphon]

In reponse to somebody's suggestion I just unplugged my joystick and then flew 2 test flights in which there was little to no deviation.

AH! You jogged my memory; I completely forgot to mention that at someone's recommendation, I added a small dead-zone to my joystick's flight axes (they do not come set with one by default). This may have contributed to solving some of my problems. Stick is a Logitech Attack-3; properly calibrated. I added what I'd guess to be a 10-15% dead-zone for all flight axes. (EG *not* my throttle).

[AddMeGamers]

hmmm dont know , tested it out yesterday , and works totally fine with me . I guess it does come to old habbits and plane designs . But so far its amazing , works perfectly .

hmmm also i would add it did act wierd when i installed it over my modded version , just made a clean install and all is well . So maybe give that a go .

[Tiron]

*Facepalm*...a very simple explanation for the behavior I observed just occurred to me.

I think it's set to have the 'attitude hold' point set to whatever your attitude is when you stop using the controls, like it should to be... except that somehow, when the SAS system kicks in and starts trying to hold that heading, the SAS's control inputs are somehow setting off the part of the algorithm that resets the target attitude to the current one.

So basically, it continuously resets the 'target' attitude to the current heading while it's slowing down, until it finally gets itself stopped, at which point it more or less holds, because the variations and inputs at that point are so small they're not really noticeable (especially as it uses torque-only for very small inputs).

It'd only be blatantly noticeable on large movements, but would cause some instability on small ones. Exactly what I'm seeing.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Tiron

[stupid_chris]

*Facepalm*...a very simple explanation for the behavior I observed just occurred to me.

I think it's set to have the 'attitude hold' point set to whatever your attitude is when you stop using the controls, like it should to be... except that somehow, when the SAS system kicks in and starts trying to hold that heading, the SAS's control inputs are somehow setting off the part of the algorithm that resets the attitude to the current.

So basically, it continuously resets the 'target' attitude to the current heading while it's slowing down, until it finally gets itself stopped, at which point it more or less holds, because the variations and inputs at that point are so small they're not really noticeable (especially as it uses torque-only for very small inputs).

It'd only be blatantly noticeable on large movements, but would cause some instability on small ones. Exactly what I'm seeing.

That's exactly what the SAS is supposed to do, it slows you down but doesn't hold a specific orientation, so if it's still moving, it will stabilize at the exact point where it totally stopped moving.

[Tiron]

That's exactly what the SAS is supposed to do, it slows you down but doesn't hold a specific orientation, so if it's still moving, it will stabilize at the exact point where it totally stopped moving.

That's what the old Pod and Avionics Nosecone did, because they lacked an integral component of the PID system. The ASAS (And the SAS itself until it was patched not long ago) was an explicit attitude hold, and my understanding is that the new system is supposed to be as well, just now allowing you to override it temporarily with control inputs, rather than having to turn it off.

If it's not, well, it's frankly a little useless for spaceflight purposes: in space, with nothing to slow or stop your movements but control forces, you NEED an attitude hold, or you're forever making fine adjustments.

[stupid_chris]

That's what the old Pod and Avionics Nosecone did, because they lacked an integral component of the PID system. The ASAS (And the SAS itself until it was patched not long ago) was an explicit attitude hold, and my understanding is that the new system is supposed to be as well, just now allowing you to override it temporarily with control inputs, rather than having to turn it off.

If it's not, well, it's frankly a little useless for spaceflight purposes: That kind of thing is what you want on an aircraft or a rover, but in space you NEED an attitude-hold or you're forever making fine adjustments.

For having a flight landed on Duna right now, I can tell you that it feel much more natural this way to be totally honest. I had literally zero problem using it. Once it's stabilized and stops moving, it's doesn't move until you ask him to really, making orbital maneuvers easy and smooth, and preventing the back and forth we had before.

[Tiron]

For having a flight landed on Duna right now, I can tell you that it feel much more natural this way to be totally honest. I had literally zero problem using it. Once it's stabilized and stops moving, it's doesn't move until you ask him to really, making orbital maneuvers easy and smooth, and preventing the back and forth we had before.

Every time I've tried to use it instead of Mechjeb, I've ended up frustratedly making repeated, very small adjustments to get it and keep it on the attitude I wanted it on, because it keeps sliding off.

So much of the way it works is actually better than what Mechjeb does, but it NEEDS to work like Mechjeb's Killrot function has for ages, and that's what I was led to believe we were getting. If it's not, I'll just keep on not using the default systems at all, and use Mechjeb's instead, which still act the way the ASAS used to, except that it lets controls override it.

Wasteful as heck with the RCS gas, if you turn RCS on, but at least it actually holds a heading.

[Jason_25]

I was hoping to get some clarification on whether ASAS/SAS is able to manipulate control surfaces like it used to? I have tried every available one including the SAS/ASAS from the previous version and the control surfaces are not turning.

I got my ASAS/SAS to work just fine now. I was testing on the ground and it is smart enough to not move the control surfaces at all on the ground and or when you are not moving unlike mechjeb.

[Tiron]

I got my ASAS/SAS to work just fine now. I was testing on the ground and it is smart enough to not move the control surfaces at all on the ground and or when you are not moving unlike mechjeb.

It actually has a very cool capability to dynamically select which control devices it uses at any given time, based on how much force it needs. If it needs only a tiny amount, it uses just torque, and nothing else. If it needs more force, it'll start feeding in control surfaces and RCS thrusters (assuming they're on), but ONLY the ones it thinks it needs.

So for example, rather than firing ALL the RCS thrusters in a particular direction at full power, it will use just the ones that provide the most rotational force on that axis, and only at the power level it thinks it needs them at. It'll start bringing in other thrusters at lower power levels if it needs more force, I suspect eventually ramping all the way up to full power if it thinks it needs it.

And then, when it's got it nearly stabilized, it'll pull all the 'extra' control devices back out and go back to using just torque.

It's very slick.

[ultra86]

Also experiencing problems... and man is this thread confusing

Running KSP steam no mods. Built new planes/rockets from scratch (good ships, I've sent many a kerbal to orbit and beyond)

1. When using the following the SAS/ASAS/WHATEVER appears to operate more as a suggestion than any type of stabilization device. It does influence the flight of my craft, but it might as well not as I have to constantly adjust my controls in space or atmosphere.

command module

the part that looks like old ASAS

reaction wheels

batteries

solar panels

gimbaled engines

wings/fins/control surfaces

Something must be wrong... There is no way this could have been the intended upgrade the dev team was so excited about.

After 5 hours of play in .20 I built a stock rocket that was took a lander, rover, and plane to Laythe, successfully landed and both the rover and plane departed successfully for a tour of the moon.

After 5 hours of play in .21 I barely made it to the mun and Jeb didn't survive impact.

Edited July 25, 2013 by ultra86

[Kobalius]

Hello KSP community, first of all sorry for my bad English. I have decided to register here and post my first reply when i saw how many players have problems with new SAS system, at first when i patched to .21 and play one hour i was very disappointed with it then i red some topics here and decide to try again and it was perfect! It is way more realistic and interesting you just need to understand basic principals how new SAS system works, yes now its more difficult to construct good rocket and not just thinking about fuel and trust, but when you manage it its way better filings. At first i could not get even to the orbit but when i changed the way i was building rockets i landed on the moon with just 1 try and now i cant imagine to play with old SAS! I think it right way for developing this game, very good job DEV team Here is my rockethttp://i055.radikal.ru/1307/88/4fe330a43825.jpg for moon mission and i had no spin or any other problems at all. And a little tip - when i am doing any tern with SAS on and reach needed degree i push F once and its locked on it.

[N3Coalition]

Just went to the Mun and back. Hell, I landed about 2 to a 5 minute walk from the KSP complex. Landed right at the beach, lol. My closest landing to the launch pad yet!

Also one of my best Mun landings to date, I was concerned the craters would be a rather harsh challenge.

Not sure about all these SAS problems people are having, it just doesn't act exactly like the old system is all. There's no more "space magic" torque from nowhere.

My ascent stages also flew straight, I just had to add a reaction wheel to the lower half and ensure it was strutted properly as not to sheer itself apart. Oh and add a few winglets for control surfaces.

I think people are just too used to the old way and will need time to adapt.

[Tiron]

Also experiencing problems... and man is this thread confusing

Running KSP steam no mods. Built new planes/rockets from scratch (good ships, I've sent many a kerbal to orbit and beyond)

1. When using the following the SAS/ASAS/WHATEVER appears to operate more as a suggestion than any type of stabilization device. It does influence the flight of my craft, but it might as well not as I have to constantly adjust my controls in space or atmosphere.

command module

the part that looks like old ASAS

reaction wheels

batteries

solar panels

gimbaled engines

wings/fins/control surfaces

Something must be wrong... There is no way this could have been the intended upgrade the dev team was so excited about.

After 5 hours of play in .20 I built a stock rocket that was took a lander, rover, and plane to Laythe, successfully landed and both the rover and plane departed successfully for a tour of the moon.

After 5 hours of play in .21 I barely made it to the mun and Jeb didn't survive impact.

Based on my testing, it seems to have a problem in the 'target attitude' selection, I think likely that the SAS's own movements are resetting it to the current attitude. Whatever it is, the SAS is not holding the set attitude, and I think in some cases is actively moving it off the attitude you're trying to set, ever so slightly.

[ComradeGoat]

A good point. People having trouble with the SAS, is your KSP from Steam? Mine's from Steam, and I'm having trouble with SAS.

KSP Store, having problems.

[Danger Will Kerbinson!]

The ONLY common thread I am seeing to problems is a high number of those with problems, like me, are using the steam install.

I've posted in the bug tracking thread but the person who made it did not thing that was important enough to include so only a few people tacked that info on. If I'm looking for bugs the FIRST variable I'm looking at is different versions, this should be looked at and possibly ruled out first.

[Danger Will Kerbinson!]

Edit: just as I post this I see what posted above me. KSP store.

[ComradeGoat]

OK, I made a video. Here is a demonstration of the problem I'm seeing in space. Stock craft, fresh download of KSP, nothing else done in that game other than launch that plane. I also experienced a bit of phantom roll and yaw during the ascent, but did not attempt to correct them. It seems ASAS/SAS will allow a certain amount of drift before noticing something is up and stopping it, but it never returns to where it's supposed to be.

Watch the navball and the pitch indicator in this video. The only keys I pressed throughout are shift and X.

ETA: At one point there seems to be around 13º deflection from the "set course" when under thrust, which it will hold while under thrust, and then return to the set course afterwards. Note is only applying about 30-40% pitch maximum to try and correct, and will apparently deliberately hold the wrong course on a tiny amount of torque, when all it needs to do is apply a bit more to return to where it's supposed to be!

Edited July 25, 2013 by ComradeGoat

[Conzolax]

Repost from : http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/41882-The-new-%28and-improved-%29-SAS-system

To me it seems that they ripped out the old ASAS, and put an Avionics package in the command modules instead.

I can imagine making a rocket in 0.20.2 with an AP instead of an ASAS would feel the same as the ASAS in 0.21.0.

Atleast for me it does.

Heck, tried my VTOL and it tipped right over with the SAS enabled, i can only take off if i do it manually.

This could just as well being 0.21.0 breaking it, but as other people reports, even on a normal small rocket in orbit, i have to sit and manuelly adjust my course all the time, because the SAS isnt holding anything.

And to the people saying "its not supposed to fly the rocket for you", no thats true. But its supposed to do everything to hold the damn course with all of the control surfaces/gimballing/Pod torque that it has available. Thats the whole point of an ASAS.

Right now it just dont care.

I do have a feeling that its a bug effecting some of us though, since so many people are reporting different issues.

As an example, in C7's preview of the new ASAS, if he turned his plane by holding Q, the plane would just roll left.

If i do that on any plane, (except the Ravenspear, weirdly enough) it will just drop like it turned the ASAS off totally.

Anyway, just my personal rant.

~Conzo

[stupid_chris]

From the video, it looks like your CoT might not be lined with your CoM :l If it is, I'm not observing these issues at all honestly.