Come back old ASAS - all is forgiven!

[Levelord]

Well hopefully they fix whatever is broken then, though I am unsure how the last patch fixed it for most and only a portion of you still seem to have the issue.

Harvester posted this on the Update news if you need to know more:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/content.php/203-0-21-1-Patch-News

We've also changed a few other details about the SAS: Now, all command pods, be them probes or capsules, enable SAS for the vessel. Not all of them are able to apply torque on their own though, much like it's always been with the old system.

We've re-tuned the SAS to get a sharper response as well. The issue we found with it was a simple one but it had some very far-reaching implications. The new SAS releases the attitude hold when you apply input, so you can still control the ship with it on, but an issue on the logic for that was causing the attitude lock to not set very well, which resulted in it drifting off target.

[Giggleplex777]

Well that escalated quickly.

[Brabbit1987]

Oh, Im sorry...wanting an issue looked into is a dick move now. But screaming AGAINST a bug being fixed is some noble deed? What was wrong with you people that did NOT want the minority of us to play? I'm waiting in anticipation of this stunning revelation.

No, it's the way you commented at me and the way you misunderstood me was the dick move.

Also, I am not screaming against it either, again misunderstanding.

[Brabbit1987]

Harvester posted this on the Update news if you need to know more:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/content.php/203-0-21-1-Patch-News

And ...? Kinda confused on why you posted that, already read it when it was released. Doesn't say anything pertaining to people STILL having issues.

[Guest]

Why is this thread still open?

[Guest]

Doesn't say anything pertaining to people STILL having issues.

This:

The new SAS releases the attitude hold when you apply input, so you can still control the ship with it on, but an issue on the logic for that was causing the attitude lock to not set very well, which resulted in it drifting off target.

still pertains to the issue I am having, that being that the behavior still exists, there's just less of it.

[Danger Will Kerbinson!]

No, it's the way you commented at me and the way you misunderstood me was the dick move.

Also, I am not screaming against it either, again misunderstanding.

When you wander into a thread and drop a "Sorry if this is rude, but you are all a bunch of morons" type post don't expect a ticker tape parade.

[Brabbit1987]

Why is this thread still open?

Because apparently the issue still exists according to a select few.

[Brabbit1987]

When you wander into a thread and drop a "Sorry if this is rude, but you are all a bunch of morons" type post don't expect a ticker tape parade.

I never said that. Putting words in my mouth, if you are going to quote me .. use a direct quote instead. All your doing is trying to make it seem like i said something I didn't.

[Levelord]

And ...? Kinda confused on why you posted that, already read it when it was released. Doesn't say anything pertaining to people STILL having issues.

Well you said that there was no problem with the SAS (or at least you heavily implied it). So I posted the changelog where Squad said they discovered a problem with the SAS logic that prevented it from holding a heading.

[Brabbit1987]

Well you said that there was no problem with the SAS (or at least you heavily implied it). So I posted the changelog where Squad said they discovered a problem with the SAS logic that prevented it from holding a heading.

No .. sorry, misunderstanding, talking about now. Not before.

[Danger Will Kerbinson!]

I never said that. Putting words in my mouth, if you are going to quote me .. use a direct quote instead.

You came in and said nothing was wrong, it was in our heads, this is how it is supposed to be and we should just get used to it.

Ignoring that there have been examples posted of things NOT working the way they should. Ignoring that the guy who made the thing has said its not what was intended. Ignoring that there has been a patch already that has helped fix the issue.

So really, coming in to stir up the hornets nest and then clutching your pearls when someone, or several someones call you on it is ridiculous.

[Tiron]

Because apparently the issue still exists according to a select few.

The Core issue of the target heading not being set properly DOES still exist. It's just now masked a bit because the 0.21.1 changes make it much easier to compensate for. It is a LOT better than the 0.21.0 implementation, but basically harvester is so convinced that it's a joystick deadzone issue (even though there's large numbers of people who don't even HAVE joysticks that were having the problem), that they 'fixed' that instead of actually finding the real problem.

Yes, it's much better. Yes, it's much easier to use. As it stands, it still has precision issues that require a number of adjustments to compensate for. It's just fewer, weaker, and less frequently.

If they fix the attitude hold targeting it'll be better than Mechjeb's Killrot. Right now it's a toss-up: The default SAS is much more efficient and less wobbly, but Killrot holds a heading better and requires less manual input to get it and keep it on a heading in the first place.

[Brabbit1987]

You came in and said nothing was wrong, it was in our heads, this is how it is supposed to be and we should just get used to it.

Ignoring that there have been examples posted of things NOT working the way they should. Ignoring that the guy who made the thing has said its not what was intended. Ignoring that there has been a patch already that has helped fix the issue.

So really, coming in to stir up the hornets nest and then clutching your pearls when someone, or several someones call you on it is ridiculous.

Again, putting words in my mouth, never acted like that or said anything remotely like that. I think you need to give it a rest and cool your head. Because as it stands, you will just continue to misunderstand me and this will go no where. Also, maybe you have noticed, you are the only one still continuing.

Just so you know, the whole comment "Not to be rude" was to prevent people from misunderstanding what I meant, but seems people still did. I was not saying, the problem didn't exist. I said I am surprised people are still complaining. That doesn't imply there is nothing wrong, it reads exactly how it's written. no hidden meanings behind it. I then suggested maybe it was something that needed to get used to rather than there being an issue. Again, if you read I said "I Think". I used that wording on purpose.

If you still want to argue, go ahead, but send me a pm instead of ruining this thread.

The Core issue of the target heading not being set properly DOES still exist. It's just now masked a bit because the 0.21.1 changes make it much easier to compensate for. It is a LOT better than the 0.21.0 implementation, but basically harvester is so convinced that it's a joystick deadzone issue (even though there's large numbers of people who don't even HAVE joysticks that were having the problem), that they 'fixed' that instead of actually finding the real problem.

Yes, it's much better. Yes, it's much easier to use. As it stands, it still has precision issues that require a number of adjustments to compensate for. It's just fewer, weaker, and less frequently.

If they fix the attitude hold targeting it'll be better than Mechjeb's Killrot. Right now it's a toss-up: The default SAS is much more efficient and less wobbly, but Killrot holds a heading better and requires less manual input to get it and keep it on a heading in the first place.

I see, well this makes sense. Not to mention i am using a joystick and it works fine for me. Though not sure if I set kill zones or not.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Brabbit1987

[asae]

I'm going to have to agree with brabbit on what was said first. There are way too many people here who are used to the Lock In place Asas and are unable, or unwilling, to adjust to the new SAS system. If I'm wrong kindly show me without attacking my word. If you are unable to do so I will just lump you with the unwilling crowd.

[Levelord]

I'm going to have to agree with brabbit on what was said first. There are way too many people here who are used to the Lock In place Asas and are unable, or unwilling, to adjust to the new SAS system. If I'm wrong kindly show me without attacking my word. If you are unable to do so I will just lump you with the unwilling crowd.

Well we can start with you telling us what you think the purpose of the SAS is and whether you think it performs that role as intended.

[Danger Will Kerbinson!]

I am sorry if this comes off a bit rude, but I can't believe some of you are still complaining about it. I think you all are just to used to the old version and are unwilling to get used to this new version.

Explain to me where I am not understanding your meaning.

We are just used to the old version, don't understand the new version and should deal with it.

Sounds fairly dismissive of the issue to me. In your mind there is NO issue at all, the only problem is those of us who 'imagine' a problem.

Posting a dozen times that you are being unjustly assailed by drooling cretins lacking decency and failing literacy as you faint onto your pity couch is not going to unwrite what you wrote.

Come in and dismiss the issue, you yourself will have no credibility and shall be dismissed, guess you have to deal with it.

[Guest]

I'm going to have to agree with brabbit on what was said first. There are way too many people here who are used to the Lock In place Asas and are unable, or unwilling, to adjust to the new SAS system. If I'm wrong kindly show me without attacking my word. If you are unable to do so I will just lump you with the unwilling crowd.

Please reference HarvestR's post in this thread where he says that the SAS should hold an attitude. If I find information later that the 0.21.1 functionality is the intended behavior, I will happily switch to using MechJeb or some other Hold Attitude mod but the issue is still here and I am still under the impression it is a bug, having no evidence to the contrary.

[asae]

Well we can start with you telling us what you think the purpose of the SAS is and whether you think it performs that role as intended.

I have said this once and I'll say this again, SAS is not meant to as an autopilot but a stability helper, the old ASAS was not this it was a killrot, that is not an SAS. Tighten up this SAS a bit more and it will be rather like how I imagine SAS should be.

Edited July 26, 2013 by asae
Typo

[Danger Will Kerbinson!]

I'm going to have to agree with brabbit on what was said first. There are way too many people here who are used to the Lock In place Asas and are unable, or unwilling, to adjust to the new SAS system. If I'm wrong kindly show me without attacking my word. If you are unable to do so I will just lump you with the unwilling crowd.

Have you watched the C7 demo video? If you do you will see the intended behavior. Many of us are not getting anything close to that behavior. In fact c7 uses the words "lock onto that new heading" several times in the video, and thats what it does. His space station even swings back to the place he released manual control, very similar to how the old SAS behaved, it did not just sort of slow down and stop in a random place.

So if the guy who built it says its designed to hold a heading I am going to go out on a limb and trust that that IS the intended behavior. What I had was nothing of the kind, not even in the neighborhood of holding a heading. It was akin to steering with your knee while drunk from the passenger side.

[Brabbit1987]

Explain to me where I am not understanding your meaning.

We are just used to the old version, don't understand the new version and should deal with it.

Sounds fairly dismissive of the issue to me. In your mind there is NO issue at all, the only problem is those of us who 'imagine' a problem.

Posting a dozen times that you are being unjustly assailed by drooling cretins lacking decency and failing literacy as you faint onto your pity couch is not going to unwrite what you wrote.

Come in and dismiss the issue, you yourself will have no credibility and shall be dismissed, guess you have to deal with it.

What is wrong with you in adding a whole bunch of crap to my words? Why can't you just read it EXACTLY how it's written instead of adding things I didn't say.

Example: "We are just used to the old version, don't understand the new version and should deal with it." Show me where I said "deal with it." You also forgot the part where I said "I think".

"Sounds fairly dismissive of the issue to me." Because your adding crap to it, that isn't there. It's non existent.

"In your mind there is NO issue at all, the only problem is those of us who 'imagine' a problem." Again never said that. You really need to learn to read a psot more accurately.

[asae]

Have you watched the C7 demo video? If you do you will see the intended behavior. Many of us are not getting anything close to that behavior. In fact c7 uses the words "lock onto that new heading" several times in the video, and thats what it does. His space station even swings back to the place he released manual control, very similar to how the old SAS behaved, it did not just sort of slow down and stop in a random place.

So if the guy who built it says its designed to hold a heading I am going to go out on a limb and trust that that IS the intended behavior. What I had was nothing of the kind, not even in the neighborhood of holding a heading. It was akin to steering with your knee while drunk from the passenger side.

Not only have I seen the video I have read through this entire thread twice, an discussed this before. The SAS since the hotfix is rather great but may I remind you that the video did NOT include rapidly spinning designs that have been the source of complaints on this thread.

[Danger Will Kerbinson!]

I have said this once and I'll say this again, SAS is not meant to as an autopilot but a stability helper, the old ASAS was not this it was a killrot, that is not an SAS. Tighten up this SAS a bit more and it will be rather like how I imagine SAS should be.

Who here thinks SAS is an autopilot? Nobody except those introducing a strawman to the mess. Attitude control does not equal auto pilot. C7 says its designed to hold attitude, HarvestR says the same and both say its not working as intended. Why should we believe someone not involved with the development who demands that this is not the case as you have?

[Danger Will Kerbinson!]

Not only have I seen the video I have read through this entire thread twice, an discussed this before. The SAS since the hotfix is rather great but may I remind you that the video did NOT include rapidly spinning designs that have been the source of complaints on this thread.

What rapidly spinning designs? The source of the complaint is rockets wandering off course. Yes the hotfix is great, its still not right though, better is not always fixed.

[Tiron]

I have said this once and I'll say this again, SAS is not meant to as an autopilot but a stability helper, the old ASAS was not this it was a killrot, that is not an SAS. Tighten up this SAS a bit more and it will be rather like how I imagine SAS should be.

This is what should be happening:

You'll note that when he rotates the station and releases it, it then stops the rotation, then brings it back to where he released it at, and damps it down there. Exactly like Mechjeb's Killrot would do. Everything I've seen and heard indicates this is the intended behavior.

What's it's ACTUALLY doing is not locking onto a heading until quite a bit after you let go, and then holding that. It causes 2 things: It uses less force to damp the rotation than it's actually programmed to, because the incorrect 'target' is closer to its current position than it would be if the targeting were correct. The second is that it keeps sliding for a ways after you let go before locking onto a heading, making it much harder to get it on the precise heading you want.

The 0.21.1 changes make it lock down MUCH faster, so the deviation is lessened and more noticable, making it easier to correct. And once you do get it aligned, the extra force it applies makes it hold that attitude much more strongly than it did in 0.21.0. It's better, it's still a bit tricky to use. I'll be making another vid to illustrate what I'm talking about, with an extra bit to make sure there can be no doubt at all it's not a deadzone issue.