Come back old ASAS - all is forgiven!

[regex]

I'm sorry, dude. But someone posted that MJ's Ascent Guidance is bugged. Using an unmanned probe, the nav ball was pointing to the North. Without it, it points fine.

He never messed with the probe. He even has a screenshot.

The only reason I'd use MechJeb is to replace functionality that I had in 0.20 and before using this KILLROT I keep hearing about. I still enjoy flying my rockets, I don't want MechJeb to automate the process.

On the other hand, if the current SAS functionality is not the intended behavior and it should actually maintain attitude then I'll just patiently wait for the next patch and skip MechJeb altogether.

[Fernbhoy]

yeah too much of a headache to figure this out, back to 0.20 till a fix is out

[Pixel of Life]

The only reason I'd use MechJeb is to replace functionality that I had in 0.20 and before using this KILLROT I keep hearing about. I still enjoy flying my rockets, I don't want MechJeb to automate the process.

On the other hand, if the current SAS functionality is not the intended behavior and it should actually maintain attitude then I'll just patiently wait for the next patch and skip MechJeb altogether.

This. Although, I find it difficult to believe that the game spent weeks in QA, yet this many people are having problems. Heck, it's only been out for a bit over 24 hours now! I really hope they can fix the bug, or if there isn't one, at least tweak the SAS to be more solid.

[CombatWombat]

Frankly the old ASAS would be fine if...

1) We had adjustable PID gain on each control module

2) ASAS modules could be enabled/disabled by stages, such that stages with high control authority / mass ratio could have its own ASAS module with higher gains.

As a bonus:

ASAS modules should have checkboxes for "Use Fins", "Use RCS", "Use Gimbal"

I don't understand why the neutering of ASAS gain was chosen as a "catch all" solution. It just makes control response mushy.

[Feldynn]

If you spotted something wrong by doing this test, please list all your mods if any, and check the KSP/Parts folder to see if there's anything in there (on a stock install it should be empty).

Regarding the above quote from earlier in the thread..

Not sure if Squad is aware or not but Steam is forcing a download of 6 files (3 in both the JetEngine and TurboFanEngine folders) when we "Verify local files", deleting them as per Harv's instruction quoted doesn't seem to cause any problems that I've seen (I think I posted earlier many pages ago that the removal of said files seemed to improve plane flight for me), but it does bring up the possibility that maybe there are other files coming down as part of the Steam download / file verification process that may incorrect.

[draeath]

The only reason I'd use MechJeb is to replace functionality that I had in 0.20 and before using this KILLROT I keep hearing about. I still enjoy flying my rockets, I don't want MechJeb to automate the process.

On the other hand, if the current SAS functionality is not the intended behavior and it should actually maintain attitude then I'll just patiently wait for the next patch and skip MechJeb altogether.

MJ is completely "modular" and you don't have to use any functionality you don't want to use.

Even if I didn't use it for piloting assistance, I'd use it for deltaV calculation and the ability to precisely edit maneuver nodes.

Also note: the ascent autopilot has a "director" mode now, where all it does it mark on your navball where your prograde should be to obtain the desired orbit, it exercises no control on your craft in that mode (unless you have one of the other tools enabled, like throttle control)

Throttle control is very useful at that, as you can tell it to govern your throttle at terminal velocity to avoid wasting fuel (though YOU still control the throttle, it just caps it) and likewise can do so for maximum acceleration (so you don't accidentally tear your rocket apart with 9g of acceleration). Give it a look, it's not like you're on rails, but it is nice to have something approaching the avionics you have in aircraft!

Edited July 25, 2013 by draeath

[ComradeGoat]

I am fed up with seeing people complaining. Can I see some hands for people who actually like it?

In your universe, people submitting bug reports for a feature that has just removed functionality are "haters"?

That's ... quite polarised!

[Guest Aaack]

Contributing with my experience so far, after reading this thread I made a rocket specifically designed to give the new ASAS a major headache., asymmetrical everywhere but just a tiny bit, trillions of long space tapes, I added a standard pod, and 4 old ASAS (in line wheels something), a big new ASAS, RCSs and on the tanks of the first stage some (asymmetrically put) control surfaces.

Everything was pretty well with ASAS on, with it off it tended to rotate like crazy, so the thing did it's job. On orbit, however things changed a bit, let me try to explain.

Since the rocket was unstable it tended to pitch up constantly, with ASAS on it tended to pitch down and required some constant micro correction to keep it level, with ASAS off required almost the same amount of micro correction, in spite it was easy to make it start to spin also.

It's like ASAS works here (KSP store version on linux 64), but it tends to overcompensate when the forces are minimum (or when its a program error, since unbalanced or not a rocket shouldn't try to rotate if there's no force applied to it in zero gravity).

My conclusion is ASAS does it's job but gets confused when the rocket rotates due the program itself.

Here's a picture of my test abomination:

My 2¢

Edit: if someone wants my craft to make tests please PM me I'll be happy to share.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Aaack
Because I'm happy to share

[HyperNovae]

Well, I tweaked my old rocket a tad, threw some of those inline wheels on the sides of the rocket and it was not too much to handle. Instead of turning off SAS to gravity turn I left it on and it went rather smooth, no rotation or at least very little. It took more work to get a good orbit going but not too much. Then I noticed SAS didn't do a bad job of keeping my lander aimed where I needed it to be it actually worked pretty well. Node maneuvers were a little more involved and whatnot but nothing too bad. I couldn't even get into orbit last night. I also made it to the mun but have no tried landing yet, that is still to come. Considering the last time I tried to land I hit the mun at about 130m/s I am not sure I will be much more successful. But all in all it wasn't that much worse than the previous iteration of the ASAS.

Notes

Steam version

Mechjeb from .2 installed still

Chatter for .2 installed still

Old rocket still works.

I do like how electricity is much more involved though and that solar panels are actually useful.

I haven't tried the planes, I've never flown them ever so I cannot comment, but after testing it out a bit more with rockets I am alright with it. I was so disappointed last night when I went to take my rocket up and it started rotating like nobodies business. So to get to the mun on my first flight today was a nice feeling. Also, I found that when maneuvering with SAS still on it seemed to want to keep moving so I kept it off and then switched it on once I was stable at thte position I wanted to be in. Before you just whipped around and let go of F on exactly where you wanted to be. Although fun and much easier it wasn't nearly as realistic.

[ultra86]

Cheers to Harvester and C7 for reading through the concerns in this thread.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/41835-Come-back-old-ASAS-all-is-forgiven%21?p=540433&viewfull=1#post540433

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/41835-Come-back-old-ASAS-all-is-forgiven%21?p=542605&viewfull=1#post542605

[Tiron]

MJ is completely "modular" and you don't have to use any functionality you don't want to use.

Even if I didn't use it for piloting assistance, I'd use it for deltaV calculation and the ability to precisely edit maneuver nodes.

Also note: the ascent autopilot has a "director" mode now, where all it does it mark on your navball where your prograde should be to obtain the desired orbit, it exercises no control on your craft in that mode (unless you have one of the other tools enabled, like throttle control)

Throttle control is very useful at that, as you can tell it to govern your throttle at terminal velocity to avoid wasting fuel (though YOU still control the throttle, it just caps it) and likewise can do so for maximum acceleration (so you don't accidentally tear your rocket apart with 9g of acceleration). Give it a look, it's not like you're on rails, but it is nice to have something approaching the avionics you have in aircraft!

Let me add in Atmospheric entry simulation. Mechjeb is literally the only mod I know of that's able to predicting a landing spot accurately through an atmosphere, and the same function can accurately estimate your orbit after aerobraking. They're both extremely useful and I know of nothing else that provides it.

But the basics is this: All of Mechjeb's autopilot functions have to be turned on by pushing a button that turns it on. Each of them also has all sorts of informational cues and prediction that goes with it, that you can use while flying manually. Plus all kinds of other, detailed information you can't get out of the default UI.

Using the navball's target to indicate a given ascent path, or the glideslope for landing on the runway, for example. I firmly maintain that the spaceplane autoland feature is terrible (It once bounced a plane, then turned it around backwards to point back towards the landing point, resulting in it landing backwards and shortly being rendered into pieces tumbling down the runway) and refuse to use it, but I use the ILS guidance every time I land a plane (and sometimes ignore it if it's being stupid).

Even if you don't want the autopilots, it's worth using just for the informational and predictive stuff.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Tiron

[Mulbin]

hotfix released! Squad has confirmed it was bugged so poo to all the fanboys who wouldn't accept it! Smug mode engaged

[regex]

Can we not turn this into a MechJeb thread? My whole point was that I am not above using a mod to replace functionality if it turns out the new SAS is working as intended. I have nothing against MechJeb, its creator (I've checked out the code, it's well-written), or the people who use it, nor do I question its utility.

E:

hotfix released! Squad has confirmed it was bugged so poo to all the fanboys who wouldn't accept it! Smug mode engaged

Wooooo!

Edited July 25, 2013 by regex

[Tiron]

Can we not turn this into a MechJeb thread? My whole point was that I am not above using a mod to replace functionality if it turns out the new SAS is working as intended. I have nothing against MechJeb, its creator (I've checked out the code, it's well-written), or the people who use it, nor do I question its utility.

Oh aye, I was just saying. On the SAS Front:

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.

Pretty much exactly what I thought was going on from my test. There's also been some other tweaks to it too. I'll be taking a Kerbal-X up in a second to test it, but it sounds extremely promising.

[Sapphire]

poo to all the fanboys who wouldn't accept it! Smug mode engaged

This makes me feel better than I thought it would.

[stupid_chris]

Glad to know it's fixed. Wonder where the issue came from so that some people had it working just fine and others not :l

[Spartwo]

The new logic isn't that bad for small craft(of course it was 20 torque for a 7 ton rover)

[Brabbit1987]

Glad to know it's fixed. Wonder where the issue came from so that some people had it working just fine and others not :l

Who knows, I am wondering the same thing. I been playing KSP a lot since the new SAS, never found anything wrong with it. If Squad says it was buged, than it must have been so. Guess I will update to see if I notice any difference.

[dlmarti]

Glad to know it's fixed. Wonder where the issue came from so that some people had it working just fine and others not :l

lol, you never figured that out? Just read their comments.

btw, just tested 0.21.1, its probably 98% as promised.

There is still some minimal wobble when trying to stay on a maneuver node, buts its handle-able.

The control surfaces work very smoothly, and the gimbals appear to work now too.

In zero G, the reaction mass appears to over compensate, and hunt though.

I have not tested the RCS and docking, but I do not anticipate any problems.

Now pardon me, while I go remove several dozen SAS units from my rockets.....

Thanks for the quick fix Squad!

Edited July 25, 2013 by dlmarti

[Sapphire]

Oh yes, this is far better! A pleasure to fly with this.

[Sardonyx]

Glad to know it's fixed. Wonder where the issue came from so that some people had it working just fine and others not :l

It's probably working the same for everyone to be quite honest. Some craft are probably more or less prone to showing the effect given design variations. And then there's variation in piloting technique. Myself, I noticed I tend to anticipate the need to counter momentum and apply counter thrust early even when I was trying to test it. That habit comes from playing a lot of free rotation 3D space games over the years that require manual stabilization and this lessens the effect of weak SAS somewhat, but that type of piloting shouldn't be necessary according to the demo videos. Also, it was clearly releasing hold on all axes when it was given an input, when it should really calculate how to project that hold onto the rotated axes allowing you to adjust one dimension (or that's what described). Depending on the craft that release of controls will affect some a lot more than other under certain flight profiles.

[Tiron]

Glad to know it's fixed. Wonder where the issue came from so that some people had it working just fine and others not :l

I'm guessing it wasn't so much that only some people were having it, as only some people were BOTHERED by it.

Anyway, new testing results: It's MUCH snappier and far more aggressive about slowing the ship. In my spin test with the Kerbal-X final stage, with a 45 degree initial input, it's now only taking 65 degrees to get it hauled in...and then definitively snaps it back a bit...but still only about 10 degrees. It's coming to a stop 55 degrees from the point where I let go of the controls, so for gross movements it still needs quite a bit of help.

Trick being fine movements are much improved. It's still a bit tricky to get the attitude lock set on the precise point where you want it, but because it's so much snappier and aggressive about holding it, it takes far less time and many fewer adjustments, and it's actually quite good at staying there once you get it there.

It's also much more immediately noticeable when it's got the lock target set a little bit off and pulls it off, because it's a much more rapid movement now and happens sooner, so it's a lot more obvious when you have got it there (or not).

Not quite perfect, but I think much more usable now.

[RocketPilot573]

Now THIS is a SAS. Thanks Devs!

[dlmarti]

Not quite perfect, but I think much more usable now.

Certainly is, we lost the ability for that perfect lock, but gained the ability to add more stability through reaction mass.

This will make remotely controlled ships much more controllable.

[carazvan]

As one of the people who reported problems would also like to mention that it does indeed now seem to be fixed with 0.21.1

as for the problems I reported here these seem to be the fixes:

1) Ships now hold a heading! (havent tested it yet in space with larger TWR on more unsymetrical craft but that's next test)

2) Control input on 1 axis no longer affects others

3) After inputing control the value still goes to 0 and adjusts from there but the speed at which it adjusts seems much faster now (result was a 20*climb becoming a 15* climb but I can live with that)

Would just like to thank C7, Harvester and the rest of Squad for working with us quickly and getting a hotfix patch in under 36 hours