The new (and improved??????) SAS system.

[Pachi3080]

almost all the people that it's angry with the new SAS didn't add enough control surfaces... (Rcs, wings and stuff helped made my rockets get even more stable)

[adios_1984]

This new ASAS - love it.

Now rockets are much more stable. I don't have to toggle my stabilisation system - that was a real pain in the previous version. And landings - now walk in the park. I hope that it stays as it's right now.

[OrbitusII]

I wish there was a "Meh, it's ok" option in the poll.

I like it because it keeps things from wobbling, especially spaceplanes.

The downside to its conservative use of torque is that it feels sluggish... I'd like it more if it was more snappy. In the case of my Fairing'ed Light rocket, which has ASAS where the old version didn't, it still feels like I have to manually stabilize it some.

As a result of the issue that people may not want to use the new ASAS all the time, I ported the old parts to 0.21 in such a way that they won't overwrite the new ones, so you can have both!

Nostalgic ASAS&SAS.zip

Just throw into GameData/ like any other parts mod. There have been some minor changes to the underlying code from before 0.21, but it's more responsive and aggressive for those of you who want that sort of thing.

[ComradeGoat]

I have a question how many of the people complaining about the new SAS are asparagus pancake builders and how many of them are conventional style builders? My asparagus builds are awful with this SAS they need IRS on nearly every fuel pod to be effective. My old school conventional rockets work perfectly without even an added reaction wheel

Neither. SSTO spaceplanes here.

[Mulbin]

The downside to its conservative use of torque is that it feels sluggish... I'd like it more if it was more snappy. In the case of my Fairing'ed Light rocket, which has ASAS where the old version didn't, it still feels like I have to manually stabilize it some.

You shouldnt have to manually stabilize... its bugged.

The new SAS might be a lot of things, but it most definitely isn't a thing that requires constant input to maintain attitude. It's been pretty consistently doing that on all the test cases we did here, and there were a lot of them.

If the SAS isn't holding attitude properly for you, then it very well may be in a buggy state, because that is certainly not the intended behaviour.

SAS should hold attitude, despite what many are say, harvester himself says it has attitude hold... not assistance, not dampening...hold. Which it really doesnt at present :/

[Lheim]

I do like the new SAS!

It's not, however, something you want to leave on all the time. You still would want to turn it off if you have to turn your space craft a significant amount, as if you let go of the key for a jiff it'll start to correct on you, slow down your turn.

I find it tends to 'correct' back a bit - tapping the key is fine, but if I hold WASD for any length of time it's not quite intuitive where it'll choose to settle, and it does take a while to do so - the turning and pulling back from a quick spin is a bit ginger. Tapping F will lock in a new heading instantly, though.

Just some minor adjustments to playstyle, but I'm not having any of these flipping problems people're mentioning. I enjoy not having to turn ASAS off completely.. especially on planes, to make minor adjustments all the time. Is it possible that people are forgetting power? Engines do provide some, but surely that would drain under heavy sas use, and then just remain intermittent.

As an aside.. I love the new Mun. So much more interesting! Though, c'mon.. let's put s'more juice in those stock rover wheels now that there are so many steep slopes.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Lheim

[The Destroyer]

Using 0.21 (not the patch) I find it works great. Especially for airplanes, it's amazing.

[dlmarti]

almost all the people that it's angry with the new SAS didn't add enough control surfaces... (Rcs, wings and stuff helped made my rockets get even more stable)

says the person that never left the atmo.....

[Bothersome]

Do you use a joystick? Is its "deadzone" set correctly?

[SourMonkey]

I have a serious question for you guys that are also using the new ASAS system that I do not want to make a new thread for:

Do you think that the new ASAS and torque system uses too much electrical charge?

I was landing on Minmus a little while ago and lost all of the charge in my lander (in which I accidentally forgot to apply solar panels to) and had a new-found trouble in landing since I could not move it without activating the engine (contrary to prior the loss of all my power on approach). I am just curious to see what you guys think about it's usage. Once it is depleted it flat out does not function.

[bonyetty]

I like the emphasis in this poll:

Naturally I chose the most rational option that wasn't in all caps.

Here here

How silly are bias polls?

a) just silly

very silly

c) extremely silly

d) have meaningless results

e) ALL THE ABOVE!!!!

[WhiteWeasel]

I've gotten used to it and i'm able to get into orbit again, but I'd say it's a sidegrade if anything. Your rockets no longer twerk themselves to death, but they also have trouble maintaining a heading without player intervention.

[zarakon]

I do really miss the old avionics for planes. It did a much better job of keeping small agile planes under control

[Danger Will Kerbinson!]

My favorite part of this whole dust up has been the never ending stream of genius posters who come into threads 12, 20, 67 pages deep with mind blowing 'fixes' us poor dummies never though of before griefing it up on the forum.

1. Electricity...herp derp

2. You need a command pod...damn, I was all set to just blast off naked tanks with engines.

3. Moar control surface, more reaction wheels! Here is a clue, if i can manually move it back from a drift it HAD PLENTY OF CONTROL AUTHORITY at its disposal, it was NOT using more than a tiny fraction.

4. Post a creenshot or video of everything working fine on their install + condescending bs about how we must be spoiled by mechjeb/unable to grasp the concept of balance, center of mass and thrust/not understanding how the new system is SUPPOSED to work. Show them the C7 video of how its supposed to work and how your video is doing NOTHING shown in the demo video and they just dismiss it. After all, why would the guy who built the thing, made the demo video etc have any idea how it was supposed to work.

The new patch is a HUGE step up. At least the "DONT YOU COMPLAIN, HATER!" brigage didn't manage to get their wish, as stupid as it was that roughly a third of players didn't have working control. Why exactly was that? Can one of you morons explain why it was you were SO against an issue being fixed?

[Bothersome]

OK, well then, how do you account for so many of us NOT having problems out of SAS and can seem to just get on with our space programs?

Is our copy of KSP somehow different than yours? Mine is full stock from Steam. Is yours?

Perhaps it's my hardware that allows KSP to run with no problems. I'd doubt it thought... It's pretty standard stuff in the box... One that I put together myself and tuned and overclocked myself.

People have been trying to help you guys out. But it is either, mods, shoddy craft builds, or inputs causing SAS to kick off like joysticks not having a wide enough dead zone, the pilot not knowing how to pilot the craft, the engineer designing the craft doesn't understand the neccesities of craft building, or a combination of some of these. There may be even other reasons but I can't think of them off hand.. But if I had a problem and others didn't, I'd start looking at MY end of things to find the problem. My stuff doesn't seem to have the problems you guys are running into. What do you think it is? Would you rather those of us who don't have the problem just shut up and not try to help?

[M5000]

I honestly don't understand the issues people are having with ASAS.. I went to Duna yesterday in an afternoon with no pre-planning, and the launcher was quite heavy... Went to space just fine..

[Fleb]

I have a serious question for you guys that are also using the new ASAS system that I do not want to make a new thread for:

Do you think that the new ASAS and torque system uses too much electrical charge?

I was landing on Minmus a little while ago and lost all of the charge in my lander (in which I accidentally forgot to apply solar panels to) and had a new-found trouble in landing since I could not move it without activating the engine (contrary to prior the loss of all my power on approach). I am just curious to see what you guys think about it's usage. Once it is depleted it flat out does not function.

The current rate does seem quite high. I like to use RCS on my landers instead now, it's a viable alternative to the magic pod torque of old.

[Danger Will Kerbinson!]

And here we go with another 2 very helpful posts of the "Nothing is wrong with my build, therefore its not possible for there to be anything wrong with yours" variety.

You forgot to add in some helpful hint we are forgetting like maybe to face up or stop steering on purpose into the ground to really round out the insight.

[Danger Will Kerbinson!]

OK, well then, how do you account for so many of us NOT having problems out of SAS and can seem to just get on with our space programs?

Is our copy of KSP somehow different than yours? Mine is full stock from Steam. Is yours?

Perhaps it's my hardware that allows KSP to run with no problems. I'd doubt it thought... It's pretty standard stuff in the box... One that I put together myself and tuned and overclocked myself.

People have been trying to help you guys out. But it is either, mods, shoddy craft builds, or inputs causing SAS to kick off like joysticks not having a wide enough dead zone, the pilot not knowing how to pilot the craft, the engineer designing the craft doesn't understand the neccesities of craft building, or a combination of some of these. There may be even other reasons but I can't think of them off hand.. But if I had a problem and others didn't, I'd start looking at MY end of things to find the problem. My stuff doesn't seem to have the problems you guys are running into. What do you think it is? Would you rather those of us who don't have the problem just shut up and not try to help?

How exactly is rehashing all the things that are NOT the problem dozens of times helping?

Its not design, its not user error, its not electricity, its not mods, its not clean installs, its not joysticks, its not gypsy magic, its not a New Kids on the Block reunion.

Yet page after page of "Its pods, electricity, joysticks, you suck" over and over and over.

Don't have a problem? Yay, go play. You are not helping by saying "Works for me!"

[AustralianFries]

Edit: Yeah lets just edit this out.

Edited July 26, 2013 by AustralianFries

[TheRabbit]

I'll admit, the new SAS(.21.0) I noticed did have issues keeping it's heading. It might have not had the torque it needed.

[Danger Will Kerbinson!]

I'll admit, the new SAS(.21.0) I noticed did have issues keeping it's heading. It might have not had the torque it needed.

No, the problem is it has the torque, it has the control surfaces and gimballing engines to do what you want to do...the PROBLEM is that it is not using that power to hold the heading given.

[Jarin]

Is that resolved at all in .21.1?

[Danger Will Kerbinson!]

Is that resolved at all in .21.1?

It is better. It is not resolved.

[AustralianFries]

It is better. It is not resolved.

Better something than nothing. I feel like they just need to add more emphasis on locking the heading, without making it freak out like the old SAS, which I am 100 percent sure is easier said than done. All in all, I still like this SAS way better than the old one.