Something overlooked about SAS

[MR4Y]

Why doesn't anybody just switch to docking mode? This switches to translate only controls without having to set up a new control scheme.

Because, once again, if you have RCS on, you'll translate while driving the rover.

[Tw1]

Why doesn't anybody just switch to docking mode? This switches to translate only controls without having to set up a new control scheme.

Sometimes the ability to use torque is useful. Like when you weren't expecting that bump to be quite so big..

[Sean Mirrsen]

Having RCS on while driving a rover just creates more questions than it answers. What do you use it for? Downforce? Steering? If you're using it for downforce, why do you have RCS thrusters capable of sideways translation? If you're steering with RCS, why aren't you using flight controls in the first place? If gravity is so low that you need RCS for either, why have a rover at all? Correction - why have a rover drive at all? Plus RCS tanks are kinda huge. If you have space for RCS tanks, you probably have space to put the rover core facing forward.

So, yeah.

[MR4Y]

Having RCS on while driving a rover just creates more questions than it answers. What do you use it for? Downforce? Steering? If you're using it for downforce, why do you have RCS thrusters capable of sideways translation? If you're steering with RCS, why aren't you using flight controls in the first place? If gravity is so low that you need RCS for either, why have a rover at all? Correction - why have a rover drive at all? Plus RCS tanks are kinda huge. If you have space for RCS tanks, you probably have space to put the rover core facing forward.

So, yeah.

You're creting questions to your own questions and overcomplicating things, XD

[Sean Mirrsen]

Just pointing out the stuff I see.

I can see a reaction wheel being usable on a rover to keep it stable. I can see it being usable with SAS. However. Consider that said reaction wheel is strong enough to keep your rover pointing in one direction, and returning it to that direction. If you really need SAS to pull a turn, and your control pod is wrongly oriented... why not use the roll controls? The reaction wheel will turn you just fine.

I can see RCS being usable on a rover, especially when in a low-G environment where some really long jumps may be in order, and overturning is just one of many problems. But given that RWs are an option, and RCS fuel is limited (and heavy), why would you use RCS at the same time as driving a rover normally? It's just rather baffling to me.

[0xFADE]

Very nice looking little rover.

[Giggleplex777]

This is what I wanted: Buttons when you right click the SAS or command pod that allows you to make the SAS ignore certain axis. In my case, I need the SAS to keep my wheels on the ground by maintaining the pitch and yaw, but I want it to ignore the roll so I can turn (a lot). The roll can be reactivated if I want it to maintain its heading (like what Brotoro said.).

[Bothersome]

And just like I already said, if you'd spend a little time orienting the probe core correctly, you wouldn't have the problem with SAS being left on all the time.

People keep wanting to say there is a problem with SAS. It is not a problem with SAS, it is a problem with the craft design (or piloting skills).

[Giggleplex777]

And just like I already said, if you'd spend a little time orienting the probe core correctly, you wouldn't have the problem with SAS being left on all the time.

People keep wanting to say there is a problem with SAS. It is not a problem with SAS, it is a problem with the craft design (or piloting skills).

It's not really a problem, it's just a feature that might be useful.

[Starnite_IV]

Personally, I just setup the rover controls to use the number pad. Which is different then the pitch/yaw controls. It's in the settings

[Guest Aaack]

Hum I've the same issue with a light rover, I had to turn off the wheels AND turn off ASAS in order to turn without rolling.

I wonder if the issue could be more manageable if you put a wheels (old ASAS unit) horizontally.

[Brotoro]

And just like I already said, if you'd spend a little time orienting the probe core correctly, you wouldn't have the problem with SAS being left on all the time.

People keep wanting to say there is a problem with SAS. It is not a problem with SAS, it is a problem with the craft design (or piloting skills).

It's not a "problem," but I don't think it occurred to C7 that people using rovers might want the rover steering to change the heading lock of the SAS system when they do manual steering inputs. I hope that gets changed.

[Mephane]

It's not a "problem," but I don't think it occurred to C7 that people using rovers might want the rover steering to change the heading lock of the SAS system when they do manual steering inputs. I hope that gets changed.

To be honest, I did not think of that, either. I always drive my rovers with A/SAS off and rover controls bound to numpad.

[The Destroyer]

Yes you do. Remember that using yaw to turn also activates roll.

You can use docking mode.

[Wheffle]

I'll just reiterate things I've agreed with...

+ One of the first things I did after buying KSP was remap the rover controls to the arrow keys (and get rid of the camera control maps to those keys). Having them mapped to the same keys as the reaction wheels seems silly.

+ There is no "wrong" way to build a rover, having to have your core face the horizon is a stupid design restriction and it's unrealistic. Total functionality should be able to be achieved whichever way your core faces (it's not like a computer has a face or a 'front window').

+ SAS wasn't really meant for rover stabilization (during development), so I'm not surprised it has quirks when it's used that way.

+ I'm all for adding more functionality and customization to SAS to broaden its usefulness to include, among other things, rover stabilization. Rover (probe) cores have reaction wheels, might as well put them to use, right?