Kerbal RCS strength

[dr_pipe]

If I need really fine control on EVA I just use my EVA mini corvette.

http://i.imgur.com/TSTVves.png

I like the power of the jetpack as it is but I also would like finer controls available. I think *just* being able to use it on Duna is about right although as OP said, this makes it too powerful during EVA.

I like this mini vehicle! I've tried a simple one with just an RCS tank and thrusters around it, and a command seat, with docking port on back, but it seemed like the weight of the kerbal threw it off balance. Also the seat wanted to sit on it like the disk of the tank was a horizontal base, not a vertical backing. Did you stick a strut on the tank with the seat on top of that? How do you keep it balanced with the pilot?

[John FX]

I like this mini vehicle! I've tried a simple one with just an RCS tank and thrusters around it, and a command seat, with docking port on back, but it seemed like the weight of the kerbal threw it off balance. Also the seat wanted to sit on it like the disk of the tank was a horizontal base, not a vertical backing. Did you stick a strut on the tank with the seat on top of that? How do you keep it balanced with the pilot?

I used a dummy weight in the VAB and it also has a probe core. Yes I put the seat onto a mini strut. RCS build aid helps a LOT when you want stuff to fly well.

[LostElement]

You could edit the .cfg file to make them less powerful and efficient to use as a temporary fix. Im sure SQUAD has the intention of rebalancing RCS.

[Themohawkninja]

I haven't done any exact measurements, but it sure feels like the RCS used by the Kerbals when on an EVA is the most powerful engine in the game... one short press of a button and my Kerbal is zooming away from the ship at a small percent of lightspeed.

Maybe TWR it is, but thrust alone it's not.

Would it be possible to reduce the power of their RCS, maybe by a factor of TEN? Real astronauts maneuver around slowly. Whether the Kerbals EVA RCS is realistic or not, it certainly feels very overpowered to me...

If it was that low, I'm not sure it would even work on the Mun, which for rescue operations, you kind of need the RCS pack due to the slow speed at which the Kerbals "walk" in that gravity.

[astropapi1]

So, are necros okay now?

[sal_vager]

No, but this thread managed to revive without the usual "+1", so it lives....

...for now.

[frizzank]

I would also like to see the fuel in the resources tab, and have a fine control mode like the ship thrusters.

[klappertjes]

I've always understood the very powerful EVA pack as compensating the absence of tethers. In the real world, astronauts are much safer from being flung off into space because they can pull themselves back. Kerbals don't have that luxury, so we get a bit more power to get around and get us back safely.

If SQUAD made it weaker there would probably be as many people complaining about all the kerbals they've lost tumbling into space with no chance of return

Edited January 8, 2014 by klappertjes

[Whoozy]

I thought the real MMU's had variable output control?

[Kerba Fett]

Like many of you I'm also bothered by the EVA pack being WAY overpowered for 0 g.

At this point an easy fix is to use the Tweak Everything mod. It adds a thrust limiter to the EVA pack just like engines have. I find setting it at 10 to 15% works much better in 0 g.

While I'd like to see this implemented in the stock game I'd also be fine with it fixed at about 10 to 20% of what it is now.

This would mean you couldn't use the basic pack for surface travel, but I don't see that as a bad thing. It would give small rovers a purpose. Right now if you want to go a few Km with a kerbal it's easier to just use the jetpack than to bring a rover. Why not force players to bring a rover or even a planet exploration jetpack?

If you really want to fly around the surface the Exploration Jetpack would be a larger varient of the basic backpack. They'd be a part with mass and it would cost you dV to bring one on a mission but the tradeoff would be more fuel, downward looking lights, and different versions for more power output with the larger ones able to fly on Eve. The Universal Storage mod has a larger EVA pack. It works with Kerbal Attachment System and can be stored in KAS containers or surface attached to a ship. It adds more fuel and life support. I consider this to be a good proof of concept for the Exploration Jetpack.

[zarakon]

I've never found the EVA pack to be hard to control in zero g, but I would like if it was affected by fine controls the same way normal RCS is

[tater]

Yeah, this needs fixing. Fixing this, AND adding whatever is needed for better rovers seems like the best bet.

[Renegrade]

Woo old thread really hangin' on there.

In case people are wondering, my best measurements so far of Kerbal EVA power is:

Acceleration: 3.2m/s^2

Duration: >= 195 seconds of thrust in a single direction.

Delta-V: >= 624m/s (3.2 * 195 -> it's a non-Tsiolkovsky impulse; they're expelling massless fuel)

Thrust: 300n (0.3kn)*

Note that they can fire multiple thrusters at once to get even more thrust.

* The wiki says that their mass is 93.75 kg suited up (0.09375 tons), so that means that their thrust is 300N (0.3kn), assuming that figure is exact.

Reducing the thrust would NOT make them get lost more often in space (in fact, it would probably reduce accidents), but it WOULD restrict what planets they could fly on. To lift off of a planetary surface in EVA, a Kerbal has to exceed it's gravitational acceleration.

Here's how it currently stands:

GILLY -> 0.05

POL -> 0.37

MINMUS -> 0.49

BOP -> 0.59

IKE -> 1.10

DRES -> 1.13 # I only like to pretend I'm a planet

MUN -> 1.63

EELOO -> 1.69

VALL -> 2.31

MOHO -> 2.70

DUNA -> 2.94

### KERBAL EVA 3.2 ###

TYLO -> 7.85

JOOL -> 7.85

LAYTHE -> 7.85

KERBIN -> 9.81

EVE -> 16.68

KERBOL -> 17.13

Reducing that acceleration would move 'em up the list, increasing it would move 'em down. Ex, a 2.0 accel would make them able to fly on Eeloo, but not Vall.

Given that improved ladder climbing is coming, perhaps it's time to take a look at these figures. And bring back #monopropEVA ~

Edited January 17, 2015 by Renegrade
Replaced one of my favorite composers with one of my favorite scientists for correctness~

[NERVAfan]

I've always understood the very powerful EVA pack as compensating the absence of tethers. In the real world, astronauts are much safer from being flung off into space because they can pull themselves back. Kerbals don't have that luxury, so we get a bit more power to get around and get us back safely.

If SQUAD made it weaker there would probably be as many people complaining about all the kerbals they've lost tumbling into space with no chance of return

For me, though, it tends to lead to the kerbals getting lost in space since it's hard to control...

[rkman]

If EVA rsc is supposed to be useful both in space and be able to lift a Kerbal off the Mun, then its thrust should be adjustable, preferable defaulting to low thrust.