Make the Inline Reaction Wheel a 0.625m part

[CaptRobau]

Currently the Inline Reaction Wheel and the Inline Advanced Stabilizer have the same stats and thus fulfill the same role. I would suggest resizing the Inline Reaction Wheel (as that looks the best small) to a 0.625m diameter with matching stats. This would add the much-needed 0.625m reaction wheel and at the same make sure that there aren't two parts that do exactly the same, all with a minimum of effort.

[LethalDose]

What would the practical application of this part be?

I'm not trying to discredit the OP, I'm honestly curious about why this is a need.

Probes are the only vehicles I've ever built using only size 0 parts, and I've never been left to want for additional reaction wheels beyond what's in the probe's core.

Edited December 2, 2013 by LethalDose

[Shiftyeyesshady]

What would the practical application of this part be?

I'm not trying to discredit the OP, I'm honestly curious about why this is a need.

Probes are the only vehicles I've ever built using only size 0 parts, and I've never been left to want for additional reaction wheels beyond what's in the probe's core.

Maybe the way you build your probes, you don't need it. Can't account for the way other people construct theirs. Personally, I would definitely have a use for this part.

[LethalDose]

Maybe the way you build your probes, you don't need it. Can't account for the way other people construct theirs. Personally, I would definitely have a use for this part.

Right, so how do people build probes when they need this part?

[allmappedout]

Presumably some people need to have a larger amount of torque than can be provided by some of the probe cores. Certain people may use the probe as the only method of controlling a rocket to orbit, and thus having extra torque on the rocket will help with the ascent. Whilst you could argue that they could use a 1.25m part, smaller's better when it comes to orbital insertions, so there's definitely a market for this part.

[jwenting]

I've never used the 0.0625m parts myself, though could try building something that releases a swarm of tiny probes around the Jool system. But those'd be so small a probe core'd provide ample torque for them.

[S4qFBxkFFg]

I did wonder why two parts of different sizes have the same effects...

Ideally, I'd expect reaction wheel parts for each fuselage size, with the larger ones having proportionally more torque.

[Kasuha]

These two parts served different purposes originally, but their function was unified with introduction of the new SAS. Both were kept in game to keep backwards compatibility (i.e. to prevent breaking ships using them in earlier releases). Nowadays the Inline Reaction Wheel is mostly used because it is lighter so if any of the two should be changed, it should be IAS to break as few ships as possible (it would still break some).

Maybe smaller variant of either should be just added instead.

[Commander Zoom]

OP:

In one important area, they don't have the same stats: the ASAS masses almost twice as much (.5 vs .3).

[Murph]

Nowadays the Inline Reaction Wheel is mostly used because it is lighter so if any of the two should be changed, it should be IAS to break as few ships as possible (it would still break some).

Maybe smaller variant of either should be just added instead.

That logic is flawed, as the IAS might be deliberately used for appearance, or as a way to add a little extra mass for balance of something. It should be left alone, just with the description clarified to let people know it's the same as the IRW. There is no real downside from keeping it as-is, no justification for removing it. I quite often use it when it's next to a decoupler, as it looks nice paired like that. The extra 0.2t is frequently irrelevant. Alternatively, and probably much better in the long term, make it a slightly stronger torque force.

E.g.

IRW: 20 torque

IAS: 30 torque

ASAS: 50 torque (and give this one a sane connection strength too…)

As for needing a 0.625m part, I don't see the need myself. If a probe is all 0.625m parts, the probe core is probably sufficient. If you need more torque for launching the probe, just include a wheel in the launcher and benefit from a smaller, lighter probe, and probably a much stronger connection between the torque force and launcher stack.

[Kasuha]

That logic is flawed, as the IAS might be deliberately used for appearance, or as a way to add a little extra mass for balance of something.

The only flawed logic here is on your side. The fact that it might be used for reasons you mention or any other reasons whatsoever does not change anything on the fact that it is used less than the other, lighter wheel. I did not say it is not used. I only said that changing IAS would cause less damage.

As for needing a 0.625m part, I don't see the need myself.

If nothing else I see a principial need: all functional parts should be available in all diameters. 0.625 m technology is certainly lacking in current part list.

[Murph]

The only flawed logic here is on your side. The fact that it might be used for reasons you mention or any other reasons whatsoever does not change anything on the fact that it is used less than the other, lighter wheel. I did not say it is not used. I only said that changing IAS would cause less damage.

So, how do you know that it's used significantly less? Is there some stat site somewhere that tells you how frequently particular parts are used? If you factor in psychology, the fact that it has "Advanced" in the name might actually make it used more often, but that depends on the demographics as well.

[scootersoup]

I had made a large 5 engine ion probe to put in low Kerbol orbit in 0.20 and if I remember correctly once I got close enough the gravity of the star began pulling my probe off-heading and the reaction wheel in the core was not enough to counter this force. So yeah, reaction wheels for each fuselage size would be nice

[LethalDose]

I had made a large 5 engine ion probe to put in low Kerbol orbit in 0.20 and if I remember correctly once I got close enough the gravity of the star began pulling my probe off-heading and the reaction wheel in the core was not enough to counter this force. So yeah, reaction wheels for each fuselage size would be nice

I don't think gravity affects heading. That's why craft stay in the same orientation during orbit.

[Guest]

This would be great for installation on rovers. I've used the one from KSPX to save 50m/s descents from doom. Although I don't use it often, other players will definitely find a place for it as well.

[LethalDose]

If nothing else I see a principial need: all functional parts should be available in all diameters. 0.625 m technology is certainly lacking in current part list.

I think this is bad logic. We don't need every part in every size, if for no other reason than it over-simplifies design and reduces challenge.

The response for everything else in these forums seems to be "Mod it!", sooooo... that?

[Kasuha]

Is there some stat site somewhere that tells you how frequently particular parts are used?

Sure there is. All it needs is to watch what people are posting.

I think this is bad logic. We don't need every part in every size, if for no other reason than it over-simplifies design and reduces challenge.

I don't think lack of suitable parts is the right kind of challenge this game should be offering.

[Murph]

Sure there is. All it needs is to watch what people are posting.

Unless you can produce a detailed study which quantifies that, I'm sorry, but that's opinion, not fact about what people are using. It could not account for the vast majority of builds which are not posted, only the minority that are posted, even if such a study did exist. The bottom line is that we have no way of knowing the true relative usage of IRW vs. IAS with any reasonable degree of certainty. The best available is opinion, speculation (and I include myself in that), and guesswork, certainly nothing close to "fact" which would stand up to scientific scrutiny.

What makes perfect sense to you, me, or anyone else, about which one to use, such as saving that trivial 0.2t or appearance, is going to vary wildly. I do not believe that it's possible to predict with any confidence. Then there's old builds from the not so distant past which use it from before the SAS changes, where there was good reason to choose the IAS.

[allmappedout]

Unless you can produce a detailed study which quantifies that, I'm sorry, but that's opinion, not fact about what people are using. It could not account for the vast majority of builds which are not posted, only the minority that are posted, even if such a study did exist. The bottom line is that we have no way of knowing the true relative usage of IRW vs. IAS with any reasonable degree of certainty. The best available is opinion, speculation (and I include myself in that), and guesswork, certainly nothing close to "fact" which would stand up to scientific scrutiny.

What makes perfect sense to you, me, or anyone else, about which one to use, such as saving that trivial 0.2t or appearance, is going to vary wildly. I do not believe that it's possible to predict with any confidence. Then there's old builds from the not so distant past which use it from before the SAS changes, where there was good reason to choose the IAS.

Wow, guys, calm down. It's a tiny part. Kasuha is right in the sense that there's no functional reason to use the heavier part (it's identical but lighter), but I'm sure there are others who use it. Until another game-breaking save comes along, there's no reason to remove it, but let's get back on topic here. There's obviously a reason to have it; the idea of saying no to it because you already have a bigger one is like saying "no we shouldn't have an ant engine, as we already have a mainsail!". Different missions have different purposes.

Someone might need to make a super tiny probe. As part of that super tiny probe it might need to also control the torque of the rocket on its way up (as it's a small probe it mightn't have enough authority without an SAS part). To minimise weight, the smallest possible SAS part would be used. Currently we don't have one, but there's no reason not to include it, given that we have a multitude of other 'size appropriate' parts per size group.

[Kasuha]

Unless you can produce a detailed study which quantifies that, I'm sorry, but that's opinion, not fact about what people are using.

Okay, so if you were told to change one of the two wheels, you would change IRW because there is no scientific evidence that it is used more than IAS. Do I follow your logic right?

If it makes you feel better, here's a picture of a small tug I used in one of challenges I participated in. And I used IAS in it, just because. I think it would be really cool if it was possible to make such tug in 0.625 m too, all parts are already available - except inertial wheels.

[Murph]

Okay, so if you were told to change one of the two wheels, you would change IRW because there is no scientific evidence that it is used more than IAS. Do I follow your logic right?

Please do not try to put words into my mouth. I am advocating no change at all, or just making one a slightly stronger torque than the other. I've been pretty clear about that. There is no factual basis that either is less used, and no need to deprecate either of them. Any deprecation would be harmful, while giving little to no benefit that could not be better achieved by ensuring that the documentation around all reaction wheel torque (pods and cores, as well) is clear.

[LethalDose]

I don't think lack of suitable parts is the right kind of challenge this game should be offering.

This argument is entirely predicated on the qualification of parts as "suitable" and the challenge as the "the right kind", both of which are purely judgement calls and have no objective basis.

What qualifies a suitable part? are Rockomax-sized toroidal tanks suitable? Are 0.625 Mainsails suitable? What sizes are "suitable" for material bays?

I'm not trying to argue for any of those parts, but trying to demonstrate that there are other part gaps due to size, and we as players have to design around these gaps. To me, not having the perfect part for every application is not only part of the challenge of the game, but part of the "right kind of challenge" of the game. In fact, working around these kinds of limitations has led me to design better rockets.

So, again, we don't need every part in every size, because not having a perfect part for every application is kind of the point of game that incorporates design.

Edited December 3, 2013 by LethalDose

[KASASpace]

Okay, it's almost 0.23, and we are still using the saves from 0.20 and 0.19?

[Murph]

Okay, it's almost 0.23, and we are still using the saves from 0.20 and 0.19?

Is there anything to say that people won't still be using saves, craft files, etc, from 0.20? Even if they are not using any from back then, saves and craft files from 0.22 legitimately include the IAS. I know that I have a number of ships out in space which include it, saved craft files including it, and it's used on the bundled stock craft. There's no reason to believe that the IAS is any less widely used than the IRW in 0.22, certainly not to the point of insignificance.

[Halsfury]

This suggestion makes perfect sense to me and it would make probe building easier since I can never get just the right amount of torque, it's always overkill and always too heavy! what I would really like is a part with a lot less mass doing the same thing because all the probes I build in campaign are massive cause I like to stick the Jr. Science bay on them so I need a reaction wheel but they are massive so I need a massive engine and a massive RCS system and etc. etc. etc.

You see where this is going...