Anyone else going RCS-less?

[EdFred]

For months now I've found myself, not using RCS at all. Nope, not even for docking. As I've built more and more, I find myself able to go smaller and smaller as I shave weight and increase dV. So now when it comes time to rendezvous, I'm using small enough ships (yep, even going to and from Jool) that I simply rotate both ships into alignment, and nudge them into place using my LFO engines. No muss, no fuss. The only time I ever hit the R key anymore is on EVA. Am I the only one ignoring the use of RCS?

[montyben101]

No I find I'm using it MORE even when I'm not docking, I find it useful for minor changes in orbit so I don't have to turn around for each burn.

[bsalis]

I have a couple of small SSTO Spaceplanes with a docking port, but no RCS.

Docking is not an issue - actually quite fun. Puritans may mark me down on style though.

[Mister Kerman]

That's insanity. That's like eating an ice cream sundae with chocolate sauce, and not putting little bits of crushed up peanuts on it! We are now enemies.

[EdFred]

What if I go with candy sprinkles instead of peanuts? :-D

[Godot]

All of the ships that are meant for docking have RCS.

But I leave it out for ships that aren´t meant for docking, except they go beyond the Kerbin-System

[Ralathon]

I noticed the same thing. So I just removed torque from all command pods and significantly reduced the torque from the SAS modules.

Having to use RCS for rotation is a lot of fun actually, it forces you to be much more accurate during burns and you are constantly afraid you'll run out.

[Oafman]

I use RCS fuel much more efficiently than I used to. And I fit less of it to my ships accordingly.

But I do use it much more these days for accurate burns.

[Red Iron Crown]

I put RCS on every manned ship. The pods all carry monoprop and the thrusters are massless, so why not?

Unmanned ships only get it sometimes. If it's a disposable orbital probe I don't bother, but landers usually have it. I know landing can be done without RCS, I just find it easier with it.

[Thomas988]

I hardly use any RCS at all. I use less than 40 units of Monopropellant for every docking, and for missions going to the Mun or Minmus I don't have RCS at all.

[Clockwork_werewolf]

If I want a craft to dock I stick it on there. If not, I never use it.

[Renegrade]

I noticed the same thing. So I just removed torque from all command pods and significantly reduced the torque from the SAS modules.

I've sort of done the opposite - I simply don't use the SAS/reaction wheel parts at all, and only rely on torque from command pods/probe cores, with augmentation from RCS units.

That being said, I'm not opposed to your concept either (it's very BTSM-y).

Really though, we need an RCS overhaul:

- Cheaper RCS (a low tech setup is a minimum of 2696 funds unless you only use the RCS built into pods, vs. 600 for a reaction wheel).

- Costlier reaction wheels/SAS.

- More RCS variety (45-degree quads, two-directional thrusters, and tiny versions appropriate for 0.625m probes or very small 1.25m craft, like the parts in RLA Stockalike).

- Better RCS control code.

[Aethon]

So it's not just me huh?

I put 2 RCS ports on ships that aren't intended to dock, just so I can burn off the less efficient fuel with H and N, thus reducing overall mass. I use the RCS for precise orbital changes.

[Pecan]

Anything that isn't intended to dock, I tweak the monopropellant out of the pod(s).

Anything that is intended to dock, I just use the monopropellant in the pod(s) and add thrusters, usually only 4.

"Intended to dock" almost always implies "with a spacestation" for me, so often it isn't practical to re-orientate the target for straight-in docking.

[Wanderfound]

I'm going the other way: Vernors.

While a decently built plane shouldn't need it to fly, adding some vectored thrust to an aircraft massively increases the performance window. Slamming a plane into supersonic aerobatics is way fun; waiting to see if the wings will tear off provides an amusing amount of tension.

Gotta save it for when you need it, though; fuel goes fast in atmosphere.

[Kasuha]

While I definitely can dock even relatively large ships without RCS, I find it much more comfortable to have it mounted on the ship for that purpose.

I also found RCS extremely beneficial for fine-tuning of interplanetary transfers.

[Russoft]

RCS is hugely helpful for docking but I find it even more helpful for interplanetary stuff. The difference between a PE of 13,000,000 and 10,000 above the target planet is a bit of play with IJKLHN keys.

[Sean Mirrsen]

I'm going the other way: Vernors.

While a decently built plane shouldn't need it to fly, adding some vectored thrust to an aircraft massively increases the performance window. Slamming a plane into supersonic aerobatics is way fun; waiting to see if the wings will tear off provides an amusing amount of tension.

Gotta save it for when you need it, though; fuel goes fast in atmosphere.

And I use them for a different reason, and on a different kind of airplane - SSTO spaceplanes.

Before verniers, if you wanted to have some maneuverability for your spaceplane, you had to bring monopropellant along. And you usually want to have some maneuverability, because a lot of the times you'll be doing some docking to refuel. The problem is, you don't want to bring too little monopropellant, for fear of running out - so when you inevitably return, you're almost certain to have some left over. You're essentially lugging around dead weight and reducing dV.

With verniers, all of that is gone. Your only fuel is kerolox - used for both main thrusters and reaction control. Of course, if you run out of fuel now, you are really dead in the water, but you no longer have a separate supply of maneuvering fuel that you're almost guaranteed to be carrying an excess of.

[Rainbowtrout]

Pfft, who needs RCS when you have cluster engines?

[SkyRender]

Hell, I stopped using RCS three versions ago. Though if the massless flag remains on that new RCS engine, I may well have to look into using it for exploitative purposes during probe launches...

[MajorThomas]

I barely need RCS at all. Helps in fine-tuning when docking, but the Kerbal rescue missions (contracts), for instance, don't need RCS at all. When docking, the active ship will need a little RCS but using the smallest possible RCS tanks. The other ship, just point it correctly and leave it.

I leave off SAS wheels to save weight.

Pods come with both SAS and a little monopropellant. So, since monoprop is already there, I frequently add just two small RCS blocks near the pod to squeeze a tiny bit more delta v out of the system, as an emergency "get me home!" tool.

[Riph]

Generally speaking, I bring 50 units of monoprop on every mission, every time. I use it to fine tune orbital transfers or make docking go more smoothly. It's not uncommon for me to return home with 45 monoprop left in the tank, so I guess I'm being wasteful, but it's so nice to have when you need it that I'm willing to budget a little waste.

[LaytheAerospace]

I rarely put RCS on anything, though I'm probably going to start using the verniers on my planes. I've gotten pretty good at docking with the engines, because I keep forgetting to put RCS on my spaceplanes before they get to orbit.

[CaptRobau]

I tried RCS-less docking a few times lately. Not a fan. I've gotten very proficient at translation and I never build so close to edge that a measly mono tank would make a difference. RCS is also great for minute attitude changes, for example during interplanetary transfers.

[tjsnh]

I use RCS for docking, but have found myself using it less and less on mainstream rockets, instead opting for lots of reaction wheels. (I also tend to go overboard on solar panels). This is mostly a trend since I started using Procedural Fairings to "hide" landing pods, rovers, etc, where I'm too lazy to make a control group to toggle the RCS on my landers (I use them instead of normal L/O for terminal decent burns) and don't want them blowing around inside the fairings.