I hate rovers SO MUCH!

[magnemoe]

You'd be surprised...

Here's an old (and dark and laggy and hard to see but also funny) video of my mountain climbing Gekko. You where saying?

http://www.twitch.tv/avera9ejoe/c/4250657

Yes it is using jet engines but that doesn't really effect it's mass to thrust. I could build one of these for the moon easily provided I had an efficient number of SAS units.

Cool video, however high speed on Mun will result in jumps, many too small to correct for, this jumps break the rover as it did with your.

On flat terrain like around KSC you can easy get past 500 m/s with a rocket car.

I tend to do the 7 biomes in the east farside crater canyon area, rover has pod, 8 goo and material labs in a cross with wheels at edges.

Here is a version underway to Mun, yes I forgot the goo containers. the tower with the kethane detectors is a probe who will be left in orbit.

It don't weight many ton but handles like an truck compared to light rovers.

Yes this design is not very robust, the four outriggers are on decoplers and is dropped then out of fuel it hover have plenty struts.

Still I don't like to take it above 15 m/s, design don't need much speed either, its just have to travel around 7 km.

[magnemoe]

Rover wheels in KSP are weird... Sometimes they slide around, unable to control or gain speed (like you described). Other times they take your 10+ ton mobile Eve lander up a slope at 30+ m/s:

http://i.imgur.com/1Wk7MNM.jpg

I can't even go that fast on a flat surface! But here, these wizard wheels are able to move it at that speed up a slope on EVE! EVE! We are talking 16.7 m/s surface gravity here!

I'll never understand these wheels...

I have noted the same behavior, it looks like you have no traction in some direction, this was very noticeable on Eve, on Mun you can blame gravity for low traction. I also noticed the high acceleration then turning it 15 degree.

[Lunaran]

The trouble is how wheels lose contact with the ground. If the physics system doesn't consider a wheel collider in full contact with a surface, it's not in contact at all. There's no "sort of gripping but not really" allowance that a simulation of tires on dirt would require. I suspect they tried to counteract this at Squad by cranking the friction up real high. Trouble is, the times when the wheel has solid contact is not where more friction is needed, because if you go a little airborne and you aren't perfectly lined up with your forward motion when you come down, the first wheel that touches the ground zooms off in the direction it's pointed and tears your whole craft out from under itself and sends you spiraling. Since driving a rover is simultaneously this silly extra game of trying to juggle your SAS state and maneuvering mode, that happens constantly.

This is conjecture, but it feels like wheels only accelerate you on x and y. The reason you can bomb up a hill at full power, I think, is because you're partially being accelerated into the hill, so the wheels plant super-firmly and you get their full effect. But, if you try to head down the slightest incline, you're going to jitter and skip all the way to the bottom, because as soon as your tires gain contact, they accelerate a little bit forward and come off the slope again.

TT's multiwheels are a little better but not the best. They forcibly stay planted to the ground as far as the physics system is concerned and simulate slippage internally, but they're still a deathtrap on any world lighter than Kerbin/Eve/Tylo.

Also, I'm not buying the advice that I should build a very conservative rover and drive it at old churchlady speeds. I thought this was Kerbal Space Program.

[RoverDude]

I love rovers

Side note - I found that having a long wheelbase helped tremendously in stability,

Or, rather than use a rover with wheels, tiny VTOLs are also fun...

[Francois424]

I quite enjoy roving on the Mun or Duna, they seem to be the best places so far. if a Body has to little gravity, or weird terrain (eve) it can make driving painful at times.

I've also designed 3 extremely successful rovers so far (never needed more, until now anyways).

Helpful tips:

- Use the Black wheels that can handle up to 60m/s, They are the second best wheels for sturdiness (only better are the plane wheels, but they don't provide thrust. So you'd need propellant and an engine, limiting your range, unless your rover can mine/refine kethane on the go).

- Only activate the breaks on the back wheels (or in the case of a 4-2-4 large rover, only the back 4)

- Make sure that the rover is balanced, and have low center of mass (heavy equipment the lowest and centered)

- Save often. if you stop because the terrain looks bad, save, if you stop to take a break, save.

- Use docking mode for most of your driving.

- If you hit an unusual bump and go flying into the air, switch to regular mode and use your keys to aim the rover in the direction you are going and try to match the slope so it lands flat on the ground. You may bounce, but as long as wheels don't go flying off, you can repair them if the rover is manned.

- Also, nothing beats practice... and every moon/planet is different. Keep at it and you'll become better. On the Mun, I can "set the cruise" around 30-35m/s most times and not crash anywhere. But I don't jump craters at that speed and hit the breaks if I have no choice.

I got quite a few hours of roving(50+) under my belt, I still crash, but let's just say I am far better than my first 2-3 tries, where I couldn't stop flipping and crashing everywhere. The hardest place to drive is the Munar South pole... don't go there. Really, don't. Ok fine, don't say I didn't warn you !

Good luck friend.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Francois424

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Try this design. You almost cant break it and with enough Reaction wheels you can flip it over anytime.

SPOILER AHEAD!

Edited September 15, 2014 by MalfunctionM1Ke

[Aethon]

I use light ( unstableish ) rovers because they're easy to transport.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=305389387

The probe core faces up like on a rocket, and I always steer using the Q and E keys never A or D. Q and E allows a 'drift', like in a race car, which works much better than A/D- and never go downhill faster than 6 m/s.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Aethon

[Peebothuhlu]

I find the most important thing for rovers is 'Wheel base' width.

When I have more time I'll link pictures of my first experiment Mun rover/mobile lab 'Trundle-saurus' (9 tons) and my current Mun rover which replaced it 'Rover-saurus' ( 30 tons) Getting a 30 ton machine 'flying' on the Mun at speeds of 20+ m/s looks AWESOME! XD

So far, top speed has been 50 m/s... Then, too close to a crater edge and she 'pancaked' hard enough to rip her undercarriage off..... Re-START!

Much cheers to all.

[-ELF-]

Well, compared to real life the speeds we achieve with KSP rover wheels are quite big.

MSL "Curiosity" has top speed of frightening 2 inches per second. (sic!)

Soviet Lunokhod 2 had top speed of 2km/h (proof)

LRV aka Lunar Rover had top speed of 18 km/h (proof)

And as you can see in the video, the ride was not so smooth at those speeds...

[Realism fan mode] So, basically, what we have is OP and should be nerfed for the sake of realism. [/Realism fan mode]

So, basically, what we have is better than real life, and we can be happy with that. I made a couple of rovers myself to get to mountains on Duna, where my first attempt crashed, destroying nothing but three lifter engines.

40 km ride over the duna was smooth and enjoyable at 10-15 m/s. There, and back again, taking some fuel from crashed ship to refuel recovery ship for a ride back.

Took me no more than 3 hours for a full ride. I think it is pretty much enough.

[Boris_T_Roach]

Or you could try what I do sometimes for the low gravity rovers and attatch some Ion engines facing up on the rover so that it drives the rover down into the surface.

Just dont run out of power when doing it heh

[Wjolcz]

I still think tweakable suspension would fix many things.

[O-Doc]

Side note - I found that having a long wheelbase helped tremendously in stability,

This. Long wheel base if you need to drive long distances without having to coddle your rover over every bump and inclination. You can also switch off the drive on the front wheels for power control. To get up steep slopes, go backwards FTW.

[HafCoJoe]

Cool video, however high speed on Mun will result in jumps, many too small to correct for, this jumps break the rover as it did with your.

On flat terrain like around KSC you can easy get past 500 m/s with a rocket car.

I don't have the video but this rover hits 40-50m/s on ground easily on the mun. The reason my ship was falling apart on the slope in that last video was because I was hitting space bar. The tail decouples and the head is an escape system thing . It hits 50-60 on hills and can still more or less turn.

This is the video of me doing a stupid refueling job of my mun car. I'm done posting things though I just want to hold to the argument that yes you indeed can go fast on the mun or other non-atmosphere planets if you plan right and pilot right.

http://www.twitch.tv/avera9ejoe/c/4423897

[Motokid600]

Honestly... I just cfg hack the torque curve and damage on the wheels. This way I can actually get places in a reasonable amount of time. Covered a quarter of Duna's circumference last night in just a few hours to get to some FinePrint waypoints. Just cruising at 50m/s on average ( 110mph ). Is it cheating? A little.. But it comes with its own challenges. At those speeds the slightest twitch in the wrong direction... One wrong move and your done. Jumps are fun as hell at those speeds as well. Gotta switch to staging mode and make sure all wheels land flat.

Try it.. do yourself a favor. Make the wheels stronger and more powerful and roving goes from a tedious time sink to the funnest thing you can do in ksp.

[juanml82]

Or you could try what I do sometimes for the low gravity rovers and attatch some Ion engines facing up on the rover so that it drives the rover down into the surface.

Just dont run out of power when doing it heh

The problem with ion engines is that you'll need gigantor solar panels, which can be broken in a collision. I'm trying with upwards facing vernors in medium sized rovers.

Honestly... I just cfg hack the torque curve and damage on the wheels. This way I can actually get places in a reasonable amount of time. Covered a quarter of Duna's circumference last night in just a few hours to get to some FinePrint waypoints. Just cruising at 50m/s on average ( 110mph ). Is it cheating? A little.. But it comes with its own challenges. At those speeds the slightest twitch in the wrong direction... One wrong move and your done. Jumps are fun as hell at those speeds as well. Gotta switch to staging mode and make sure all wheels land flat.

Try it.. do yourself a favor. Make the wheels stronger and more powerful and roving goes from a tedious time sink to the funnest thing you can do in ksp.

Which changes do you make? And you are using module manager, right?

Basically, could you share the configuration file?

[cantab]

Rover wheels are not flexible so mass of the rover does not improve your grip. The lighter you make the rover, the more controllable it will be. Not just acceleration and deceleration, but also turns are much easier with light rover, especially in low gravity.

Weight, though, does increase top speed. Even on the runway at KSC, with downward-firing rockets I reached higher speeds than without, and the rover I sent to Eve performed very well, better than in testing on Kerbin. I assume this goes on weight per wheel, so reducing wheel count may increase speed, at the cost of challenging the structure more.

Remapping the controls is of course important, and what I found really made rover driving fun was using a gamepad. Only a simple digital one (an original Playstation controller actually), but it's so much nicer than holding a keyboard key down for ages. And put the camera in chase mode for a more direct and immediate feel.

PS: Rover in question: https://flic.kr/p/oEQAdw Built for Duna actually, hence the fuel tanks, which I mostly emptied for the one I sent to Eve.

Edited September 15, 2014 by cantab

[Motokid600]

Which changes do you make? And you are using module manager, right?

Basically, could you share the configuration file?

Na, no module manager. I just pick a wheel I want to change ( in this case the "ruggedized" wheels ) and tweak it's cfg in Squads parts folder. I'll post the changes I made later when I'm home.

Ps: Are we aloud to upload modified part.cfg's?

Edited September 15, 2014 by Motokid600

[Wjolcz]

Ps: Are we aloud to upload modified part.cfg's?

Not 100% sure, but I don't think you will get sued by SQUAD for modifying a .cfg

[Jatwaa]

I tend to use TT Wheels and Impossible Innovations in my rovers these days. TT Wheels has faster wheels and they also include engines that can run on several fuel types (electrical as well so get your solar on) and then there is Tritium from Impossible Innovations. With a significantly improved fuel to power ratio, there is more thrust per shot. The weight remains roughly the same. It can be used for small jumps and hops if you get stuck anywhere. All in all, it can make for a better excursion.

[Reactordrone]

The problem with ion engines is that you'll need gigantor solar panels, which can be broken in a collision. I'm trying with upwards facing vernors in medium sized rovers.

I've always used regular flat panels on rovers. You only need to fire the ion engines during acceleration and braking so the batteries provide the power and the solar panels are just there to top you back up as you cruise and when you're parked.

[Motokid600]

Here are the changes I made to the ruggedized wheels part.cfg ( WheelMed the folder is called its in).

crashTolerance = 999 ( I ... don't like my wheels to break. I gotta drive 350+km at 50 m/s... that's the last thing I want to worry about )

impactTolerance = 999

overSpeedDamage = 999 ( So the wheels don't brake when going too fast.. especially the ruggedized wheels. They LOOK like they could stand up to high speeds, so.. )

And the big one...

torqueCurve

{

key = 0 100 0 0

key = 7.5 70 0 0

key = 70 0 0 0

}

Basically from what ive learned from others is that the first number in each key is speed. The second is torque. The third... I don't know. But basically what this is saying is at 0 m/s the wheels apply 100% torque. At 7.5 m/s the wheels are applying 70% ( which is up from like.. 10.. if that. I forget the stock parameters ) And then at 70 m/s.. no torque. ( though they will never reach that. They CAN if you up the parameters. )

So with those changes to the ruggedized wheels they will pretty much be CONSTANTLY applying torque. They can climb 45 degree inclines at speed and cruise at 50m/s easy. Now of course you can apply this to the other wheels. All except the tiny ones... you can TRY. But the tiny circumference the the smallest wheels makes them a hazard to drive at high speeds. There too susceptible to terrain variations and get caught on vertices.

Now im sure a lot of people will perceive this as cheating, but... it truly does make roving FUN. It takes that BS feeling of sliding on ice completely away. Just.. make sure you got a GOOD , STABLE design to handle 100+ mph. At these speeds you don't need time warp and you can actually GET PLACES in a single play session. Basically this changes your rovers from.. a rover too an ATV.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Motokid600

[LoganMalone]

Most real world rovers operate in centimeters (inches) per second, not in meters per second. Rovers are NOT used for racing across the landscape, rather they are used for science at a painstakingly slow speed. What KSP provided us is way over the top in regards to speed on a foreign planetary body. Any one else concur with this?

[Aragosnat]

Ps: Are we aloud to upload modified part.cfg's?

They love our mods. Just make sure you say what it changes and such.

[cantab]

Most real world rovers operate in centimeters (inches) per second, not in meters per second. Rovers are NOT used for racing across the landscape, rather they are used for science at a painstakingly slow speed. What KSP provided us is way over the top in regards to speed on a foreign planetary body. Any one else concur with this?

Well, the low speeds of real rovers are down to a few considerations that are lessened or absent in KSP. Planetary rovers can't be driven in real-time so need to be highly automated, and that automation needs to run on a processor that's much slower than what you can use on Earth. Moon rovers can be remote controlled but with a non-negligible signal lag. Thus the manned moon buggy went significantly faster than Lunokhod which in turn was faster than any of the Mars rovers.

Also real space missions are of course expensive. When it cost you a billion dollars to get your rover there you're going to drive it carefully! In KSP we can be reckless without much consequence, even in a no-reverts career mode run a crash probably isn't that big a deal.

[OgreMagi]

yea mass helps with rovers

I used a space station copula for my first rover and while its rather Heavy it worked better than the lighter rovers I had seen