ASAS Systems

[Ival70]

Currently, the ASAS module is entirely useless, as it provides the exact same functionality as the SAS unit, except it has a higher mass.

What if the old ASAS functionality was brought back to the module, while still otherwise keeping the current SAS behavior for everything else? I have had enough instances where I would like to use the old ASAS that I'm surprised it hasn't been added already. I don't really see any downside to doing this, It would likely be an easy thing to add, and would give us a desirable feature that I am sure would be used by many people.

[Murph]

Currently, the ASAS module is entirely useless, as it provides the exact same functionality as the SAS unit, except it has a higher mass.

What if the old ASAS functionality was brought back to the module, while still otherwise keeping the current SAS behavior for everything else? I have had enough instances where I would like to use the old ASAS that I'm surprised it hasn't been added already. I don't really see any downside to doing this, It would likely be an easy thing to add, and would give us a desirable feature that I am sure would be used by many people.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It provides double the torque of the IAS (15 vs 30), and it's the only choice if your entire rocket is no smaller than 2.5m.

The old SAS vs. ASAS system is no longer in the game. The old system was completely scrapped many versions ago, and replaced by the new universal SAS.

[Ival70]

I'm sorry, I should have clarified, I'm not talking about the 2.5m SAS/reaction wheel, which definitely still has a useful role in the game adding torque for large diameter ships. I am referring to the 1.25m ASAS (now called the Advanced Inline Stabilizer) which has no real use, because there is also already a 1.25m SAS/reaction wheel. The old system was scrapped back in .21, but my suggestion is that the old aggressive ASAS behavior is added back to that ASAS/IRS part, allowing you to choose what type of control you want for your craft.

The 2.5m part you are referring to, yes?: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Advanced_S.A.S_Module,_Large

The part I am referring to: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Inline_Advanced_Stabilizer

The part that currently makes the old ASAS/Inline reaction stabilizer redundant: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Small_Inline_Reaction_Wheel

As a note, I am aware that technically they are different, in that the ASAS/IRS provides 3x the torque at 2x the mass, but we essentially have 2 parts filling the same role.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Ival70
Grammer

[BudgetHedgehog]

You know that the IRW ("The part that currently makes the old ASAS/Inline reaction stabilizer redundant") is 0.625m wide, thus enforcing its use in tiny probes, not 1.25m crafts, right? It's pretty simple - IRW=0.625m, IAS=1.25m, ASAS(L)=2.5m. Each have their own sizes, ideal applications and torque value.

[Sirrobert]

I'm sorry, I should have clarified, I'm not talking about the 2.5m SAS/reaction wheel, which definitely still has a useful role in the game adding torque for large diameter ships. I am referring to the 1.25m ASAS (now called the Advanced Inline Stabilizer) which has no real use, because there is also already a 1.25m SAS/reaction wheel. The old system was scrapped back in .21, but my suggestion is that the old aggressive ASAS behavior is added back to that ASAS/IRS part, allowing you to choose what type of control you want for your craft.

That part was resized to .625meter in the current update. Keep up with the times mate.

So this suggestion is already solved

[Murph]

Ok, so it's a case of confusing terminology being used, combined with the suggestion being outdated due to the IRW being shrunk in 0.25. I'm very far from convinced that we actually need the old ASAS system back. Rockets which suffer from lack of torque can often be easily fixed by stacking multiple torque modules.

That said, however, if there is a need for an alternate behaviour, I think the correct fix would be to add some tweakables to the torque modules, not add extra parts. If that was to be done, it would probably need to be parameters to tune the behaviour of the new SAS system, not reintroducing the scrapped old system.

One thing we do need, is a 3.75m torque module, with appropriately huge power, as it's annoying to have to stack 4 or more 2.5m ASAS modules on a 3.75m rocket.

Edited October 18, 2014 by Murph

[thereaverofdarkness]

One thing we do need, is a 3.75m torque module, with appropriately huge power, as it's annoying to have to stack 4 or more 2.5m ASAS modules on a 3.75m rocket.

I agree, and I also think the existing larger torque wheels should be more massive. 0.05t seems fine for the 0.625m, but the 1.25m should be 0.25t and the 2.5m should have a full 1.0t of mass. Then they should also be more rigid and have more than 7m/s impact tolerance. The 3.75m torque wheel should be twice as thick, 3 tons, and should give a powerful 100 units of torque.

[Ival70]

Ok, so it's a case of confusing terminology being used, combined with the suggestion being outdated due to the IRW being shrunk in 0.25. I'm very far from convinced that we actually need the old ASAS system back. Rockets which suffer from lack of torque can often be easily fixed by stacking multiple torque modules.

That said, however, if there is a need for an alternate behaviour, I think the correct fix would be to add some tweakables to the torque modules, not add extra parts. If that was to be done, it would probably need to be parameters to tune the behaviour of the new SAS system, not reintroducing the scrapped old system.

One thing we do need, is a 3.75m torque module, with appropriately huge power, as it's annoying to have to stack 4 or more 2.5m ASAS modules on a 3.75m rocket.

Hmm, that is an excellent idea, a tweak-able behavior option would be a much better solution. Also, if a 3.75 torque module is added, a 3.75 probe body might also be something to add.

[Red Iron Crown]

A 3.75m probe core has become even more relevant since this thread started with the addition of recovery mechanics. Might be simpler to just make a lightweight radially-attachable probe core that can be attached to just about anything.