Squadcast Summary (Updated 2014-12-13 - the 0.90 features video edition!)

[andrew123]

KATEC has found no choice but to reach deep into its east asian heritage...

[Twreed87]

To me, this implies that the physical part you select in the VAB/SPH and place on your craft to perform SAS functions is now gone. To replace it, you will need a Kerbal (or a probecore of some sort - we need more information on what tier it will have to be). The tools SAS used to use are still there (RCS, RW's and pods), they will just have to be controlled by something other than the SAS module. SAS as you all know it is still there, you just have to utilize it slightly differently.

This is incorrect. The parts in the VAB known as "SAS" will still exist, and they'll exist exactly the same. All those parts have done since the past few updates is provide torque. They're reaction wheels. SAS is a misnomer for those parts.

[Meecrob]

This is incorrect. The parts in the VAB known as "SAS" will still exist, and they'll exist exactly the same. All those parts have done since the past few updates is provide torque. They're reaction wheels. SAS is a misnomer for those parts.

I already addressed this

0.21 here, some of this is before my time. Let me see if I can re-state what I said in total non-Ksp lingo:

There is a part in the game everyone knows and loves that will be removed. It used to function with other parts to make "piloting" (including unmanned) easier for the user. With this revision, the way you interact with it will be different. The functions remain the same (plus added features), but in order to utilize them, you will now have to use a different part.

Again, I'm not arguing whether this is a good or bad idea. I just want to get to the bottom of this.

I don't think it matters if its called ASAS or SAS. The terms are antiquitated and people are drawing different conclusions from them. Hence why I am trying to figure this out without using Ksp terms.

Edit - Maxmaps calls it SAS. Parts of the KSP community call it ASAS

Edited December 8, 2014 by Meecrob
Example

[Rakaydos]

I already addressed this

I don't think it matters if its called ASAS or SAS. The terms are antiquitated and people are drawing different conclusions from them. Hence why I am trying to figure this out without using Ksp terms.

Edit - Maxmaps calls it SAS. Parts of the KSP community call it ASAS

The part that is "removed" is a capsule. The part that now has the funtionality is Pilot... which goes in a capsule. (The ASAS and SAS parts had that funtionality removed several updates ago)

...I'm not really seeing the issue.

[Tw1]

I'm curious as to whether there is any possibility of a multi-class Kerbal. Scientist-pilots do exist.

Even if there isn't in game, I do plan to examine the save file, and see if anything can be done.

For story making purposes.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

i hope you can give kerbals multiple professions, particularly pilot - otherwise apollo-style missions could never have all three specialists on board as you'd need a pilot in the csm as well as the lm.

i also really liked the barns, dunno why people were so pissed about it...

[Meecrob]

The part that is "removed" is a capsule. The part that now has the functionality is Pilot... which goes in a capsule. (The ASAS and SAS parts had that functionality removed several updates ago)

...I'm not really seeing the issue.

Yes I agree. I have been saying the same for hours now. We are on the same side.

Edit - I'll leave it up to others if they see an issue.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Meecrob

[mattinoz]

i hope you can give kerbals multiple professions, particularly pilot - otherwise apollo-style missions could never have all three specialists on board as you'd need a pilot in the csm as well as the lm.

i also really liked the barns, dunno why people were so pissed about it...

Given the description I can't see the reason to take an engineer anywhere other than rescue mission or maybe a long mission with lots of seats.

Not unless it's a sub-skill of pilot or scientist.

[Corw]

i hope you can give kerbals multiple professions, particularly pilot - otherwise apollo-style missions could never have all three specialists on board as you'd need a pilot in the csm as well as the lm.

i also really liked the barns, dunno why people were so pissed about it...

Why do you need a pilot in CSM which is just orbiting? The LM is active party during docking.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

Why do you need a pilot in CSM which is just orbiting? The LM is active party during docking.

Maybe you just leave the CSM passively orbiting, but there's a reason why they were called CSM pilots in the real thing. Moreover, what's the point of leaving an engineer, the sole purpose of which would be to do things like fix rover wheels or landing legs (i.e. stuff needed at landing site) in the CSM?

[Corw]

Maybe you just leave the CSM passively orbiting, but there's a reason why they were called CSM pilots in the real thing. Moreover, what's the point of leaving an engineer, the sole purpose of which would be to do things like fix rover wheels or landing legs (i.e. stuff needed at landing site) in the CSM?

That is a good question Guess the workaround would be to go with engineer and scientist to the surface. On return LM should establish stable orbit and CSM would be the active party in docking. I'm guessing everybody should be able to fit any position, but specialist will do it better/have more options.

Personally, I'm not bothered that much how they did it in the real thing. My set of toys and constraints is different than historical ones, so I do things differently.

[Rakaydos]

That is a good question Guess the workaround would be to go with engineer and scientist to the surface. On return LM should establish stable orbit and CSM would be the active party in docking. I'm guessing everybody should be able to fit any position, but specialist will do it better/have more options.

Personally, I'm not bothered that much how they did it in the real thing. My set of toys and constraints is different than historical ones, so I do things differently.

I'd take that a step furthur. Pilot in the return capsule, engineeer and scientist in the LEM, and attach a Stayputnic core to the Lem to act as a pilot. The Lem doesnt need a parachute anyway, so put it on top or underneath, opposite the docking ring or something.

[Alewx]

OK, I finally was able to find that reddit link:

*Emphasis mine.

For the tl;dr crowd:

The lowest-level pilots (and probes) will enable standard SAS

The basic SAS is the same as always.

So can we please put this argument to bed and focus on the awesome that is KSP 0.90.0?

Please?

That sounds better than what MaxMaps said, and calms me down a lot.

[CaptRobau]

A lot of people are saying that you need high-tier probes to get SAS mode (or Stability Assist as it's called). Seeing as SAS is the lowest tier for pilots, I imagine it works the same for probes as well. This is the order of the pilot upgrades:

Stability Assist/Pointing to Maneuver Nodes

Pointing to Prograde/Retrograde

Pointing to Normal/Anti-Normal

Pointing to Radial/Anti-Radial

Pointing to Target/Anti-Target

This is the order of the probes in the tech tree (same numbers mean same tech node unlocks it):

1. Stayputnik

2. OKTO

3. HECS

3. OKTO2

4. QBE

4. Small Remote Guidance Unit

4. Large Remote Guidance Unit

If this is not changed I think we'll be seeing an upgrade progression like this:

Stayputnik: Stability Assist/Pointing to Maneuver Nodes

OKTO: Pointing to Prograde/Retrograde

HECS/OKTO2: Pointing to Normal/Anti-Normal

QBE: Pointing to Radial/Anti-Radial

Small/Large Remote Guidance Unit: Pointing to Target/Anti-Target

[KerbMav]

Remote Tech 2 had a way to unlock a part module with a tech-node unlock.

This should be enabled for the probe cores in the stock game, because only having all control features on the biggest probe core is ... gnah ... so to speak.

If probe cores no longer have build-in reaction wheels, than the only difference between them is capacity for power stored - this leaves room for new funtionalities later on.

[Daze]

I can't understand all the concern about the new SAS. From what Squad said ALL the probe and ALL the pilot will have the basic ability of SAS (stay on a point) that we use today, the difference is that when you use an higher tier probe or more skilled pilot you will have also other ability like point manuever node, prograde, normal, etc.

[Alewx]

I can't understand all the concern about the new SAS. From what Squad said ALL the probe and ALL the pilot will have the basic ability of SAS (stay on a point) that we use today, the difference is that when you use an higher tier probe or more skilled pilot you will have also other ability like point manuever node, prograde, normal, etc.

It was not as clear as it was posted by Harvester in the Reddit.

But it is cleared now, and everything is ok.

[CaptRobau]

Remote Tech 2 had a way to unlock a part module with a tech-node unlock.

This should be enabled for the probe cores in the stock game, because only having all control features on the biggest probe core is ... gnah ... so to speak.

If probe cores no longer have build-in reaction wheels, than the only difference between them is capacity for power stored - this leaves room for new funtionalities later on.

Probes cores still have reaction wheels. The only thing that is different between them is that more advanced probes can point to things like anti-normal, radial, etc. As Daze explains:

I can't understand all the concern about the new SAS. From what Squad said ALL the probe and ALL the pilot will have the basic ability of SAS (stay on a point) that we use today, the difference is that when you use an higher tier probe or more skilled pilot you will have also other ability like point manuever node, prograde, normal, etc.

Nothing has changed. The more advanced probes are getting features that weren't there before. For stock it's a great idea, as it will make newer probes more interesting choices in career mode. Before you only switched from the Stayputnik because it's shape wasn't that great to work with. There was never much necessity to switch anything, except away from the Stayputnik. While it does remove some freedom, in terms of gameplay it's much more interesting. Mods will no doubt undo/mix up the changes, so that it's more interesting for more experienced players who just want the freedom.

[Whirligig Girl]

I think it might be interesting if there was a mid-tech level part that acted like the old ASAS modules, which provided no torque but kept a ship locked into a specific heading while activated. It also wasn't very stable, as it wobbled your ship quite a bit. And Maxmaps did say that part of career mode was kind of trying to walk the player through the history of KSP's updates.

[HafCoJoe]

I think it might be interesting if there was a mid-tech level part that acted like the old ASAS modules, which provided no torque but kept a ship locked into a specific heading while activated. It also wasn't very stable, as it wobbled your ship quite a bit. And Maxmaps did say that part of career mode was kind of trying to walk the player through the history of KSP's updates.

Yeah I think that'd be a good part for sure. I like building my rockets to use RCS to maintain control, but using SAS to stay pointed one direction. If there was a part that had no torque but kept a ship locked into your last input I'd be a fan.

[KerbMav]

Probes cores still have reaction wheels. The only thing that is different between them is that more advanced probes can point to things like anti-normal, radial, etc. As Daze explains:

Nothing has changed. The more advanced probes are getting features that weren't there before. For stock it's a great idea, as it will make newer probes more interesting choices in career mode. Before you only switched from the Stayputnik because it's shape wasn't that great to work with. There was never much necessity to switch anything, except away from the Stayputnik. While it does remove some freedom, in terms of gameplay it's much more interesting. Mods will no doubt undo/mix up the changes, so that it's more interesting for more experienced players who just want the freedom.

OK, but I meant that (from what I understand) only the 2.5m part will have all the pilot functionalities - never the smaller probe cores I might want to use for ... well, smaller probes, that should still be able to be high tech.

[Rune]

I think it might be interesting if there was a mid-tech level part that acted like the old ASAS modules, which provided no torque but kept a ship locked into a specific heading while activated. It also wasn't very stable, as it wobbled your ship quite a bit. And Maxmaps did say that part of career mode was kind of trying to walk the player through the history of KSP's updates.

Actually that would be a very cool autopilot mode for mid-levels (I think the way they have it now set up, I only see three pilot levels and there are supposed to be five: basic SAS like now, mechjaeb's prograde/radial/normal Smart.A.S.S., and the new maneuver point following). I know I have a lot of designs that can maintain a heading, but the "new" SAS insists on slowly sliding out of it if it needs to supply more than 50% its maximum torque in a sustained manner. For a while I actually kept the old SAS functionality by having the old "toggle-capable ASAS" still installed, but that eventually broke, so I can even tell you it is empirically possible to have both kinds of SAS coded in the game at the same time.

Rune. Glad to see that cleared up, people were freaking out about a non-existent problem.

[WuphonsReach]

Whatever they do with the probe cores, it's important that they:

- Introduce advanced versions (or bolt-ons) for the Stayputnik sphere, which is a handy design for certain situations.

- Introduce advanced versions (or via bolt-ons) for the other probe shapes such as the 8-sided and the 6-sided versions.

It sounds like some of what they are adding in 0.90 is equivalent to what MechJeb2 provides via additional things that you mount (bolt-ons) to the side of the rocket in order to get things like ascent assistance, etc.

I don't want to have to be shoehorned into a specific probe shape / size just to get a particular feature. If I want a 6-sided probe core, I should be able to use a 6-sided probe core at all levels of capability.

[Sandworm]

I don't want to have to be shoehorned into a specific probe shape / size just to get a particular feature. If I want a 6-sided probe core, I should be able to use a 6-sided probe core at all levels of capability.

I think you are out of luck on this. Squad has forgone many opportunities to have parts change according to tech level. Just look at the command pods that have monopropellant long before any way to burn it. I doubt any parts will change in their abilities as the tech tree advances.

my 2c on .90: Squad is yet again moving towards cartoon and away from simulator. They are emphasizing pilots being in control even though that has no basis in reality. Pilots do not fly rockets by hand and never have. Imho this push is part of squad backing away from the serious shortcomings of KSP as a simulation (ie no life support or proper aerodynamics). They now view KSP as a wacky funtime space farce where graphics and explosions are more important than physics. Stock KSP isn't Goat Simulator, but it certainly moving further and further away from being Flight Simulator.

I continue to place my hopes with the mod community. That's where the real gameplay improvements come from these days.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Sandworm

[razark]

They are emphasizing pilots being in control even though that has no basis in reality. Pilots do not fly rockets by hand and never have.

Not that I completely disagree with your assessment of the direction KSP is taking lately, but pilots have flown spacecraft.