Remove or Fix the Stayputnik

[Anquietas314]

RedDwarfIV: The argument so far has been about the SAS itself rather than torque. The thing is, some people (not including myself) feel not having SAS makes the probe useless or at least too difficult to use to be practical.

[Bill Phil]

Admittedly, flying without SAS isn't that hard. Except for the launch, and even then it's not bad. Plus it is kind of fun because you feel like you're actually piloting the rocket. But my problem really is not the Stayputnik, but where it is in the tech tree. In my opinion, it should be placed earlier in the tree with a reaction wheel. Then the current Stayputnik's location would have an SAS probe instead, maybe a Stayputnik Mk II or something.

[Ziff]

If older players want nostalgia, tell them to press the "T" key, don't destroy a perfectly good part.

If New players want easymode, they can get the next probe. The stayputnik is awesome, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's broken.

[RedDwarfIV]

RedDwarfIV: The argument so far has been about the SAS itself rather than torque. The thing is, some people (not including myself) feel not having SAS makes the probe useless or at least too difficult to use to be practical.

... huh. I saw torque come up several times.

In any case, lack of SAS hasn't kept me from getting things into orbit, and in some cases, pretty cheaply too.

Those are, respectively, my Kerbin and Mun satellite launch systems. Both work with a Tier 2 VAB and Launch Pad, and both will handle pretty much any early satellite contract. Neither have full SAS, merely torque, fins and gimballing engines. They're very responsive, and easy to keep on target if you use Fine Controls.

I don't think I'd use a Stayputnik with something much bigger, but these will serve me fine until I have enough money and science to unlock better spacecraft. No Kerbals neccesary.

[CaptainKipard]

But my problem really is not the Stayputnik, but where it is in the tech tree. In my opinion, it should be placed earlier in the tree with a reaction wheel. Then the current Stayputnik's location would have an SAS probe instead, maybe a Stayputnik Mk II or something.

Yep. That's more consistent.

... huh. I saw torque come up several times.

In any case, lack of SAS hasn't kept me from getting things into orbit, and in some cases, pretty cheaply too.

http://imgur.com/eZV1OpN.pnghttp://imgur.com/olcmUDX.png

Those are, respectively, my Kerbin and Mun satellite launch systems. Both work with a Tier 2 VAB and Launch Pad, and both will handle pretty much any early satellite contract. Neither have full SAS, merely torque, fins and gimballing engines. They're very responsive, and easy to keep on target if you use Fine Controls.

I don't think I'd use a Stayputnik with something much bigger, but these will serve me fine until I have enough money and science to unlock better spacecraft. No Kerbals neccesary.

Actually large rockets like this are much easier to control even without SAS, so that's a bad example.

The smaller the rocket the more it flips out even with fine control.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[sherkaner]

I very much like the Stayputnik as a simple early game option. I do agree that it should show up earlier in the tech tree however -- ideally right at the start of the game where it makes the most sense as an alternative to endangering Kerbals on high-risk test missions. But I've used it for a lot of stuff, like the orbital rescue mission, as someone else said.

[Anquietas314]

... huh. I saw torque come up several times.

Well yes, but there are plenty of other probe cores that have SAS, but no torque; nobody (that I've seen) has mentioned those (let's not). If the Stayputnik had torque but no SAS I think people might be happier, but it has neither. It's certainly large enough to accommodate a reaction wheel internally, if a little on the light side, but you could probably chalk that up to space-inefficient electronics like we had back in the 50s and 60s.

[RedDwarfIV]

Actually large rockets like this are much easier to control even without SAS, so that's a bad example.

The smaller the rocket the more it flips out even with fine control.

... alright, that makes sense. I do have more trouble controlling the satellite than the whole rocket.

I should launch a small rocket with Stayputnik control to remind myself how it feels.

[thereaverofdarkness]

I'd make a no SAS no torque no thrust vectoring challenge, but it would be too easy. Maybe I should add no RCS and no control surfaces. That might actually make it challenging!

Or maybe I'll just be lazy and go fly my own probe with only control surfaces and RCS for attitude control. It's really not that difficult once you get the hang of it. Reaction wheels are training wheels, thrust vectoring is handrails, and SAS is having someone hold your hand while you do it.

[Wanderfound]

... alright, that makes sense. I do have more trouble controlling the satellite than the whole rocket.

I should launch a small rocket with Stayputnik control to remind myself how it feels.

Fortunately, smaller rockets are easier to spin. Get up some rifle-bullet grade RPM and it's all smooth.

[RainDreamer]

How about changing the way probes upgrades works?

First, remove all SAS features on all probes. Stay with me.

Secondly, place those SAS upgrade along with the tech trees in form of chips.

Thirdly, give all probes chip slots. The more expensive/high tech the probe, the more chip slots you have. The stayputnik will only have 1 chip slot. But that would be enough for a stability chip. If people think they might need the other functions however, they can switch that around.

[thereaverofdarkness]

^ I can get behind this suggestion right here.

[Wanderfound]

How about changing the way probes upgrades works?

First, remove all SAS features on all probes. Stay with me.

Secondly, place those SAS upgrade along with the tech trees in form of chips.

Thirdly, give all probes chip slots. The more expensive/high tech the probe, the more chip slots you have. The stayputnik will only have 1 chip slot. But that would be enough for a stability chip. If people think they might need the other functions however, they can switch that around.

I'm happy with things as is, but I wouldn't object to this.

[Wallygator]

Works for me. I like it.

Only one question... Could a crewman carry along a selection of chip sets and swap out as required?

[MarvinKitFox]

The question is not "Can it be done" it's "Does anyone want to?". The part will fall into obscurity and be nothing but a waste of memory space because people will likely rather just wait for the next one.

You waste a lot of resources trying to keep your rockets stable without SAS.

A well-designed rocket is quite manageable under stayputnik.

You might as well complain about stick-shift gear on cars.

Yes, automatic is easier. But if all you have is a stick, you make it work!

[King Arthur]

Given that stock parts are no different from mod parts, anyone can modify stock parts to their liking easily if they're unsatisfied. One would think that simply going in and adding the appropriate code for SAS and/or reaction wheels to the part CFGs would be far preferable to endless opinion-flinging over the course of 7 pages and counting.

[eddiew]

For those who find the Stayputnik unusable, Lack Luster Labs' SXT has an early access probe core with SAS. Very little torque, needs a reaction wheel (or command pod) to do much, but it's an option if you're struggling with stock probe cores

[thereaverofdarkness]

Given that stock parts are no different from mod parts, anyone can modify stock parts to their liking easily if they're unsatisfied. One would think that simply going in and adding the appropriate code for SAS and/or reaction wheels to the part CFGs would be far preferable to endless opinion-flinging over the course of 7 pages and counting.

I very much disagree with what you have said. There is a very large and significant difference between stock parts and mod parts: everyone has the stock parts. Some people prefer to play stock because it feels right, some can't get specific mod parts because they conflict with already installed mods, and some have trouble with or don't want to deal with mods.

I disagree very much with the assertion that there is anything wrong with the Stayputnik, but I will never suggest simply having the ability to edit it by hand as a solution. That is not, and never was, anything more than a band-aid fix. This game is in beta and so we are past the point of telling people to fix their own problems with the game. If the majority view was that the Stayputnik wasn't useful, then it would be quite reasonable for Squad to alter it in some way IN THE STOCK GAME.

[Francois424]

How about changing the way probes upgrades works?

First, remove all SAS features on all probes. Stay with me.

Secondly, place those SAS upgrade along with the tech trees in form of chips.

Thirdly, give all probes chip slots. The more expensive/high tech the probe, the more chip slots you have. The stayputnik will only have 1 chip slot. But that would be enough for a stability chip. If people think they might need the other functions however, they can switch that around.

Not a bad Idea.

I would forego slot level myself, so if I love the Stayputnik and want to put a level 4 chip in it, why not ? I need to unlock it from the tree first anyways.

(as in chip level = pilot level = Even low-level parts can be end-game mission stuff if you want them to)

[thereaverofdarkness]

^ That's basically how my suggestion works (posted here and there): with tweakables you just choose how advanced you want your probe to be (within current tech limitations) and the price is adjusted accordingly.

[King Arthur]

I very much disagree with what you have said. There is a very large and significant difference between stock parts and mod parts: everyone has the stock parts. Some people prefer to play stock because it feels right, some can't get specific mod parts because they conflict with already installed mods, and some have trouble with or don't want to deal with mods.

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleReactionWheel

	PitchTorque = 0.3
	YawTorque = 0.3
	RollTorque = 0.3

	RESOURCE
	{
		name = ElectricCharge
		rate = 0.015
	}
}

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleSAS
}

That is all you need to place into your Stayputnik CFG to have SAS and reaction wheels, one would think that simply adding that in and getting back to playing the game would be preferable to 7 8+ pages of opinion flinging.

Also, you completely misunderstood what I meant when I said that stock parts are no different from mod parts. Stock parts are no different from mod parts in that they both are stored inside part CFG files and model/texture files. Anyone can modify any stock part to their liking at any time, which renders a large part of this thread pointless; if you don't like how a part works you have the ability change it yourself.

Edited December 24, 2014 by King Arthur
dem pages

[thereaverofdarkness]

if you don't like how a part works you have the ability change it yourself.

You seem to be of a different opinion than many of us on the importance of stock. Anyone can mod the game but playing with what the developers intended is special. It means you're playing by the same rules as everyone else who is playing stock. If you can't understand why that's important, than just agree to disagree and let the OP have his opinion. I don't share that opinion but I'll fight tooth and nail for his right to have it, and I am of the firm stance that his opinion is both valid and reasonable.

[King Arthur]

Anyone can mod the game but playing with what the developers intended is special.

No it is not. KSP is a single player game (barring things like DMP), the only rules you play by are the rules you lay down and follow.

It means you're playing by the same rules as everyone else who is playing stock.

KSP is a single player game and thus "playing by the same rules" is completely and utterly irrelevant because you are only playing with and by yourself.

If you can't understand why that's important, than just agree to disagree and let the OP have his opinion. I don't share that opinion but I'll fight tooth and nail for his right to have it, and I am of the firm stance that his opinion is both valid and reasonable.

The opinion of the OP was that the Stayputnik is useless without SAS, he is more than welcome to this opinion and I don't actually disagree with his evaluation. What is not worth anyone's time is flinging personal opinions about whether the Stayputnik is useless or not at each other for an inevitable zero-sum game that has so far resulted in 8 pages of chatter with nothing constructive coming out.

If someone feels that a certain part (stock or mod, doesn't matter) is useless or otherwise somehow "wrong" they have the ability to completely fix or change that to make the part function in their image for their game. Personally, rather than complain about the lack of bigger landing gears in the 0.90 update I just took the stock landing gear we've always had and made a double-sized copy so I can start having fun with the Mk3 parts; rather than being annoyed at the placeholder IVA for the Mk3 cockpit I instead went and linked the B9 HL cockpit's IVA so I can have more fun.

I thus restate: If you don't like how a part works you have the ability to change it yourself.

Furthermore: You are under no obligation to play by anyone's rules but your own.

And lastly: Nobody* has any right to push their playstyle over someone else's playstyle.

*The only exception to here is Squad since KSP is their game, but at the same time we have no obligation to follow the gameplay mechanics they have set forth.

Edited December 24, 2014 by King Arthur
Typo fix.

[thereaverofdarkness]

KSP is a single player game and thus "playing by the same rules" is completely and utterly irrelevant because you are only playing with and by yourself.

If you truly believe this, then what are you doing on the forums?

[CaptainKipard]

I kinda of agree with thereaverofdarkness. As fun as modding is, modding things yourself can take a little bit of fun out of it. I can't explain it. It's like if you know the rules of the game beforehand, you know what's going to happen, and it breaks immersion.

Here's a good example.

Before difficulty was implemented people would manually edit their save files to disallow quicksaving and other things, making the game permadeath/ironman. I can only speak for myself but doing this never made the game as immersive as Faster Than Light, which is permadeath by design. I actually feel emotions when something bad happens in FTL, but not in KSP, because I know I can always change the game.

Edited December 24, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard