OKTO2 Probe has no torque!

[JayKay]

I had heard about the lack of SAS in the Stayputnik when I was doing my first satellite contract, so I put the in-line reaction wheel on it to compensate. Unfortunately, the in-line wheel does not count as SAS, so there was still no stability from that. I solved the problem in a NASA way. When I had to do a burn, I pointed the ship as close to the node on the nav-ball as I could and then I spun the ship on its axis. I think space programs call this "spin stabilized" and used it on a few space probes. Though the gyroscopic action isn't quite like in reality, it did allow me to accomplish the burns when I needed, and I completed the contract.

Edited January 1, 2015 by JayKay

[ArmchairGravy]

This finally gave me a use for the small SAS module. Both together weigh less than an octo, so I have no gripes.

[raygundan]

This finally gave me a use for the small SAS module. Both together weigh less than an octo, so I have no gripes.

Of course, both together weigh about double what a single OKTO2 weighed. This has some rather beefy ramifications-- it will increase the size of a well-optimized Eve ascent vehicle by something like 20%.

I'm sure I'll get over it, but the old one was the central piece around which a lot of very complicated vehicles got built, since it was the lightest source of control and torque. And since the lightest replacement in .90 is so much heavier, the designs aren't something you can just rework a little and use-- they'll need to be fully rebuilt around the heavier core with substantially increased fuel and thrust.

RIP, 12-ton Eve lander. You'll join my self-flipping rover in the list of nostalgic designs that no longer work and can't be fixed.

On the plus side... building is fun. So I'll have an excuse to build a 15-ton Eve lander!

But if I beg for anything from Squad... it would be to put just the tiiiiiiniest bit of torque back in the Okto2. It can be a tenth of what it was to give some balance and create reasons to use the other parts, but with nothing at all, a huge number of neato vehicles will just stop working. Sometimes, this can't be helped-- but here, I don't think there's a strong reason to not include a tiny bit of torque for compatibility with years of old designs.

- - - Updated - - -

Aaaaactually, now that I've vented for a moment, I think there's at a partial workaround. It's ugly, but it will at least salvage vehicles built around the combination of the old Okto2 and a Command Seat.

Adding the small reaction wheel to a vehicle using the Okto2 and a command seat adds .05t, but removing the chair and replacing it with a short section of ladder (all of which are currently massless) removes .05t. Yes, your kerbal is now riding a rocket while hanging onto a ladder, but this will at least salvage older designs-- and the coincidentally perfect one-for-one trade means nothing else will change.

I can't think of a stock solution for vehicles without a seat, though-- tiny, highly-optimized unmanned probes will still have to be reworked, I think. Unless somebody else can think of a quick-and-dirty way to give a probe control and reaction wheels for .04t, those designs will remain on the scrapheap in .90. Also, if you were *already* using an Okto2 with a ladder for super-ultra-minimal-weight, you're still boned.

Edited January 30, 2015 by raygundan

[Technical Ben]

I have OKTO2 probe cores on several dozen ships spread around the Kerbol system, so this change made me very sad.

Come on, Squad! Give the OKTO2 at least a small amount of torque so that all my smal probes can operate again. Pretty please.

I may mod it back in just for my older saves, and just "turn off torque" for when playing "vanilla" style 0.90 and above.

[viktor19]

So I launch this new satellite to Duna and all is well, until I separate the satellite so it can adjust its orbit on its own LV-1 engine, only to realize the OKTO2 Probe (the flat one) has no embedded reaction wheels now!

Be mindful when building probes and using the OKTO2. It's a tad difficult to adjust orbits without being able to turn...

I have also discovered this while traveling at 3000 m/s... :/

[StrandedonEarth]

I remembered this the hard way too, after separating a satellite and preparing to place it in the proper orbit. Luckily I had engine gimbal but it was still pretty tricking using thrust to rotate without messing up the orbit parameters too much. it took many more maneuvers than it should have.

[Captain Vlad]

I discovered this when I checked a long-since launched (I don't do multi-day time skips much...) Duna probe like, two days ago and initially thought it was a bug. Thus ended my first-ever interplanetary mission. Buuuuuutttt...I did get a 400,000 meter fly by and some cool screenies as my probe shot by at many km per second, so it's all good.

[panzer1b]

It, alongside the cube are my 2 primary cores i use for larger ships. For a ship thats too large to gain any use out of any probe cores reaction wheels, and used the medium or large dedicated ones, its best core.

Also, somewhat unrelated, but why do ALL cores as well as every single kerbal allow all the autopilot modes?

Is this a career only limitation or does it work in sandbox too but its bugged for me?

[Astrofox]

I personally agree about the QBE having reaction wheels, considering that there are actual spacecraft that have reaction wheels and are 10*10*20 centimeters. This therefore makes the QBE look very terrible, and more like the "Shut up and take my money" meme, considering that it is extremely expensive and is 550 science for just that part and a one or two more if you play with stock.

[isso]

What I really dislike is, that there is no usefull solution to combine the new navigation skillz of the okto2 with a scaled amount of torque.

If i combine a okto2 and a tiny reaction wheel in a 1000 kg probe, there is so much torque per weight, that the SAS control circuit gets overwhelmed and is unable to aim reliable. The torque of the HECS core is only ~5% of a tiny reation wheel which is perfectly balanced.

So if I want octo2 navskillz with balanced torque, i have to pay 140kg for octo2+HECS, instead of the 90kg (okto2 + tiny irw), or the prenerf 40kg for okto2 only.

And all solutions are unsymmetric!!!!!!!!

I think they have to add a new tiny^2 irw with maybe 10% torque of the tiny irw and ~half the mass of it.

Or did they reworked the techtree? I am still capped at 500 science, and grinding for the 6 000 000 funds to upgrade science.

[Renegrade]

I think they have to add a new tiny^2 irw with maybe 10% torque of the tiny irw and ~half the mass of it.

Why not just nerf the existing one like that? It looks really silly in a 1.25m stack, so might as well tune it for 0.625m, right? When I'm playing a pure stock game, I never use that wheel. The pods have enough torque on their own (and if they didn't, I'd use the 1.25m wheel), and it has too much power for a 0.625m probe, so it has no use as is..

[Wabbit]

This is why I put a small inline reaction wheel on all my probes... It's way more than enough when your dry mass is about .2 tons.

[isso]

To modify the existing one is also okay.

But can anyone reproduce the SAS problems I described above?

[Renegrade]

But can anyone reproduce the SAS problems I described above?

Yep! The new directional hold modes are all crazy-broken if you have too much torque from reaction wheels, or if you don't have any wheels at all (ex. a QUBE with RCS only). Only the basic mode seems to work well, and even that bugged out on me earlier today (just flat out refused to work on a probe even though it had an OCTO).

[isso]

well, then it is an controler problem