Is this why the SRV seems to spin out so badly?

For ages I've been frustrated by the SRV slipping out and ending up backwards, but I've never really given it much thought until today.

Finally, I fiddled around with it, and have a plausible explanation for why it acts so funny.

In order to make the SRV work on low-g planets, they needed to invert the way real tires work. IRL, tires give you thrust forwards, yes, but also thrust UP, as I've tried to show in this basic diagram:

1644867993107.png


Now, the trouble with this is, if you have significant thrust, it would tend to throw the vehicle into the air repeatedly as you accelerate, with the thrust overcoming the tenuous pull of gravity. The only solution is to instead change the wheel to function more like THIS:

1644868092694.png

This has benefits; the SRV will cling to surfaces like crazy, even things far steeper than you'd expect, and the 'going airborne' problem is solved.

But there's a problem with this, and that problem is turning. In a normal car, as you turn, your front wheels pull themselves up on top of the approaching ground, while the back tires tend to skid through it, pulling the rear wheels down and stabilizing the vehicle.

But if your front wheels are instead pulling themselves DOWN into the ground, then acceleration won't stabilize the vehicle, but instead DE-stabilize it! Every bit of additional force pulls the wheels further into the ground, essentially acting like a giant brake. This causes the vehicle to lean forwards, into the turn, and the more it leans, the more those wheels bind with the ground, and the faster the vehicle turns!

This inevitably results in the SRV constantly and unavoidably spinning 180 degrees, until forward thrust stops digging its own face literally into the dirt.

This also explains why the hand brake doesn't cause this instability; it STOPS all thrust to the wheels, so rather than digging in and spinning crazily and out of control, it simply skids gracefully to a halt.

Now, I'm no physics expert, so I have no idea how to actually fix this. But doesn't this seem like a plausible reason why SRVs are so unstable?

If this IS the case, then perhaps there could be a way to prevent this from happening so much? Maybe a toggle to allow us to stop the SRV from pushing us into the ground? I'd happily learn to deal with an SRV that tends to launch itself into the air, if it means less going out of control and spinning around!
 
The SRV does have an "artificial" downforce applied for low-G planets. (You can see little thrusters on the wheels to represent this). It's fixed, though, and effectively ends up just being extra gravity and is not dependent on how fast your wheels are spinning or whether they even touch the ground. (You'll notice that if you shoot rocks that fly up, and boost up yourself, you'll often fall through the air faster then they do).

I think the spin-proneness have more to do with where the center of mass is located, and also the fact that it's got 6 8 wheels and the back ones turn too (which is great for turn radius at low speeds, but disastrous for maintaining control at high speed).

I'd happily learn to deal with an SRV that tends to launch itself into the air, if it means less going out of control and spinning around!

It is possible to learn this power. In low-G environments, you're better off just bouncing along the terrain rather than trying to stick to the surface.
 
Last edited:
While that might be true, but I doubt it, the wheel thrusters are meant to keep the wheels on the ground, unless you're using the frame thrusters to fly that is.

I think the more likely cause of spinning out of control is that the Scarab had to be light enough for practical use on heavier gravity bodies and so, on lower gravity bodies, it might be too light (too little mass).
 
The only solution I've found is that by jumping in the turret, turning it 180 and driving backwards seems to be more stable than going forwards....

Bill

EEkk another Kerbal!
 
This seems probable. This issue was actually fixed in the Odyssey alpha but the racing subset of the community got their hands on it via a training mission and threw enough of a stink to get it reversed. Long story short it’s unlikely that frontier will actually fix the unreasonably squirrely handling that for some reason exists on an 8 wheeled all terrain vehicle that has wheel mounted downward thrusters to enforce traction at low g. 🙃
 
IME the SRV spins out because:

A) it has double the tyres/grip on the front steering axle compared to the rear
B) a steering rear axle that destabilises the rear at speed
C) gets driven at high speed where large steering inputs exacerbate the high grip front axle and loose rear.

tbh I don't think the SRV driving model actually simulates understeer/push at all, and that alone is enough to make spinning out the driving model's only option to simulate exceeding available grip. Whether the tyres are in the air or not is kinda secondary to that imo.
 
Flying the SRV is fine and all, but when I touch down, I inevitably catch the forward side wheels, they dig in, and I end up flying backwards, which is just as annoying.

It seems to me you could solve this problem by just having a toggle for the downwards thrusters. If I want to deactivate them, give me that choice.
 
Last edited:
Flying the SRV is fine and all, but when I touch down, I inevitably catch the forward side wheels, they dig in, and I end up flying backwards, which is just as annoying.

It seems to me you could solve this problem by just having a toggle for the downwards thrusters. If I want to deactivate them, give me that choice.

The wheel thrusters switch off while the upthrust is active. You might have more success with gentle landings by reserving some thrust for use as you approach the ground.
 
Tires IRL, creation friction with the surface they are on, and varying surfaces will vary the friction, also known as coefficient of friction. Friction is what keeps tires adhered to the surface. The less surface, or the more materials under a tire that cannot bind together, i.e., gravel, dirt, etc., cause a lower coefficient of friction, thus no adhesion to the surface.

Standard roadway CoF is .07, whereas gravel/dirt would be much lower. Okay, the accident investigator is coming back out in me... must... stop... facts.

Regardless of the surface, accelerating typically stabilizes the vehicle. The SRV, by contrast, becomes LESS stable while under acceleration.
 
Flying the SRV is fine and all, but when I touch down, I inevitably catch the forward side wheels, they dig in, and I end up flying backwards, which is just as annoying.

It seems to me you could solve this problem by just having a toggle for the downwards thrusters. If I want to deactivate them, give me that choice.

The gameplay reason for this is that below a certain level of gravity, you'd never have to drive at all and could just "lunar lander" your way around. The current tuning of downthrust (extra gravity) vs boost is such that no matter the level of gravity, you always need to drive (and always can drive, it functions the opposite way in high G to keep things workable).
 
Said this before but it might be worth repeating....

RFactor is/was considered one of the best driving games.
A few years ago I was involved with a project to create a kart-racing mod' for RFactor.
We modelled a bunch of kart tracks and karts to drive on them.
We modelled the karts accurately, with a weight of around 150kg (including driver) and around 30hp engines

The results were terrible!
The karts were almost uncontrollable and would fly up into the air whenever they hit a kerb or bump.
In the end, we had to "fiddle" a bunch of the stat's, by making the karts much heavier, giving them artificial downforce and then giving them more powerful engines so they'd perform realistically.

Fundamental problem was, the physics engine in RFactor was designed to work with objects weighing up to several tonnes and with over a thousand horsepower so our little karts right at the (lower) "edge of the envelope" of what RFactor was capable of handling.

I suspect there's something similar going on with the SRV in ED.

We already KNOW gravity doesn't work "properly" in ED - you, and your SRV, fall at a different rate to airborne mat's.
If you don't know why this is significant, here's a video by a guy named David Scott demonstrating the principle.


Anyway, point being that ED's physics engine is designed to work with vehicles that weigh hundreds/thousands of tonnes and have massive thrust.
A teensy little SRV is right down at the bottom edge of the envelope so it's likely FDev have applied various arbitrary "fiddle factors" to it (weight, grip, downforce etc) so it handles the way they want it to rather than handling "realistically".

That being the case, there's not much point to trying to figure out why it handles the way it does because, quite simply, it just handles how FDev want it to handle.
 
Said this before but it might be worth repeating....

RFactor is/was considered one of the best driving games.
A few years ago I was involved with a project to create a kart-racing mod' for RFactor.
We modelled a bunch of kart tracks and karts to drive on them.
We modelled the karts accurately, with a weight of around 150kg (including driver) and around 30hp engines

The results were terrible!
The karts were almost uncontrollable and would fly up into the air whenever they hit a kerb or bump.
In the end, we had to "fiddle" a bunch of the stat's, by making the karts much heavier, giving them artificial downforce and then giving them more powerful engines so they'd perform realistically.

Fundamental problem was, the physics engine in RFactor was designed to work with objects weighing up to several tonnes and with over a thousand horsepower so our little karts right at the (lower) "edge of the envelope" of what RFactor was capable of handling.

I suspect there's something similar going on with the SRV in ED.

We already KNOW gravity doesn't work "properly" in ED - you, and your SRV, fall at a different rate to airborne mat's.
If you don't know why this is significant, here's a video by a guy named David Scott demonstrating the principle.


Anyway, point being that ED's physics engine is designed to work with vehicles that weigh hundreds/thousands of tonnes and have massive thrust.
A teensy little SRV is right down at the bottom edge of the envelope so it's likely FDev have applied various arbitrary "fiddle factors" to it (weight, grip, downforce etc) so it handles the way they want it to rather than handling "realistically".

That being the case, there's not much point to trying to figure out why it handles the way it does because, quite simply, it just handles how FDev want it to handle.

True to a certain extent, but knowing why it does what it does helps players figure out how to adjust their behavior to achieve the best results.

For example, knowing this has resulted in me landing with zero throttle, and only accelerating once all four wheels are on the ground. This has dramatically reduced the chances of me spinning out and ending up flying through the air backwards.

So it's not entirely useless knowledge. Your insight into the coding hurdles is certainly interesting, though!
 
The fact that the SRV loves to spin 180 in the direction of motion and handles better when driving backwards has nothing to do with its giant caboose, no sir.
 
IME the SRV spins out because:

A) it has double the tyres/grip on the front steering axle compared to the rear
B) a steering rear axle that destabilises the rear at speed
C) gets driven at high speed where large steering inputs exacerbate the high grip front axle and loose rear.

This, for the most part.

Especially with regard to B), there's a reason why real life rear-steering vehicles have the rear axle turning in the opposite direction of the front one at low speed, same as the SRV does, but turning in the same direction at high speed. It's required to give stability past a certain velocity and avoid just the kind of situations the SRV tends to spin into.

And also, as for C), playing sitting in front of a monitor hardly helps us to realize we are actually driving a thing the size of a truck, with truck-sized, off-road treaded wheels, at 130 km/h over heavily rugged terrains, and generally at a fraction of Earth's gravity. And the thing has rear wheels steering in the opposite direction of front ones even at max speed.

The easiest solution to avoid spinning is just driving the vehicle at the sensible speeds we (or most of us, at least :LOL: ) would instinctively drive it if we were actually there, sitting in a dump truck with Tesla-like torque rolling over pebbles, bumps and dips that would break a Dakar rally car in half.
 
This, for the most part.

Especially with regard to B), there's a reason why real life rear-steering vehicles have the rear axle turning in the opposite direction of the front one at low speed, same as the SRV does, but turning in the same direction at high speed. It's required to give stability past a certain velocity and avoid just the kind of situations the SRV tends to spin into.

And also, as for C), playing sitting in front of a monitor hardly helps us to realize we are actually driving a thing the size of a truck, with truck-sized, off-road treaded wheels, at 130 km/h over heavily rugged terrains, and generally at a fraction of Earth's gravity. And the thing has rear wheels steering in the opposite direction of front ones even at max speed.

The easiest solution to avoid spinning is just driving the vehicle at the sensible speeds we (or most of us, at least :LOL: ) would instinctively drive it if we were actually there, sitting in a dump truck with Tesla-like torque rolling over pebbles, bumps and dips that would break a Dakar rally car in half.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrYRjV1ijvA
 
You're giving FD way too much credit. I'm not a game developer or professional racecar driver but I think it's extremely suspicious that we always spin out exactly 180 degrees, every time.
 
Back
Top Bottom