The stock parts that you never ever ever use/hate.

[regex]

I mod out all the tanks and wings because they should be procedural (seriously, the stock wing and tank system is incredibly dumb). Never use the Poodle because it's ugly as sin.

Haven't played this game stock in such a long time that I can't remember any other parts I don't use...

[Starhawk]

The original swept wings are among the most efficient lifting parts in stock.

It might be shorter to list the parts I use rather than the ones I don't use. Among the stuff I don't use is engine nacelle/air intake parts, any nosecone (though that's about to change), most adapters (that too), shielded solar panels (that too, I hope), the RoveMate, and I've never found a use for the Clamp-o-tron Jr. or the huge rover wheels.

Happy landings!

[Tweety]

I don't hate it, but I also never use it. It's kind of an odd part.

Ok, hate was a bit strong, but I have never been able to use it in any design I have thought of.

I will rephrase.

Tweety

[Deutherius]

My only problem with the Not-Rockomax micro thingy is that it usually doesn't work - most of the time all the nodes just disappear after placing, making it useless. I would see some uses for it if it worked consistently.

Apart from that... I believe that I have used all of the stock parts at least a few times, be it for looks or function. And I harbour no hard feelings to any of them.

[WWEdeadman]

I never EVER use the:

- bigger antennas, cause there is no reason to use something bigger than the little thingy in stock. (I only use other antennas in RemoteTech.)

- The Hydraulic Manifold (?) decoupler, cause apart from exploding a lot without fixes, it also doesn't give a lot of room to the debris to fall away, unlike the middle class radial decouplers, that look like their mounted on struts. (I suck at remembering names for those things)

- the little black LV-1 and LV-1R engines. If I wanna use small radials I use the rockomax 22-77.

- The smallest rover wheels, cause I don't ever do small rovers...

- this: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Probodobodyne_RoveMate

- The structural fuselage

- The tail connector

- The structural pylon decouples

That's about it. I also very rarely use the Ion engine, because I don't have time for ridiculously long burns. The LV-N already tests my patience on that.

[colonel0sanders]

Kerbal is a game with a lot of parts that everyone uses much more than they do other. What is your least used part?

Personally I never use the Probodobodyne QBE and the NCS Adapter.

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Probodobodyne_QBE

My pet hate part is the FL-A10 Adapter and I don't know why. I just hate that part. I prefer to stack my 0.625m probe on top of 1.25m rockets than add that thing to my part count!

I use the QBE a bunch in career, it's nice because it is light and low tech enough to get early. It makes for a great low-cost sat core: this one costs under 4000 and has a dv of nearly 6500 m/s.

[Madrias]

The Full-Size OKTO and the Poodle are two big ones I don't ever use.

The OKTO just... Well, it doesn't fit anything. The Poodle doesn't do enough for what it weighs.

A part I outright hate... Probably the Gigantor Solar Array. I have only once used it, will never use it again, and outright hate it with a passion. It's big, bulky, chews up a massive amount of room, and it's stupidly fragile. I'll make my own arrays out of structural plates covered in OX-STAT panels. Sure, they weigh more, but one, they don't break if a Kerbal farts by them, and two, they can be used in atmosphere without breaking into pieces.

Parts I use a ton of though: QBE (awesome Laythe/Eve Drone body right there, just add wings and a tail, and a parachute), Basic Jet Engine (I don't use many Turbojets, but that's partly due to mods.), and OX-STAT panels.

[cantab]

I find most of the parts have their niches. I don't think I've used either inline docking port, but that's just because I've yet to make a spaceplane that I wanted one on. But the NCS adapter, now that I don't think I have ever used or will ever use. If I need a nosecone the 1.25 m one is far lighter. If I need a 1.25-.625m adapter I have alternatives I prefer.

On the Poodle, I think I've used it but I rarely find much cause for it. The problem is that for the obvious use case, an Apollo-esque orbiter with the 3-Kerbal pod and a suitable sized fuel tank, a 909 or an LV-N provides ample thrust.

As for the part I hate, the 48-7S. That overpowered little blighter completely messes up the balance of the small engines, I want to see Squad give it a beating with the nerf bat it will never forget in 1.0.

[sgt_flyer]

As i mostly do replicas, every part can be of use from an aesthetic or mechanical (in the case of my custom launchpads) viewpoint

Yet, on purely rockets, i tend to avoid reaction wheels and mostly stick with engine gimbals / rcs arangements for attitude control (even on uppertages) they are a whee bit OP when you're able to use them to steer a rocket while in atmosphere

Edited April 14, 2015 by sgt_flyer

[wolfedg]

The Full-Size OKTO and the Poodle are two big ones I don't ever use.

The OKTO just... Well, it doesn't fit anything. The Poodle doesn't do enough for what it weighs.

A part I outright hate... Probably the Gigantor Solar Array. I have only once used it, will never use it again, and outright hate it with a passion. It's big, bulky, chews up a massive amount of room, and it's stupidly fragile. I'll make my own arrays out of structural plates covered in OX-STAT panels. Sure, they weigh more, but one, they don't break if a Kerbal farts by them, and two, they can be used in atmosphere without breaking into pieces.

Parts I use a ton of though: QBE (awesome Laythe/Eve Drone body right there, just add wings and a tail, and a parachute), Basic Jet Engine (I don't use many Turbojets, but that's partly due to mods.), and OX-STAT panels.

The gigantor solar arras work great and look awesome if you use them properly. They were never intended for use in an atmosphere while moving, and you also shouldn't have them deployed if you are putting a lot of thrust behind them in space like with a mainsail on a moderately small craft.

[Renegrade]

The Mk1 Inline Cockpit is ugly and impractical (without mods. But with mods it becomes more functional)

The Structural Fuselage is useless. Hey, If I'm adding you to the part count, you better have some fuel!!

After they added the Structural Intake, I stopped using the XM-G50 Radial Air intake, because it's plain ugly!!

The Mk1 inline is kinda ugly and awkward looking (I think it's one of the few parts that's never been overhauled appearance-wise in aero), but it's the only way in stock to put an inline cockpit in a 1.25m craft that doesn't look idiotic. It also gives you a mounting place in NEAR/FAR for the high efficiency intakes (a forward facing 1.25m node) that's inline with the main stack. The structural fuselage is good for lightweight plane designs (stock or otherwise) as it's significantly lighter than the 1.25m fuel tanks (0.1 vs 0.15). Lightweight, short/medium range science planes don't need to carry more than a half-tank of liquid fuel due to #lol_15x_jet_isp_flaw.

The structural intakes can find some use in NEAR/FAR, but in stock, you really, REALLY don't want to use those. In stock, drag is basically mass*Cd, and the Cd of ALL intakes climbs up to 2.0 eventually, so you want the lightest possible intakes, which means XM-G50s, radials, rams, and shock cones.

I used to never use the QBE, but now most of my command pods get one clipped in for the SAS if there's no pilot.

Yeah, I use the QBE that way too - it provides SAS, but also remote control of the craft in the event of NO kerbals at all. Which can be quite handy...like in super-lightweight rescue orbiters.

Hmmm. What else? In stock career, I never bother with the Mystery Goo or Science Jrs because they're heavy, not easily rerunnable, and science is so easy to get from contracts that it's not worth the bother. It's barely worth the bother to bring the lighter and more usable experiments!

It's barely worth the bother to run science at all with #lolcontractscience pouring in

I think reaction wheels should be added to the probe cores again, only starting with very, very little torque on the Stayputnik, a little more on the next, and so on.

Absolutely not! Reaction wheels need to be removed from more things. They're massively fake anyways.

The Poodle doesn't do enough for what it weighs.

It's basically an LV-909 with superior TWR - if you're using more than three LV-909s in a cluster, a poodle would do a better job. It's an ugly thing though.

A part I outright hate... Probably the Gigantor Solar Array.

It's actually completely useless in stock. The only thing with enough power drain to justify it is multi-ion drive craft, and the smaller swiveling panels have a better energy/mass ratio, and if you can get away with it, the ox-stat even more so (#lolmassless). Even my mobile research lab stations only ever need a pair of OX-4L 1x6s and a pair of Z-400 batteries. I usually put three pairs of OX-4L 1x6s, and leave two of the pairs closed as backup, in the event some kerbal blunders through 'em.

[SemiaCloud]

I never use those gigantic rover wheels.

[panzer1b]

Ive at least given every single part a good try, but there are many many many parts i just never touch.

1st of all in terms of the engines, there are many i dont use for the sole purpose that they are redundant or difficult to work with. For example i dont use the radial engines as they dont look good and their ISP/TWR is usually inferior to other engines. While im not going to say these engines are bad, its just that my building style finds no useage for them (i prefer sleek sci-fi craft, without a crapton of engines strapped onto the side as an aftrthought). Another few engines i avoid are ions (unless they add larger ions with larger xenon tanks, for craft that are large and or heavy, the small ions are just not practical at all). Not to mention i tend to use nukes for every single interplanetary job as unless ur craft is very tiny (i dont really use anything below 10t), or excessively heavy (above 300t), there is just no ther engines that makes any logical sense to use. And as for liftoff/landing, i tend to stick to the 48-7s as a lander engine, and usually use the nasa engines for takeoff as i prefer low part count even if i can technically get a more efficient rocket sometimes using smaller engines. Hopefully the 1.0 rebalance will at the bare minimum make it so there arent like 2-3 go to engines for 90% of tasks (nukes, kr-2l, 48-7s, a few others too).

Then i tend to avoid all radian decouplers but the tt-70 and tt-38 (the others are heavier and dont offer any advantages when you need to strut the thing anyways). I dont use stack separators (except for kinetic missile mounts) either as they are heavier and 99% of teh time im using them to jettision stages. For the few cases where i want to split a ship and use both halves, i just use docking ports.

I avoid monoprop systems, and stick to reaction wheels/vernors. While mono was essential back then, i find that its better to bring 5 vernor thrusters (i dint need 1 to push me forward as the main engine does it), one for stopping, and 4 for sideways movement, rotation handled by reaction wheels. While i do still use some monoprop, they are limited to craft below 15t, as heavy stuff requires too much part count to pull off anything but insanely long maneuvers.

I avoid almost all probe cores but the QBE (its lightest, and has the only feature i actually care about, being stability assist, if i absolutely need the full autopilot ill grab one of the circular parts), and while i dont think "hate" is the proper term, i despise the sputnik sphere thing as its basically worthless with no stability assist, while i understand squad wanted to make it a "starter" core, its so bad that there is no use for it unless you are trying to mark debris as a probe (in which case the QBE is lighter and has same functionality here).

I tend to use one wheel for every single vehicle as well, the TR-2 ruggedized wheel, as its actually lighter and uses less energy then the classical rover styled wheel, not to mention it has better braking capabilities. Not that the other wheels are useless, its just that i rarely need a wheel smaller/larger then this one (i tend to make tanks, armored cars, ect, i dont really build any of teh so called moon rovers, its impossible to mount a cannon on such a lightweight thing and not have it break itself due to recoil).

I avoid cockpits that have unfinished interiors (well i have a mod for the inline cockpit), as i like to use IVAs, and its annoying to stare into black or terrible grafix. I also stay away from some cockpits as they make no sense from a mass/utility perspective, i mostly use the 1m to 2,5m pod with 3 kerbals for many larger craft, and either the MK1 inline or the MK-1 frontal cockpit or the MK-1 pod thing for aircrafts/smaller ships. I dont really use much of the rest as they are not very useful (occasionally use the cupola module when i want to have a very good view but thats about it).

I never use the 6 way adapters (the rocketmax thing and the non-rocketmax node), as they can be simulated by radial attachments with better strength (those adapters are notorious for failing and dont seem to accept symmetry).

Finally, i actually rarely if ever use batteries/solar panels, as i prefer the capability to have power 24/7 regardless of the planet's side or where in solar system i am. I know that solars are lighter and can be better in certain cases (needed for ion drives that i dont evcen use), and i prefer slapping on 2-4 RTGs and be able to more or less forget about power needs (usually the cockpit has enough power storage that i dont need any batteries).

Anyways, there are also many more parts i rarely if ever use, but this is some of the stuff thats on the top of my head, while i dont have anything against these parts (well i really dislike the sputnik core after they made it a joke without sas), there are too many parts right now that make other parts redundant and or pointless. There are also a few parts that i use sparingly as they look bad (some older parts, adapters, wings, ect), but thats more of a if im trying to get something to look perfect sort of issue.

Now these are just my opinions, im positive someone somewhere can find a good use for every one of the parts i stay away from, but for my specific playstyle, these parts are just rarely if ever needed for me.

Edited April 14, 2015 by panzer1b

[LABHOUSE]

Mk2 - MK3 adapters.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Engine Nacelle

LFB KR-1x2

Launch Escape System

Rockomax Brand Decoupler (Cause the separator is better)

Octagonal Strut

The Not-Rockomax Micronode

TVR-1180C Mk1 Stack Tri-Coupler

TVR-2160C Mk2 Stack Quad-Coupler

TVR-200L Stack Bi-Adapter

TVR-300L Stack Tri-Adapter

TVR-400L Stack Quad-Adapter

RoveMax Model XL3

Mobile Processing Lab MPL-LG-2

[tater]

I can't remember ever using any aircraft parts aside from once using the landing gear for a rover.

[Columbia]

The majority of the parts I use are just plain pointless, actually, and are only for aesthetics.

First off, the Gigantor Solar Array. (I have to admit, I use it a lot on replicas) Seriously, I'd rather clip tons of RTGs or carry tiny solar panels rather than this heavy beast. I can't count how many times my missions failed because of such frail-ness.

The Not-rockomax Micronode? Mmm.. I don't know what it's for.

For LV-909s, I only use it in career mode. I find the Poodle more appealing in terms of efficiency.

Being the Whackjob-influenced builder, I often build things the largest they can be (3.75mLanderMasterRace), so I don't use the Oscar-B and Round-8 Torodial Fuel tanks much.

[jarmund]

The size adapters. While I have to use them because of aerodynamics (I use FAR), I would really like them to hold some fuel.

[bakanando]

Since the 0.90 update with the new porkjet adapters I never use the structural adapters, I wish there were a 2.5m to 3.75m, and more slanted ones though. Also, since the same update I banished the Stayputnik for any new satellites.

[Technical Ben]

The Poddle. I want to use it, it's low profile and 2.5 size is rly handy. But everytime I use it and check the stats of my vessel bitter disapointment strikes again. I hate that thing. It has been wasting my time and goodwill so many times, just by making me redesign entire upper stages or landers after sheding a tear about theire crappy twr and delta-v stats. A week ago I couldn't help myself anymore and simply deleted that damn thing. Take that, engine that I won't miss!

Same. If Squad want to keep part counts down, why not delete this and keep the round 8.

[katateochi]

After quickly scanning the wiki parts list I realise I use pretty much most things. The only parts I never use are;

Radial Engine Body I prefer the Engine Nacelle. And the Rockomax HubMax Multi-Point Connector. Oh and anything ion related.

I guess also the TR-2C Stack Separator and TR-18D Stack Separator are infrequently used.

I'm very wary of the Octagonal Strut, it's done bad things to physics in the past and while it seems better now I still don't fully trust it. But it is a very useful shape.

[Steambirds]

I never use that stupid little rockomax engine that everybody loves so much. The fairings don't adapt to 1.25 meter for it which makes me sad.

[Hcube]

I never use that stupid little rockomax engine that everybody loves so much. The fairings don't adapt to 1.25 meter for it which makes me sad.

Well, you should because it is crazy OP ! (It will probably get nerfed in 1.0)

I also never use the Mk2 Inline cockpit because there is no Mk2 nosecone to put in front of it ! (If anyone know what to put in front of it to make it aerodynamically stable, or just look nice, let me know). Same goes for the Mk2 probe core...

[Whirligig Girl]

There's not a single part in the entire game that doesn't have a use for me. I almost never use the engine mount thing because of how creepy it is, however it can be useful for things like rover seats where you need to detach a command pod for the crew. And a lot of inventions that I haven't made depend on its springy nature.

[KerikBalm]

What is this creepy engine mount thing you speak of?