Is there a stock part you never actually use?

[iSilver]

I have (almost) used everything for experimental flights and only one part that is less useful: the Hydraulic Detachment Manifold decoupler. Most of my boosters or external tanks are not that big though.

[Fearless Son]

I have seen a lot of people "meh" about the Goliath, and while I do not use it much myself, I can see it being useful for setting up horizontal staged launch systems.  Like if you want to fly up to high altitude and speed before launching a probe cruise-missile style to orbit.  The Goliath's thrust should make it ideal at getting a large mass going quickly at altitude, if not necessarily achieving orbital speed on its own.  

[Sharpy]

52 minutes ago, Fearless Son said:

I have seen a lot of people "meh" about the Goliath, and while I do not use it much myself, I can see it being useful for setting up horizontal staged launch systems.  Like if you want to fly up to high altitude and speed before launching a probe cruise-missile style to orbit.  The Goliath's thrust should make it ideal at getting a large mass going quickly at altitude, if not necessarily achieving orbital speed on its own.  

Not in stock. You need FMRS for that, or by the time your missile reaches orbit, your aircraft will be deleted.

And IIRC it has a rather poor high altitude performance.

[septemberWaves]

I actually tend to find uses for all parts in the game - including modded ones. I don't think there's a single stock part that I never use. My least-used ones are probably some of the wing parts, the micronode, and the Twin Boar, but I still use them every so often. That being said, I anticipate using the Twin Boar a lot in the near future for some low-complexity boosters to attach to extremely large rockets, and I can see some suitable aesthetic uses for the micronode too (I've used it before for aesthetics but not commonly).

[Magzimum]

I got a couple that I don't use: 

• Mk3 monoprop tank - Just never need that much monoprop on Mk3 designs, unless they are huge motherships, in which case I can spam radial tanks everywhere next to the solar panels or so.
• Launch escape system - I use "revert to..." when shuff goes boom
• Fly-by-wire avionics hub - because I haven't understood what it does yet
• Stack-separators - they are heavier than the decouplers of a same size, and I don't see the point of them
• Rovemate - I get other (smaller, better) probe cores before this, and I can never figure out which way is the front with this thing

I'd be curious to hear if anyone disagrees, because as I mentioned above, a few of the decisions not to use a part come from lack of understanding.

I actually used that micronode on a few rovers where mass is not a restriction. 

[Ultimate Steve]

Okay, I'm going to go grab a bowl of chex mix and go through the list.

PODS - I use everything here at least a bit. Hecs2 and drone core are IMO the least useful of the high tech ones, but I still use them sometimes. the Stayputnik is the real useless one.

TANKS - I use everything here, but some less often than others.

RCS TANKS - Meh. Probably just the mk2 one.

I use the Xenon and Ore tanks.

ENGINES - Don't use Spider or Ant much. I actually really like the Puff, however. Found a few uses for it. You can literally stick one on a lander can and that can be a minmus lander. The 1.25m engines, especially T30, don't see much use after early career. I don't really use panther or Goliath.

I don't use the fly by wire system.

STRUCTURAL - Again, everything I've used at least once. I don't really use the multi-adapters that often. I don't use the hardpoint/pylon.

I don't use the inline or mk2 clamp-o-trons. Nor most of the intakes.

I don't use most of the radiators.

And that's about it, skipping odds and ends like the standard canard, wings, and the terrible starting wheels.

Oh, yeah. The micronode is pretty useless.

 

[Sharpy]

1 hour ago, Magzimum said:

IFly-by-wire avionics hub - because I haven't understood what it does yet

Gives max SAS level. Like advanced probe core, except not being a core. So, instead of, say, HECS2, put the hub and Stayputnik, and you have about the same effect (minus battery and reaction wheel). Or put it on nose cone of an airplane, put a fresh recruit pilot in, and the pilot can do target tracking and maneuver node tracking. But put the avionics hub alone, and you have a piece of debris instead of a controllable craft. No core.

I sometimes use it, though rarely. Primarily if I want my craft to fit in 0.625m profile but don't want to aim manually for maneuver nodes (OKTO2 can't do this), or on a craft without probe cores, piloted by newbie pilot. Its usefulness diminishes towards the end of the game as you unlock top probes, but mid-tree it can be a life-saver. Plus it looks kinda cool, so sometimes I go with a crappy probe core and the hub, purely for the looks.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Sharpy

[zdkroot]

1 hour ago, Magzimum said:

Stack-separators - they are heavier than the decouplers of a same size, and I don't see the point of them

If you don't want the decoupler left on either of the things you are detaching - .e.g. a rover being dropped off a lander. Also if you use EEX to surface attach them the standard decoupler does not work correctly - it will only decouple a part that it is *node* attached to. The separator just releases all attachments. 

[Sharpy]

34 minutes ago, zdkroot said:

 Also if you use EEX to surface attach them the standard decoupler does not work correctly - it will only decouple a part that it is *node* attached to. The separator just releases all attachments. 

Keyword ALL.

Attach 40 Separatrons in radial symmetry, set them and the separator to one stage,

Also, dropping multiple probes, like relays using the new fairing nodes. If you attach the probes by the engine, with decoupler on the node, it will remain there obstructing the next satellite, or obstruct the engine. With separators there's just some cleanup through mission control.

[septemberWaves]

2 hours ago, Magzimum said:

I got a couple that I don't use: 

• Mk3 monoprop tank - Just never need that much monoprop on Mk3 designs, unless they are huge motherships, in which case I can spam radial tanks everywhere next to the solar panels or so.
• Launch escape system - I use "revert to..." when shuff goes boom
• Fly-by-wire avionics hub - because I haven't understood what it does yet
• Stack-separators - they are heavier than the decouplers of a same size, and I don't see the point of them
• Rovemate - I get other (smaller, better) probe cores before this, and I can never figure out which way is the front with this thing

I'd be curious to hear if anyone disagrees, because as I mentioned above, a few of the decisions not to use a part come from lack of understanding.

Here are some suggestions for use of all of these (based on what I use them for):

• Mk3 monopropellant tank - good for an SSTO mission to refill the monopropellant supplies of an orbital fuel depot. Also good if you have modded things that consume a lot of monopropellant (such as the service module engine from RLA Stockalike, or monopropellant fuel cells from various source mods).
• Launch Escape System - useful for either aesthetic purposes (usually when going for realistic-looking vehicles), or situations in which reverting is not an option.
• Fly-by-wire avionics hub - it adds SAS to a vehicle that otherwise lacks SAS abilities. It's good for minimalistic landers or science spaceplanes that will be piloted by a scientist or engineer if you don't want to add a probe core. It can be a pain to attach in a nice manner though, depending on the design.
• Stack separators - mostly useful for when you have several payloads stacked on top of each other (which is usually the most cost-effective way of launching small satellites for contracts). You connect them with stack separators to avoid having a decoupler attached to some of your payloads.
• Rovemate probe core - mainly useful for aesthetic purposes, when you want to make an exploration rover with a certain look to it. It is also quite nice for attaching lots of wheels to, so you can have some redundancy if one breaks on the landing.

[StupidAndy]

you know that big mk 1-2 pod drogue chute that you put on the top? that one.

This one

[Sharpy]

3 hours ago, StupidAndy said:

you know that big mk 1-2 pod drogue chute that you put on the top? that one.

This one

Never used it for actual mission, but it's my standard benchmark for hard landing survivability tests. If it can land on the drogue on Kerbin, it can land on a standard chute on Duna.

[Slam_Jones]

Another excuse to post this picture?  Yes, please!

One of the parts I NEVER use is the LES (Launch Escape System).  The one time I did use it was as a hood ornament on a rover (with the use of Tweakscale).

(Check out the very front of the rover: a tweakscaled LES )

[TheEpicSquared]

The largest motorized wheels, and the micronode. I also tend not to use the vernier engine much.

[MaxxQ]

Too many to list, I think.

Problem is, I haven't played a stock game in so long, I'm sometimes not sure which parts are stock and which aren't.

I know I never used to use anything for aircraft, SSTOs, or other atmospheric flying vehicles, because it was easier to just put a rocket into space.  Now, with OPT, I've actually been having a go at flying stuff horizontally, with wings and everything, even!

I've also never made it far enough in a science game (which is pretty much all I play, with the occasional foray into sandbox) to unlock nukes before another update comes out.  So anything nuke or ion related is on that list.

[W. Kerman]

The 3 Kerbal capsule. It has lots of weight, is easily outclassed by many other parts.

[NSEP]

The 2,5 meter decoupler, it looks awfull. I just use a 1.25 meter decoupler, turn off the shroud of whatever engine i want to use and cover it up with a 2.5 meter fairing.

[linuxgurugamer]

This is what The JanitorsCloset was made for.  You can hide those parts you never use, and even PermaPrune the so they don't even get loaded

[panzer1b]

Why the hate for the micronode guys?  It makes a decent low level impact weapon (yeah its not exactly a conventional use) that can be stacked incredibly efficiently and a triple node cannon is roughly the same size and shape as a single short ibeam cannon.  Now granted i dont use it that often since its relatively heavy and doesnt make any sense firepower to mass wise (a set of regular ibeams if you dont have space issues or are willing to sacrifice ammunition quantity will work much better), but it is still useful since 15m/s impact isnt that lousy and its heavy enough to damage stuff too.

Anyways, for parts i never use:

Vector, used it a few times to try it when it came out, made 1 shuttle replica, didnt touch since.  It makes no sense for me since its overpowered for every space vessel i use (given i rarely go above 200t there is just no place for it), and its underpowered as a lifter engine.  Given 99% of my lifters are at least semi stable, the gimbaling is pointless and a quadruple 3.5m will do much better if and when i actually need massive thrust.

Thumper and Hammer SRBs, not that they are bad or anything, but for almost every situation i want a SRB its either the massive one to launch payloads, or the smallest one when im making weapons that actually use SRBs at all (technically the hammer is stronger then the flea, but its much bigger which means massive ship or crap ammo capacity and its lethality increase over the flea is questionable at best in 1.1 and up where sheer mass seems to nolonger be the deciding factor in firepower but how you design the warhead moreso.

Ant/Spider, anemic thrust and i generally dont make anything small enough to warrant their useage (they get good dV but only with super light things, which i dont build aside from missiles, and the thrust is so bad you can forget about weapons).  Technically you can still make macey dean esque torpedoes with em, but those seem to have been nerfed into oblivion recently since they almost always do absolutely no damage period with the joint strength increases in the not so distant past (no idea what update did that, 1.0 or 1.1 i think).  In other words, aside from extremely niche applications like intentionally terrible weapons for roleplay purposes or something, no reason to use it for me.

mainsail, it used to be my go-to lifter but after the nasa parts came out there is absolutely no reason to use them as lifter engines, and they are beyond overkill for any other use.  Notable mention goes to my Malevolence replica that did actually use a pair of them as a mass drive cannon in the mid section firing sideways (yeah it was supposed to be a ion cannon but we cant quite model those in stock KSP), but aside from that one somewhat unorthodox use, never touch the things

Launch escape system, while a nice concept and something i do implement on my starships to some extent (escape pods), the stock one is way to damn heavy and isnt in a very user friendly shape (1-2 sepatrons will do the same job and is much easier to actually fit somewhere).  No reason to use the stock one unless you are trying to replicate a real life rocket (which i have never actually done in KSP as when i want to experience reality ill walk away from teh computer and go watch the airplanes/ufos flying above my house ).

Mega rover wheel, just too large and unpractical not to mention low top speed.  Only possible use i can even think of for them is a mobile base, but given that the smaller wheels work fine for that application i just dont see the point.  The super tiny wheels are also ones that probably fit the category of unused, but given i have at least 2 micro-tanks that take advantage of them, i cant entirely dis them.

Hex-II, too big and bulky for actual probes, and why would i have such a heavy probe core as a control unit on a fighter or starship when i can strap a Octo-II or even a regular Hex to it and get the desired control with no pilot present and not loose that much dV.  The stayputnik would have also been here if not for its occasional use in lightly armored tank turrets and other stock bearings (its the only part with a spherical collider that works beautifully as a rotating member).

Most other parts i use at least sometimes even if they go into a very niche role or are used on extremely few craft.  There may be a few i missed but these are my standout never use because reasons parts...

Edited December 23, 2016 by panzer1b

[Sharpy]

20 minutes ago, panzer1b said:

Vector,[...] its underpowered as a lifter engine.  Given 99% of my lifters are at least semi stable, the gimbaling is pointless and a quadruple 3.5m will do much better if and when i actually need massive thrust.
 

Try it as a lifter engine for lightweight, 1.25m profile crafts. The payload where you normally use Kickback or Reliant as your lifter. Stack 5 longest 1.25m tanks, and you have to give your craft just a tiny nudge with second stage for orbital insertion. And the route there... heh, moving from Prius to a Ferrari.

Doesn't make sense in career game, but if you're building, say, a missile, the TWR will make it hit the target before the enemy can lift the white flag.

[Wjolcz]

Vector is kinda OP actually. I've recently made an SSTO big dumb booster which could put at least 18 metric tons (AKA one gray FPS explosive barrel) into orbit, go back and (sorta) land Falcon-style. I was testing the return capabilities only though, so I'm pretty sure the payload could be way heavier if it was used as expendeble.

[SpacedCowboy]

Yes, the Vector is great, just make sure you dial down the gimble so it doesn't turn into a "Pinto".

(back on topic)  The dreaded Micronode    Nobody uses it because everybody knows it's a miniature Borg ship

Nobody is gonna assimilate my ships

[KevinW42]

One good use for the vectors that I would consider reasonably balanced is if you're building a large single-stack lifter where the mammoth isn't quite powerful enough, so you just surface attach a pair of vectors in between the other nozzles and basically make a six engine version of the mammoth.

[Sharpy]

26 minutes ago, KevinW42 said:

One good use for the vectors that I would consider reasonably balanced is if you're building a large single-stack lifter where the mammoth isn't quite powerful enough, so you just surface attach a pair of vectors in between the other nozzles and basically make a six engine version of the mammoth.

Nice one! I'll be using eight, as a step below my quad-twin-boar 5m boosters (4 twinboars on 5-to-2.5 quadcoupler... gotta find a payload a pair of these can't lift.)

[U.S.S]

I've never used an inline Mk. 2 cockpit, they just look kinda ugly.