Why are later developed probe cores less useful?

[Phelan]

Am I the only one who keeps using smaller probe cores (the 0.6m ones or, if I need max. SAS functionality, the 1.25m one) inside service bays instead of the larger cores? The reaction wheels are close to useless anyways (if you need the control of a reaction wheel, it's easy and cheap in every way to add even just the 0.6m wheel inside the service bay again), and the only advantage of the large cores that I can think of is part count and height (both of which don't make up for the increased weight and cost, let alone the additional use one gets out of having a service bay anyways). Yes, I know they have the best anomaly detection, but I'd argue that that's a rather tiny advantage again.

Besides, it doesn't make much sense in the first place. Sure, the maneuver/target alignment functionality of the late cores is great and deserves to come with a price, but at the very least the 2.5m core shouldn't be worse than the 1.25m one. Starting off with large cores and later developing smaller ones would mess up the parts progression of the tech tree, so how about just making the later ones weigh less, flatter, and maybe cost a bit less? Or give them larger batteries/stronger reaction wheels/... to reduce the need for additional parts?

Just for comparison:

2.5m core: weight 0.5t, cost 3400, negligible reaction wheels and battery storage, so you either need an 0.2t battery as well or surface-mounted one, which probably would require a service bay.

1.25m core: weight 0.1t, cost 2250, same functionality; put inside a 2.5m service bay (0.3t, cost 500), it already costs and weighs less than the 2.5m core - and now you already have the service bay for a nice actual reaction wheel and those battery packs

When you only really need prograde/retrograde hold, it gets even more ridiculous with a Probodobodyne HECS inside a 2.5m or 1.25m service bay, especially since three small reaction wheels have the same strength as the 1.25m one (and 1-2 are usually enough already):

2.5m stack: service bay, HECS, 1 small reaction wheel, 2x400EC battery packs: weight 0.49t, cost 2850 - and now you have a better reaction wheel, more batteries and some storage space at the same weight and lower cost than the 2.5 probe core.

[Superfluous J]

IMO the only reason to not use an OCTO-2 is you haven't unlocked it yet.

[eddiew]

Part balance is... not KSP's strong point. (I agree with the OP; the later cores should be better than the sum of a reaction wheel + lower grade core + battery.)

And personally I like the HECS for it's symmetry options, and having 'enough' torque for many small probes  

[NSEP]

In Realism Overhaul, large cores have their own avionics unit and has a limited amount of mass it can control. Maybe stock should have an (on/off) feature like that.

[Corona688]

On 12/17/2017 at 9:24 AM, Phelan said:

Am I the only one who keeps using smaller probe cores (the 0.6m ones or, if I need max. SAS functionality, the 1.25m one) inside service bays instead of the larger cores? The reaction wheels are close to useless anyways (if you need the control of a reaction wheel, it's easy and cheap in every way to add even just the 0.6m wheel inside the service bay again), and the only advantage of the large cores that I can think of is part count and height (both of which don't make up for the increased weight and cost, let alone the additional use one gets out of having a service bay anyways). Yes, I know they have the best anomaly detection, but I'd argue that that's a rather tiny advantage again.

Besides, it doesn't make much sense in the first place. Sure, the maneuver/target alignment functionality of the late cores is great and deserves to come with a price, but at the very least the 2.5m core shouldn't be worse than the 1.25m one. Starting off with large cores and later developing smaller ones would mess up the parts progression of the tech tree, so how about just making the later ones weigh less, flatter, and maybe cost a bit less? Or give them larger batteries/stronger reaction wheels/... to reduce the need for additional parts?

If you ride the edge of communication range or must endure unexpected radio blackouts, the more advanced cores will do a lot for you.  All their various features, as well as Z and X, remain available even under limited control.  This is assumed to be "the computer taking over".  This means, even when your relays can't reach it, the Octo can stabilize a burn, the HECS can land if flown carefully, and the HECS2 can rendezvous!

The biggest ones with their huge reaction wheels are more meant for controlling large stages I think.

Also, I will point note that the HECS2, the only fully-functional "small" core, is by far the most expensive.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Corona688

[Phelan]

Uhhh... "huge reaction wheels"? 1.5 strength... over even the 0.6m reaction wheel's 5 strength?

And what do you actually need to land? Retrograde hold I'd say is enough if you know what you're doing (which the cheap HECS 1 has), the single most difficult thing after that is thrust control, and in that, all cores are equally useful/useless when in "limited control" mode.

[Corona688]

24 minutes ago, Phelan said:

And what do you actually need to land? Retrograde hold I'd say is enough if you know what you're doing (which the cheap HECS 1 has)

Which is why I said "HECS can land", and "HECS2 can rendezvous".  That is the features they possess.

27 minutes ago, Phelan said:

Uhhh... "huge reaction wheels"? 1.5 strength... over even the 0.6m reaction wheel's 5 strength?

I agree those should be bigger, but they're bigger than basic at least.

[Phelan]

Ah, right, my mistake. Though I've never had the need for a rendezvous/docking "out of control range". Some basic relay setup is what I do anyways before anything more complex than a "controlled crash" ;P

...and that's why the medium and large probes' reaction wheels should be stronger when compared to even the small reaction wheel.

The main thing still is that if you only really want a basic probe core for anything bigger than a .6m probe, you have to add another part (service bay), or use something that'S far heavier and more expensive than what you need.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Phelan

[0something0]

Clip the small core into the fuel tanks?

[Phelan]

You mean attach a tiny probe core between two 2.5m parts and move it into the 'lower' one? Even with KJR, unless the 'top' bit is relatively light, that's a bad idea for stability reasons (and I in part want probe cores to land the lower stage again, meaning that tiny probe would 'hold' the entire payload). Adding struts for stability or using the tiny strut cube for surface attachment would kind of ruin the idea of not wanting to add another part.

[Corona688]

1 hour ago, Phelan said:

Ah, right, my mistake. Though I've never had the need for a rendezvous/docking "out of control range". Some basic relay setup is what I do anyways before anything more complex than a "controlled crash" ;P

Most of us play very conservatively by habit, quietly encouraged by the order in the tech tree.  We could budget every erg and land on the mun some tiers before solar panels, but why?  We could extend probe missions to the very limits of our radio envelope, but why?  Unlock the almighty electronics branch first and you get better rewards in every way.  Even the exorbatant price of the L3 science building won't deter me from maxing out the electronics tree.  Why do things badly for meager rewards?

So you never really need to use these features the way they were intended, which is a shame.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Corona688

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

Gotta agree with OP on this one. I think that the 2.5m probe is all but pointless.

[Pthigrivi]

The larger probe cores also have better Kerbnet performance, if you're into that kind of thing.

[Phelan]

4 hours ago, Corona688 said:

Most of us play very conservatively by habit, quietly encouraged by the order in the tech tree.  We could budget every erg and land on the mun some tiers before solar panels, but why?  We could extend probe missions to the very limits of our radio envelope, but why?  Unlock the almighty electronics branch first and you get better rewards in every way.  Even the exorbatant price of the L3 science building won't deter me from maxing out the electronics tree.  Why do things badly for meager rewards?

So you never really need to use these features the way they were intended, which is a shame.

So you never really need to set up a good relay network the way it was intended, which is a shame.

See the problem? You can play without a relay network if that's what you want, but I can't play with lighter/cheaper/more functional probe cores if I want to.

[sdj64]

The large probe cores do have the capability of remote-piloting other craft from the craft the probe core it's attached to, without connection to KSC (provided there's also a pilot on board and a relay antenna).  The 2.5m one can even do it through another relay, while the 1.25m one needs a direct link to the controlled craft.  For that reason, it's helpful to have one on an orbiting mothership or manned base with unmanned landers, rovers, or satellites.  So I generally use them as a sort of "remote control center" more than a probe core.

I also like the big golden one for replica or real-world inspired satellites, if it fits in the size I need.

 

I think having some kind of limit for small cores, like number of engines, number of control surfaces, or mass, would help large cores be more relevant.  Say, the Okto2 can only control 4 active engines and 4 fins, while the 2.5m core would be needed to control a Falcon heavy replica with 27 engines.

[regex]

On 12/17/2017 at 7:24 AM, Phelan said:

Am I the only one who keeps using smaller probe cores (the 0.6m ones or, if I need max. SAS functionality, the 1.25m one) inside service bays instead of the larger cores?

Why are you using the service bays? They look bad, take up mass, and you can just clip all that stuff into a fuel tank, and then set an auto-strut.

Quote

and the only advantage of the large cores that I can think of is part count and height

Then don't use them. Simple. You've found a better method that works for you, keep on keepin' on.

Quote

2.5m core: weight 0.5t, cost 3400, negligible reaction wheels and battery storage, so you either need an 0.2t battery as well or surface-mounted one, which probably would require a service bay.

Since the service bays are ugly the 2.5m core makes a fine core for an automated tug stack.

Quote

1.25m core: weight 0.1t, cost 2250, same functionality; put inside a 2.5m service bay (0.3t, cost 500), it already costs and weighs less than the 2.5m core - and now you already have the service bay for a nice actual reaction wheel and those battery packs

Why the service bay? Just clip all that stuff into a fuel tank and save the mass. Auto-strut works better than those ugly things.

Quote

2.5m stack: service bay, HECS, 1 small reaction wheel, 2x400EC battery packs: weight 0.49t, cost 2850 - and now you have a better reaction wheel, more batteries and some storage space at the same weight and lower cost than the 2.5 probe core.

Sure, but it's not a great centerpiece for a 2.5m tug.

Edited December 21, 2017 by regex

[Pthigrivi]

3 hours ago, Phelan said:

So you never really need to set up a good relay network the way it was intended, which is a shame.

See the problem? You can play without a relay network if that's what you want, but I can't play with lighter/cheaper/more functional probe cores if I want to.

Think of it like a semi-autonomous probe. Kerbals don't fly themselves, your ability to fly them is a stand-in for their autonomy, which, handily, gives the player something interactive to do.

19 minutes ago, regex said:

Why are you using the service bays? They look bad, take up mass, and you can just clip all that stuff into a fuel tank, and then set an auto-strut.

I like the service bays. They could be less clunky, but I've usually got a bunch of science gadgets and junkola to fill them with. Not that I don't clip from time to time, but its nice to have access.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Pthigrivi

[Corona688]

4 hours ago, Phelan said:

So you never really need to set up a good relay network the way it was intended, which is a shame.

See the problem? You can play without a relay network if that's what you want, but I can't play with lighter/cheaper/more functional probe cores if I want to.

I'm not sure who you're arguing with now?

[Phelan]

13 hours ago, Corona688 said:

I'm not sure who you're arguing with now?

With you. I thought you'd recognize your own argument there and how I turned it around 180°

Overall, okay, I should have phrased my OP a bit differently. Larger probe cores do have usages - but I only very rarely need the functionality.

As an analogy - are 3.75m tanks and engines good and useful? Sure. Do you use them to launch everything once you've unlocked them - or do you use 2.5m stuff even then and enjoy the lower cost/weight/...?

[Corona688]

1 hour ago, Phelan said:

With you. I thought you'd recognize your own argument there and how I turned it around 180°

I wasn't even arguing with you there, so turning it 180 doesn't really help you

[Phelan]

2 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

I wasn't even arguing with you there, so turning it 180 doesn't really help you

So you read my "So you never really need to set up a good relay network the way it was intended, which is a shame" as an argument, and then say that your "So you never really need to use these features the way they were intended, which is a shame" was not an argument? How does that work?

[Vanamonde]

Are we fighting? It sounds like we're fighting. But maybe not. 

Anyway, let's not do that. 

[Corona688]

38 minutes ago, Phelan said:

So you read my "So you never really need to set up a good relay network the way it was intended, which is a shame" as an argument

Your "do you now understand why your assertion is wrong" kind of reply to it is hard to read as anything but argument.

Which is cool, except, I don't understand why you'd argue against it.  By and large it agrees with you.  "The probes aren't working as intended".  Flip that around 180 would just be saying "yes they are!"

So I think we've gone off on a tangent and are arguing about literally nothing now.  Can we call that one "lost in translation"?

Edited December 21, 2017 by Corona688

[Phelan]

Just now, Corona688 said:

<snip>

So I think we've gone off on a tangent and are arguing about literally nothing now.  Can we call that one "lost in translation"?

Agreed

[Mr. Peabody]

I usually build on the small side, so I like the probe cores just fine how they are. Also, 1.25m service bays are great.