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

[moogoob]

I never use the detachable pylon. The other pylon though is great for landing gear. I never use the medium-size donut-like rover wheels... what else...

I actually do use a large number of repeat offenders on this thread. The giant rover wheels make for astounding (and expensive) Duna lab rovers, mobile bases and the like. Their top speed isn't astounding but that just makes them harder to flip. I love the inline cockpit for fast fighters with a big spike intake up front and Ant engines are great when you need thrust but don't care much about how strong or how much - like satellites that don't need to change their position that often. The poodle looks pretty cool and isn't really that bad - it's been occasionally useful for me, anyways.

[KotDemopan]

I noticed that i never use the Mk25 chute.

Engine Nacelle

RoveMax Model XL3

Tordial tank (make it xeon please)

1/8 of a rockomax orange tank (make it xeon please)

Mk2 - Mk3 adapters

It is called "Xenon"

[ThatGuyWithALongUsername]

And no. They just confirmed that the ROUND-8 will not have xenon. They will have a new xenon tank, though.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, labhouse.

[NFUN]

I hate the toroidal tank, it is best used for its glitches.

[Aragosnat]

The I girders. Don't hate them. Certainly don't use them as the other structual parts are more useful. Not saying the could not be used for legs. The large rover wheels are certainly useful for mobile bases. I even made a mobile science lab that could clean all the scince stuff for the Mün. Which gathered all science but save for a few spots where I needed to complete the Mün explore contract for Duna and Ike to pop up. Most parts I try to find a use for. The one radial wing decupler thingy also not very useful save for the fact it leaves no bitz on either parts.

[Sidereus]

I don't have any I *hate*, but there are several I rarely, if ever use:

• The Mk2 Monopropellant tank. Seems overly long to me...
  
• PB-ION engine. I use it very occasionally, but the long burn times mean I usually avoid it.
  
• LV-1 and LV-1R. Ugly and I just don't see the point.
  
• Launch Escape System. Maybe if I were playing hard mode...
  
• RT-10. Once the bigger boosters get unlocked during career mode, I pretty much never use it again.
  
• Hydraulic Detachment Manifold. On things big enough to justify its use, the TT-70 still works better.
  
• Tail Connector. I keep trying to make this part work, but it's just not shaped right. Would be better if it were slanted.
  
• Not-Rockomax Micronode. Useless.
  
• Structural fuselage. Might start using it if I ever get around to building big space stations, though.
  
• Rovemate. Also useless. Girders, beams, struts, and structural panels all make much better bases for rovers.
  
• Circular intakes, and the engine nacelle/Mk1 Fuselage Intake/radial engine bodies. Not worth it, generally.
  
• Swept wings, of any type. They don't do anything with stock, so pointless if you're not running FAR, which I don't, and unlike the delta wings they don't look all that great.
  
• Advanced canard. Ugly.
  
• OX-4W & SP-W 2x3 Photovoltaic Panels. 1x6's look better, and are less likely to interfere with other parts on the ship. I really can't think of a use case for these except for if for some reason you want to put them somewhere you have very little clearance.
  
• Inline and Mk2 Clamp-O-Trons. Take up a lot of space and weight for almost no gain - the amount of monopropellant the Mk2 stores is way too little for my docking attempts, and the inline doesn't even have any...
  

Edited April 21, 2015 by Sidereus

[BudgetHedgehog]

Tail Connector. I keep trying to make this part work, but it's just not shaped right. Would be better if it were slanted.

Rotate gizmo, dude. I agree with most of your list, but the tail connector is amazingly useful.

[Warzouz]

I don't have any I *hate*, but there are several I rarely, if ever use:

• Not-Rockomax Micronode. Useless.
  

That part is strange. Too small for the bigger cubic struts, too big for the small cubic struts. I would use the if it look nice to use them, but what the point if it looks ugly and off.

[KerikBalm]

In response to post #81:

* Mk2 tank- it does seem a bit big for its fuel amount. The bigger issue IMO, is that its mass ratio is almost 40% worse than the FL-R25 monoprop tank. Maybe when reentry heating becomes a thing, it will make more sense (assuming those MK2 parts are reasonably heat resistant... although they lack the black tiling of the old SP+ parts)

* Ion engine - those things are great for small probes. I use them for RP reasons to send probes to Duna/Eve/Jool outside of the transfer windows, so that they arrive before the launch window for my much larger manned missions. Wouldn't want to send Kerbals before you have any observational data from probes, would you?

-Also non RP reasons: I can complete the "explore" contracts with them pretty fast for Eve, Ike, Duna, and Gilly, without waiting for a launch window -> get more funds faster.

Also great for use hopping around minmus and other low grav worlds.

* LV-1 and LV-1R -> yea... pretty useless... when the thrust gets that low, I tend to use the ion engines.

They also have terrible Isp, and the small fuel tanks have terrible mass fractions, so the really small probes using them perform pretty badly in comparison to larger designs.

They are especially uselss now that we have the monoprop thruster for them to compete with. I've tried them before, and had a few novelty designs, but generally - no

* LES - yea, I don't use it. I've tried it before, and had a few novelty designs, but generally - no

* RT-10 - I use it. Sure for bigger rockets, bigger SRBs are better, but these small trashcans of boom are fine with me for small designs

* Hydraulic Detachment Manifold - At best I can see a conceptual use for them... but decoupling under high thrust/in the atmosphere with them seems like a bad idea, more clearance is needed. I suppose if you want to use them to decouple drop tanks on a larger orbital craft, they might have some use... but I can't say I've ever used it a single time.

* Not-Rockomax Micronode. conceptually, this could be interesting as a building block for making structures and such - which I haven't done much. I can't say that I've ever used it.

* Structural fuselage - These things are great! I use them all the time. Compare it to any other structural piece... its only 0.1 tons! its so light... want to extend soemthing? its lighter per unit length than a girder! and its got great impact tolerance. This might change after they readjust the stats... I really don't see why it should be lighter than a girder, but it is, so I use it.

* Circular intakes, and the engine nacelle/Mk1 Fuselage Intake/radial engine bodies - yea, they seem pretty useless... like nose cones in stock (that changes soon, yay!) they aren't very useful, but they have their aesthetic appeal

* Swept wings - I use them all the time, they're great for getting your CoL back, if you've got no place father back to attach them (ie, attach them at the very back of your craft, and then extend them). Also, aesthetics

* Advanced canard - I don't think its ugly, and it has some advantages over the normal one as far as size and where they can be slapped without part clipping.

* OX-4W & SP-W 2x3 Photovoltaic Panels - I actually think they look better, and yes, the clearance is an issue for them, particularly on stuff that will be going near terrain. You can also use them in combinations with the 1x6 so they don't occulde each other much from certain angles

-instead what I find useless are the SP vs OX panels... they are heavier, but otherwise identical... ...?

* Inline and Mk2 Clamp-O-Trons. - well first, for me, 75 units of monoprop is plenty to dock with... at least for "normal" sized Spaceplanes. I agree they aren't very useful, as you can just slap a radial attaching docking port on a Mk2 fusalage.

I guess with reentry heating and drag, they might have a purpose. Consider a Mk2 cargobay + clampotron will weigh the same amount, and a Mk2 cargobay+ FL-R10 + clampotron weighs slightly more (but you can also stuff a lot more in it)

[merendel]

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

You know i've never understood the poodle hate alot of people have. It may as well be a cluster of 4 909's in a 2.5m frame. It has the same weight and vacume isp as 4 909's and slightly more thrust and better vectoring. its a prety decent upper stage motor if your working with 2.5m parts. i use it whenever i'd use several 909's and dont need the isp of the LVN (or its long ass length) cuts down on the part count and makes the craft squater.

My personal list of never used parts are the micronode and the stack seperators. that little weird block just does not seem to serve a use that I couldnt just as well use a cubic strut for and its heavy. The seperators I've just never found a use for that a decoupler couldnt do just as well. If I want to break a craft into 2 parts most of the time one piece is destined to crash back into something so I dont care if the decoupler is attached to it. if both parts are staying in orbit for continued use then thats an ideal place for a docking port to be leaving the seperators redundant.

[KerikBalm]

I think the poodle hate comes from before the poodle buff, when 4x LV-909s were better...

Stack separators havetheir uses... maybe I want to split multiple probes, and I don't even want a docking port attached to them (its still excess dry mass).

Still, its true, I hardly ever have a use for them.

[eddiew]

All the big monoprop tanks beyond 1.25m. Docking a medium size (2-3 crew) ship to a station only needs about 20-30 MP if done efficiently, why the heck would you carry tons of the stuff around?

[Anister]

Parachutes.

Because I allways forget them. ALWAYS!

[KerikBalm]

All the big monoprop tanks beyond 1.25m. Docking a medium size (2-3 crew) ship to a station only needs about 20-30 MP if done efficiently, why the heck would you carry tons of the stuff around?

The big one has the best mass fraction of them all.

A station's only real purpose for now is to be a fuel depot and process science experiments.

My fuel depots always have a big RCS tank so there can be many docking events (and so that I don't need to refuel RCS fuel as often as the LF-O mixture).

Also, now that we have the O-10 monoprop engine, maybe my whole craft runs on monoprop?

The O-10 has the same Isp, and a much better TWR than the LV-1 and LV-1R

The mass ratio of the FL-R10 tank is much better than the OscarB

So... if I want to make a tiny lander, monoprop engines are the way to go (well, maybe the 48-7s is... but if you want to go even smaller...), and if you want to refuel those, the 2.5m RCS tank is what you want.

[eddiew]

So... if I want to make a tiny lander, monoprop engines are the way to go (well, maybe the 48-7s is... but if you want to go even smaller...), and if you want to refuel those, the 2.5m RCS tank is what you want.

I've made a Minmus hopper before that would get down from orbit with 2 crew, and back to dock again, using pure monoprop - but IIRC it only needed two of the 1.25m tanks. And I'm not sure even the second was necessary

But yeah, maybe with bigger MP engines, there will be a purpose for the big tanks.

[Cdr_Zeta]

My beef...I guess the upcoming fairings as they wont be procedural, and some of the stuff listed above...the RT-10 booster is actually more eficient in some cases than the longer SRB; check it out; there is a dividing line to cross over to that longer SRB.

Cmdr Zeta

[michaelsteele3]

Welcome to "How to make the entire Community mad at you" On some documentary channel.

I think the round8 is useless, and I hate it so much. I mean, it's useless, ugly, and is just stupid in general.

This concludes "How to make the entire Community mad at you" On some documentary channel.

[Wjolcz]

The inline cockpit. It's ugly. I would be happy if the canopy shape got changed. Even if it were more boxy than it is now.

[Sidereus]

Rotate gizmo, dude. I agree with most of your list, but the tail connector is amazingly useful.

By slanted, I mean like the slanted fuel tanks; with one "flat" side, kind of like a right triangle. It would still look like a tail part, and would also look good for use as attachment nodes for inline intakes, with the flat sides tucked up against the main fuselage. As it is..eh, doesn't look that good, and I've never had a design that I really needed it for.

In response to post #81:

* Mk2 tank- it does seem a bit big for its fuel amount. The bigger issue IMO, is that its mass ratio is almost 40% worse than the FL-R25 monoprop tank. Maybe when reentry heating becomes a thing, it will make more sense (assuming those MK2 parts are reasonably heat resistant... although they lack the black tiling of the old SP+ parts)

Yeah, that's also a problem with all the Mk2 parts. I've gotten so I cut out all but the mk2 pods and the adapter mk 2 parts (the mk2 bicoupler and the 1.25m to mk2 tanks), and simply use 1.25m parts for the majority of the fuel storage instead.

* Ion engine - those things are great for small probes. I use them for RP reasons to send probes to Duna/Eve/Jool outside of the transfer windows, so that they arrive before the launch window for my much larger manned missions. Wouldn't want to send Kerbals before you have any observational data from probes, would you?

-Also non RP reasons: I can complete the "explore" contracts with them pretty fast for Eve, Ike, Duna, and Gilly, without waiting for a launch window -> get more funds faster.

Also great for use hopping around minmus and other low grav worlds.

I've used them, but like I said, hate the long burn times (ETA: I should note that due to my crappy computer, an in-game 8 minute burn time takes more like 16-24 minutes without time warp, so you can see how I'd hate using something that would take forever to get anywhere).

Easier to send bigger, more expensive craft instead. Last probe I sent to Jool was powered by a single LV-N and consisted of two long 1.25m tanks and one half-sized 1.25 tank, and had something like 7-8000 dV. I was able to orbit and land on every moon save Tylo with it. One powered by an ion engine would have certainly been more efficient, but not as much fun.

* RT-10 - I use it. Sure for bigger rockets, bigger SRBs are better, but these small trashcans of boom are fine with me for small designs

I'll admit I've used it for some really small craft, but otherwise...the bigger boosters are so cheap that there really isn't any reason for me to NOT use them.

* OX-4W & SP-W 2x3 Photovoltaic Panels - I actually think they look better, and yes, the clearance is an issue for them, particularly on stuff that will be going near terrain. You can also use them in combinations with the 1x6 so they don't occulde each other much from certain angles

-instead what I find useless are the SP vs OX panels... they are heavier, but otherwise identical... ...?

I have had issues with the closed non-shielded panels getting scraped off rather easily. Half the time I don't even know what knocked them off. So I use the shielded ones for designs that may have rougher rides, like space planes.

* Inline and Mk2 Clamp-O-Trons. - well first, for me, 75 units of monoprop is plenty to dock with... at least for "normal" sized Spaceplanes. I agree they aren't very useful, as you can just slap a radial attaching docking port on a Mk2 fusalage.

I guess with reentry heating and drag, they might have a purpose. Consider a Mk2 cargobay + clampotron will weigh the same amount, and a Mk2 cargobay+ FL-R10 + clampotron weighs slightly more (but you can also stuff a lot more in it)

I go through monoprop like it's going out of style. Probably because I use a lot of it adjusting my approach when I'm still several hundred meters out, rather than using my engines....

Edited April 22, 2015 by Sidereus

[Bomoo]

The stock 3.75m parts are trash as far as I'm concerned. Textures are horrible, and the stock 3.75m diameter system in general is about 1/3 of a complete parts kit needed to build anything other than derpy "hurr 100% stock give me reddit upvotes" Saturn V/SLS replicas.