Parts I Never Use

[RocketBlam]

Going through the process of building another splaceplane, I got to thinking, "Which one of these parts do I never use, and why?" Some of these parts I have literally never used once, and others I used, only to decide I would never use them again. Now, we all play the game differently (that's part of what makes it such a great game), so I may be off-base here, so I'd like other people's opinions.

So following is my list of parts I never use, and why. Maybe Squad can take this into account for future versions, if there is some agreement that we just never use some parts.

Mk2 and Mk3 Monopropellant tanks

Why: Usually when building spaceplanes, length becomes an issue. I just don't want my craft to be too long, or else it gets kind of floppy and harder to control. I have never used these tanks for this reason - they add unnecessary length, and frankly, I can't imagine when I would need 400 or 1000 units of monopropellant, so they're also too heavy. I would much rather stash one or two of the small mono tanks somewhere, like in a bay, or even on the outside of the craft.

Solution: If you made each of these half as long, that would help (although that's still too big and I would still never use them). 1/4 this length would be good. A 1/4-length Mk2 mono tank that held 100 units would be almost perfect. If I really felt like I needed more, I could use two, and still only be half as long and half as heavy as the current tank.

The Not-Rockomax Micronode

Why: I'm not sure what this thing is supposed to do. I think I've tried to use it a couple of times, and I can never get it to attach to the vessel correctly. It only attaches to nodes, not surfaces, so I just can't think of why I would use this. I would use the cubic octagonal strut instead.

Solution: Make it attach to surfaces. Otherwise, I can think of other parts that would do the same thing, or better. In fact even if it attached to surfaces, I would still probably use the cubic octagonal strut. It weighs less.

LV-1 "Ant" LF Engine

Why: What is this, an engine for ants? I usually like the tiny little engines and such, because I like making tiny little spacecraft, but I've never used this. I would use two of the side-mounted LV-1 Spiders instead. This just seems kind of pointless. The extra weight of another LV-1R is insignificant, although this one does have better ISP. Also, when you attach a decoupler below it, it leaves a gap and doesn't look right.

Solution: I don't know, I guess some people might use this, but I never have.

Inline Clamp-o-Tron and M2 Clamp-o-Tron

Why: Again, these things add unneeded length to a ship. I always just stick a regular Clamp-o-Tron on the side of the ship somewhere. It doesn't add any length.

Solution: I don't know. I can't think of anything that would make these appealing to me.

I guess the good news is, at one time or another, I use basically every other part in the game. So Squad still has a pretty good track record.

[waterlubber]

Mk2 Clamotron, big time. Lowers drag, why would you NOT use it? Mk 1 parts I never use because they're incredibly ugly.

Monoprop tanks are too long, yeah.

I rarely use the radial engines, since they have terrible stats.

[Just Jim]

Have to respectfully disagree... my newest flagship has both the Mk2 mono tank and Mk2 inline Clamp-O-Tron.

I do, however, agree about the Micronode... I'm not sure what that thing is useful for

[Superfluous J]

The radial engines' stats aren't as bad as they used to be since the rebalancing. I've used the Ant before, but it's pretty specialized, yeah. I don't build many space planes so you could almost put all the wings in the "I don't use it" category

I think the micronode is one of the older parts. It my even predate the cubic octagonal strut. So really it's just a legacy part. I've used it, but not often and not lately.

[RocketBlam]

Mk2 Clamotron, big time. Lowers drag, why would you NOT use it?

I've never seen any significant performance decrease with putting a clamp-o-tron on the surface of the vehicle. I'm sure it adds some drag, but it's better than adding that much length to a vehicle, in my opinion.

[problemecium]

I use the Mk2 clamp-o-tron on spaceplanes for drag reasons, as mentioned above.

Kidonia also has both several Mk2 clamp-o-trons and two of the Mk3 MonoPropellant tanks. Since they store 1000 units apiece, they're good for stations and motherships that need to store vast amounts, rather than spaceplanes.

However, there are a few pieces I use extremely rarely:

- I concur on the Not-Rockomax Micronode - and for that matter the Rockomax node too. It doesn't really do anything that some other part doesn't do just as well, and it weighs significantly more than things like the cubic strut.

- Large drogue chutes. If I have anything big enough to make use of them, I need those nodes for attaching big regular parachutes. TBH a small drogue comparable to the Mk16 would be much better.

- Stack separators of any kind. The only thing they do that a stack decoupler doesn't is detach radially-attached parts, which I find counterproductive more often than useful.

- The Skipper engine. Its size, TWR, and efficiency are all too "average" and can be beaten either by a small cluster of Size 1 engines or a single Mainsail.

- Those lousy white radial engines. The idea of radial engine attachment is great, but the implementation is inferior to simply using a nose cone and a regular engine in pretty much every way.

[RocketBlam]

- Stack separators of any kind. The only thing they do that a stack decoupler doesn't is detach radially-attached parts, which I find counterproductive more often than useful.

Stack separators are good for parts stored inside a bay that you want to detach, because they have no ejection force. When it comes time to let the cargo loose, it's probably not a good idea to launch it at high speed against the back of your cargo bay.

[moogoob]

The Mk2 clampotron also includes a good amount of monopropellant storage, so there's that reason to use it.

[Hotaru]

Mk 2 Clamp-o-tron I use pretty often, my standard 4-seater space shuttle in my last career had one. As an added bonus the built in 75 monoprop ended up being enough for most missions (and on longer missions it could restock from space stations). I love the Ant engine, use it all the time for very small landers--it's the Spider I rarely use. I suspect that just comes down to personal general preferences for radial or in-line engine arrangements.

[Whirligig Girl]

The radial engines' stats aren't as bad as they used to be since the rebalancing. I've used the Ant before, but it's pretty specialized, yeah. I don't build many space planes so you could almost put all the wings in the "I don't use it" category

I think the micronode is one of the older parts. It my even predate the cubic octagonal strut. So really it's just a legacy part. I've used it, but not often and not lately.

Micronode? The girder connector? Cubic Octag was 0.18. Micronode was 0.19.

[Superfluous J]

Micronode? The girder connector? Cubic Octag was 0.18. Micronode was 0.19.

Huh. Then I got nothing. It started its life redundant.

[Reddeyfish]

- Stack separators of any kind. The only thing they do that a stack decoupler doesn't is detach radially-attached parts, which I find counterproductive more often than useful.

- Those lousy white radial engines. The idea of radial engine attachment is great, but the implementation is inferior to simply using a nose cone and a regular engine in pretty much every way.

-Stack separators don't leave debris on either end, which makes them essential if you're deploying multiple things with one payload. (you can stack them on top of each other)

-I assume you mean the Thud. They have some use in early-career spaceplanes, but they also have a very high gimbal range, which gives them some very good uses when you're trying to build something unconventional and have it actually fly.

-the MicroNode is used to connect I-beams (yes, I-beams, not girders) to each other at right angles. I don't use I-beams, so I also don't use the MicroNode.

(you can't radially attach things to I-beams like you can girders)

Edited September 2, 2015 by Reddeyfish

[Superfluous J]

-the MicroNode is used to connect I-beams (yes, I-beams, not girders) to each other at right angles. I don't use I-beams, so I also don't use the MicroNode.

(you can't radially attach things to I-beams like you can girders)

You can, though. you can even radially attach I-beams to other I-beams. I actually had to go into the game to verify it as I almost never use them myself, but they seem to function exactly like the "girders" as far as attachments are concerned. They also mass the same.

The MicroNode is the right size to look nice when attached to the end of a girder, and you can then attach another girder to any of the other 5 available nodes on the MicroNode, which looks nice but - in my opinion - is not in any particular way an improvement over just attaching the 2nd girder radially to the first. I suppose it enforces rigid lengths to everything, but that seems a bit niche.

[allmhuran]

I have been using the micronode quite a lot recently on subassemblies and weldings. I actually can't think of any parts which I never use, there are a few which I use sparingly but they're usually specialized parts anyway. Then again, it's entirely possible I'm in the top 10 "spent the most time in the construction buildings" players so my personal history of part use probably doesn't indicate any generalities.

[AbacusWizard]

I actually use the giant Mk3 monoprop tank quite often in huge orbital tankers and fuel depots. The inline docking clamps can be useful for spaceplanes too.

[problemecium]

Stack separators are good for parts stored inside a bay that you want to detach, because they have no ejection force. When it comes time to let the cargo loose, it's probably not a good idea to launch it at high speed against the back of your cargo bay.

For that I use docking ports. Also, I noticed recently that decouplers seem to have tweakable ejection forces now.

[Hagen von Tronje]

I like using stack separators for orbital drops where several pieces will chute into my target area so none of them have decoupler remnants stuck to them.

I don't think I've ever used the micronode, or the bigger node either. There are probably a couple airplane parts I haven't used, like the FAT aeroplane parts, but it's not because they're bad parts, I just haven't made something using them.

Have also never found a practical use for the RoveMax 3 wheels despite loving rovers and attempting to make them work. I've certainly made designs that would greatly benefit from jumbo wheels but the performance was just too abysmal to consider it for field use, plus the way they drag over terrain looks so glitchy I have a hard time believing it's not kraken bait.

[FlipNascar]

Mk2 and Mk3 Monopropellant tanks

Solution: If you made each of these half as long, that would help (although that's still too big and I would still never use them). 1/4 this length would be good. A 1/4-length Mk2 mono tank that held 100 units would be almost perfect. If I really felt like I needed more, I could use two, and still only be half as long and half as heavy as the current tank.

If you're okay with mods the two Mk2 Stockalike expansions by Insanity and Quiztech both feature 1/4 length tanks. That are tweakable,

[Teilnehmer]

Probodobodyne OKTO and HECS

They are a little bigger and heavier than OKTO2 + Small Inline Reaction Wheel, give much less torque and have fewer SAS capabilities.

LV-T45 “Swivelâ€Â

It’s “too averageâ€Â, as it was said above about Skipper. But Skipper is half as heavy as its elder brother Mainsail while Swivel is heavier than Reliant.

Launch Escape System

Never used it. When everything explodes I just press Esc → Return to launch / VAB Never played hard mode.

CH-J3 Fly-By-Wire Avionics Hub

Never encountered a situation when it’s needed.

Place-Anywhere 7 Linear RCS Port

It can burn one direction only so I’d rather use RV-105 Thruster Block, or Vernors when I need higher thrust.

Hydraulic Detachment Manifold

It’s really heavy. And I found no advantages over the other radial decouplers.

Structural Pylon

A strange decoupler I’ve never used.

Big-S Spaceplane Tail Fin

Looks cool but it’s too big and heavy.

OX-4W and SP-W 2×3 Photovoltaic Panels

I perfer 1×6. Don’t know why.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Teilnehmer

[Agost]

LV-1 "Ant" LF Engine

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/thumb/4/47/LV-1_Liquid_Fuel_Engine_HD.png/190px-LV-1_Liquid_Fuel_Engine_HD.png

Why: What is this, an engine for ants? I usually like the tiny little engines and such, because I like making tiny little spacecraft, but I've never used this. I would use two of the side-mounted LV-1 Spiders instead. This just seems kind of pointless. The extra weight of another LV-1R is insignificant, although this one does have better ISP. Also, when you attach a decoupler below it, it leaves a gap and doesn't look right.

Solution: I don't know, I guess some people might use this, but I never have.

The Ant is very good for small probes, since it has 25 more ISP than the Spider in vacuum

[FishInferno]

Place-Anywhere 7 Linear RCS Port

It can burn one direction only so I’d rather use RV-105 Thruster Block, or Vernors when I need higher thrust.

I actually find this part very useful when building spaceplanes that tend to require more complex RCS systems that a capsule and fuel tank.

[RocketBlam]

Probodobodyne OKTO and HECS

Launch Escape System

Never used it. When everything explodes I just press Esc → Return to launch / VAB Never played hard mode.

CH-J3 Fly-By-Wire Avionics Hub

Never encountered a situation when it’s needed.

Place-Anywhere 7 Linear RCS Port

It can burn one direction only so I’d rather use RV-105 Thruster Block, or Vernors when I need higher thrust.

Hydraulic Detachment Manifold

It’s really heavy. And I found no advantages over the other radial decouplers.

Structural Pylon

A strange decoupler I’ve never used.

Big-S Spaceplane Tail Fin

Looks cool but it’s too big and heavy.

OX-4W and SP-W 2×3 Photovoltaic Panels

I perfer 1×6. Don’t know why.

I think that you and I think a lot alike.

I never used a launch escape system either. That's what "revert to launch/VAB" is for.

CH-J3 Fly-By-Wire Avionics Hub: I've only used this rarely. By the time I get it, it seems like I don't need the extra science.

Linear RCS port: If I have a vehicle that has only mono, I might use this for thrust. Otherwise, I never use it. But it does have a use.

Structural Pylon: I actually actively avoid using this, because I forget it has a decoupling function, and I end up disassembling my rocket in flight on accident.

Big-S Tail Plane: I use it for aesthetics only, and rarely. Almost any control surface will work nearly as well, without all the bulk.

[Thegamer211]

I use Mk2 clamp-o-trons to have less drag.

And the LV-1 ant engine is useful for tiny probes with a lot of delta v. And it is unlocked earlier in career mode than the spider one.

I agree with the rest though.

[Superfluous J]

Lots of agrees, except for 2 minor ones in special circumstances:

LV-T45 “Swivelâ€Â

It’s “too averageâ€Â, as it was said above about Skipper. But Skipper is half as heavy as its elder brother Mainsail while Swivel is heavier than Reliant.

Early career I like it for the vectoring. but as soon as you get decent reaction wheels it loses a lot of its charm.

Place-Anywhere 7 Linear RCS Port

It can burn one direction only so I’d rather use RV-105 Thruster Block, or Vernors when I need higher thrust.

I like to stick one of these exactly on the 4-way RCS block, turning it into a 5-way block. But only on those rare occasions where I can't put another 4-way port somewhere else to get the same benefit. It weighs as much as the 4-way port but does 1/4 the job.

[Coyote27]

I-beams and structural panels are almost on my "never gets used" list, but on a few rare occasions they can be useful - mostly on rovers.