What parts do you rarely or never use?

[Temstar]

Thud - what is this engine even good for?

Everything else I find uses for, even odd ball stuff like I-beams (they're very good for connecting payload with clustered nuke engine to upper stage, decouple by firing a pair of separaton into them to melt them). But I've never run into a problem where I thought "I know, this could be solved by a pair of Thud".

[Choctofliatrio2.0]

22 minutes ago, Temstar said:

Thud - what is this engine even good for?

Everything else I find uses for, even odd ball stuff like I-beams (they're very good for connecting payload with clustered nuke engine to upper stage, decouple by firing a pair of separaton into them to melt them). But I've never run into a problem where I thought "I know, this could be solved by a pair of Thud".

I've seen them used to add extra thrust and gimbal authority on some stages, as well as heavier compact landers.

[Temstar]

Just now, Choctofliatrio2.0 said:

I've seen them used to add extra thrust and gimbal authority on some stages, as well as heavier compact landers.

The performance of the engine is so poor that you could resolve these issues by:

• Using RCS thrusters, if the problem is control authoriy
• Use more powerful / greater number of lander engines, if more power is needed
• both, if you need to resolve both issues

Thud really could use an Isp upgrade, something along the lines of Skipper.

[Nukeknockout]

 

 

Parts I don't find myself using... Again, it's not that the parts are useless, I just don't naturally think of them to solve my problem.

LV-T30 Reliant - I avoid this engine like the plague. Non-gimbaling engines can be made to work, but something with that much power that early in Career really needs extra control authority, and I find it easier on part counts to just use LV-T45s. By the time I have payloads where it can be useful, I also have Skippers and Mainsails to do that instead.

Stayputnik, or indeed any probe core or launch system in general that does not have SAS. Especially in space, SAS is really useful for automatically canceling out rotation.

RT-10 Hammer boosters. I prefer them to LV-T30s - at least the Hammer always goes off in a predictable way - but I never stick around that low in the career tree long enough to really use them. When I unlock LV-T45s and Thumpers, never see another Hammer again. On the contrary, for its cost the Flea is good at uncontrollably throwing a command pod around the sky to land in a random biome for scientific research, and it's light enough to haul into space if one were that crazy.

LV-Ns. I recognize their utility, I really do. But I have yet to construct a ship heavy enough for LV-Ns to be superior to Poodles, Ion Engines, or 909s.

Retractable 1x6 and 3x2 solar panels. Call me cheap, but I'm...yeah, cheap.

PPD-1 Cupolas. Really? That much size for one Kerbal and that little resource storage? It'd make more sense for me to pair a Mk1 Command Pod with a basic monoprop tank and a battery, or a Mk2 Lander Can with station stuff.

Rockomax X-8 tanks. Just no. I can't think of a practical application for any 2.5M tank smaller than an X-16.

LV-1R Spider. If I need tiny engines, why would I go for the LV-1R when I can use cubic octagonal struts to mount the LV-1 Ant? It's cheaper AND has better ISP, and for the size of ships Ants are a good idea on, gimballing isn't really necessary.

Mk3 Parts - I have extreme difficulty convincing an airplane to fly higher than 11,000 meters. Combining that with lots of size and speed is not going to work, and launching those items is problematic because of uneven weight distribution. And for any sort of contract on Kerbin, I have yet to find one where a smaller, cheaper plane is not hugely preferable.

1x1 & 2x2 structural panels - I can't think of a situation where I need these. I-beams weigh less and have less drag when parts need to be held at a distance, modular girder segments are cheap and more useful as ablative impact armor, and space doesn't care if your ship looks cool.

 

, Choctofliatrio2.0 said:

I've seen them used to add extra thrust and gimbal authority on some stages, as well as heavier compact landers.

I use them as mid-stage engines because they add control authority, have decent thrust, and have good ISP both in atmosphere and in vacuum. They're especially stable when four of them are attached to a 2.5M tank, even for kinda irregular payloads, and they save on part counts when compared to adding RCS thrusters and monoprop tanks to lower stages.

When I conceptualize a Laythe lander, the engines I always see it as having are Aerospikes or Thuds.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Nukeknockout

[Temstar]

It's a bit surprising that so many people find no use for Reliant. I use them all the time from when then are first available till end of the tree. Yes it doesn't have gimbal, but it does have better TWR than Swivel so I tend to cluster them together with Swivel in 2 to 1 up to 4 to 1 ratio for powerful early game cores when Skipper is not enough for the job and Mainsail is not yet available. I also use Reliant as payload engines in situations where where control authority comes from reaction wheels and 909 does not offer enough thrust (eg, Kerbin-to-Mun tanker rockets).

[tutike2000]

I use Reliants a lot in my bottom stage, sometimes with a few Thuds slapped on to get above 1.2 TWR ASL.
I should probably look into using Thuds in landers a bit more. I tend to use Twitch-es when landing on moons, Terriers for planets

Edited February 23, 2016 by tutike2000

[JoeNapalm]

14 hours ago, Nukeknockout said:

Mk3 Parts - I have extreme difficulty convincing an airplane to fly higher than 11,000 meters. Combining that with lots of size and speed is not going to work, and launching those items is problematic because of uneven weight distribution. And for any sort of contract on Kerbin, I have yet to find one where a smaller, cheaper plane is not hugely preferable.

 

 

Actually, I find that combining it with a lots of size and speed does work.

You just need MORE speed!

You haven't really SSTO'd until you've put a flying brick the size of a large building in orbit.

-Jn-

Edited February 23, 2016 by JoeNapalm

[Madscientist16180]

Most of the structural parts see little or no use for me as of now, things may change as i get more experienced.

I see a lot of hate for the structural panel.

Using the ubiowelder and the magicsmoke mods, i do pretty cool thing with them. Like lander balls for rover and stuffs like that. Still got to really use one, but they works in VAB. My original concept (which i guess i should post when i get home), might need rethinking and tweaking, but it look good. Useful, not really, but cool aplenty! Used them for à sandbox tie-fighter too, before i knew about most mod. Heavy, part intensive tie-fighter, but still it was flying!

 

[juanml82]

Structural panels are good as bumpers for rovers or Duna spaceplanes due their high impact tolerance and the likehood of either type of vehicle to crash into the terrain.

I don't use the Reliant. In early career, I prefer the Swivel due the gimbal and, later on, the aerospike becomes my 1.25m engine of choice.

I don't use the Ant and Spider engines - don't see why I should. I skip all probes before the Okto.

 

I use the Thuds from time to time, usually in rovers which double as landers. While their aren't as effective, they are a simple, unlikely to crash into the terrain, way to land and take off the rover even if the engines aren't properly balanced along the actual center of mass

I don't use subsonic jet engines.

I sometimes use the larger rover wheels. What I usually don't use is the smaller ones. Typically, I use the ruggerized ones, held by girders.

I don't use the flyby the wire thingy, I just use a probe core for that.

I use rtgs a lot. If properly protected from reentry heat, they are far more reliable than solar panels, since they are always on.

[Mastikator]

Ion thrusters, they take too long  and cost so much that I've found I can get better mileage with an ISRU.

Almost never use the structural parts, except struts.

[Bev7787]

NCS Adaptor

[tater]

I pretty much never even look at the aircraft parts.

[SpacedCowboy]

I never use the Not-Rockomax Micronade. It is the most useless part in the game!

Edited February 24, 2016 by SpacedCowboy

[Buster Charlie]

19 hours ago, nosirrbro said:

WHAT?

I was so being sarcastic in response to the comment that there are not enough parts in stock to justify filtering out unwanted parts.  Sorry it was not more obvious.

[FancyMouse]

18 hours ago, Nukeknockout said:

Retractable 1x6 and 3x2 solar panels. Call me cheap, but I'm...yeah, cheap.

Rockomax X-8 tanks. Just no. I can't think of a practical application for any 2.5M tank smaller than an X-16.

Retractable solar panels are perfect for aerobrakes. Otherwise you'll have to go with RTG which is for sure not cheap, or Gigantors which can be sometimes too heavy.

X-8 is my root part for Mun lander/hopper or anything of similar purpose. It's wide and short, so that I don't need to surface attach fuel tanks and put fuel lines etc., and btw I use 909 below it.

[Majorjim!]

I never ever use the                    

Rockomax Brand Decoupler

or the

TR-18D Stack Separator

I don't think you need any stack decoupler other than the

TR-2C Stack Separator

or

TR-2V Stack Decoupler

The above two little beauties are great for so many builds from tiny to titanic.

[legoclone09]

I never use the 2.5m engines, since I'm always playing with a ton of mods I have SpaceY, Tantares, Cryogenic Engines, and BDB installed so I get lots of choices. Especially for 3.75m, the KS68 is great.

[Boots]

I have never once used the BZ-52 Radial Attachment Point

 

...or any spaceplane parts, but tha's just me

[Blaarkies]

14 minutes ago, Boots said:

I have never once used the BZ-52 Radial Attachment Point

I think the tiny little Oscar fuel tank has surface attachment?
Anyway I just use anything similar to the tiny fuel tanks, that can also attach radially...because the BZ-52 is higher up in the tech tree
It's stupid that probe cores can only attach to stack nodes.

I never use the MPL...anymore.

[Dafni]

2 hours ago, Majorjim said:

I never ever use the                  

Rockomax Brand Decoupler

or the

TR-18D Stack Separator

I don't think you need any stack decoupler other than the

TR-2C Stack Separator

or

TR-2V Stack Decoupler

The above two little beauties are great for so many builds from tiny to titanic.

 

Really? I always used the same diameter decoupler as the tanks I am decoupling...

Now that's interesting. So there is no rigidity gain or anything then?

Thanks for the info, I'll definitely adjust my building style accordingly.

 

Daf

[Der Anfang]

11 hours ago, SpacedCowboy said:

I never use the Not-Rockomax Micronade. It is the most useless part in the game!

Agreed. I'm not sure if I can remember even considering using that.. when I have tried, there was just no practical way of utilizing that.

[Nukeknockout]

Huh.

2 hours ago, Majorjim said:

I never ever use the                    

Rockomax Brand Decoupler

or the

TR-18D Stack Separator

I don't think you need any stack decoupler other than the

TR-2C Stack Separator

or

TR-2V Stack Decoupler

The above two little beauties are great for so many builds from tiny to titanic.

Isn't it useful to have a consistent shape for aerodynamic purposes? Or is there no difference/the difference is so negligible its made up for with the weight savings of using a smaller decoupler? I'll definitely have to check it out, see what's what. I think the larger ones have stronger ejection force, though, but I don't know when or where that would be relevant in context of stacks.

I also don't use the S2 rover wheels. The damn things just break too easily. On Kerbin, it's better to use aircraft wheels and propel the vehicle through some other method. The brakes and steering sucks in comparison, but the part will function as intended.

[Sir_Robert]

I suck at planes. So any and all plane parts are totally unused for me

[Majorjim!]

5 hours ago, Dafni said:

 

Really? I always used the same diameter decoupler as the tanks I am decoupling...

Now that's interesting. So there is no rigidity gain or anything then?

Thanks for the info, I'll definitely adjust my building style accordingly.

 

Daf

Hey man. There may indeed be a small loss of rigidity but I always add two or more struts to places that decouple so I never have a wobbly rocket. I just like to hide my decouplers.

 Build a heavy test rocket, see how the two differ.

4 hours ago, Nukeknockout said:

Huh.

Isn't it useful to have a consistent shape for aerodynamic purposes?

Using smaller parts lowers drag. KSP adds the drag from parts that are clipped or hidden.. Only bays and fairings 'block' drag.

[Dafni]

1 minute ago, Majorjim said:

Hey man. There may indeed be a small loss of rigidity but I always add two or more struts to places that decouple so I never have a wobbly rocket. I just like to hide my decouplers.

 Build a heavy test rocket, see how the two differ.

Hey!

Yeah, I'll definitely do that. I'm thinking about offsetting the tanks together so that the small decoupler and struts are not even visible. Curious if this works.

Thanks for the tip