Solar Panels

[SteveD80]

is there a reasonable (other than tech level) circumstance where the 2x3 solar panels are superior to the 1x6's?  I believe that either by default or a mod I have installed my progression went single panel -> 2x3 -> 1x6, but for the life of me I can't think of a time when I would have preferred the 2x3's, sometimes I don't see a difference, and sometimes the 1x6's are better, but I have never thought the 2x3 was ideal. 

[bewing]

AFAIK, they are the same tech level. I agree with you -- the 2x3 are totally worthless. IRL, you want the panels to stick out as far as possible from the ship, so they do not get occluded as often. Also, the narrower panels are less likely to interfere with anything when they rotate. I'd be perfectly happy if Squad were to do away with the 2x3 to make room for some more interesting part.

[Provisional Name 12]

specific designs aside where the 2x3s fit into a design better (uncommon) it is possible 2x3s might have more surface area and may be more resistant to being bumped from on the end. I could also see ship designs where if you wanted to include a lot you might want to put 2x3s on the top so that they wouldn't block lower panels. I don't think this is currently how light is calculated though. That said, more often than not they aren't as good, are more likely to break and in my last career mode that I restarted on normal I never bought them.

[Pecan]

Good question!  Something I've often asked myself.  In general I prefer the 1x6 but there have been a few space-station builds where the more compact 3x2 format made them easier to keep out of the way of everything else.

[Tr1gg3r]

I prefer the 3x2's rather than 1x6's on my rovers and other strange craft  less obtrusive and less snappy-offy.

[KerikBalm]

in real life, they should be more robust as the maximum distance from the anchor point is less.

Also, because they stick out less, I sometimes use them on landers or things that need to dock with a "crowded station".

- particularly the lighter non-retractable versions. If its retractable, I can just retract the 1x6 if I'm worried about it hitting something

[Snark]

Yes, I've always found them kind of pointless.  I generally want to get the panels as far out from the ship as possible, and if it's a power-intensive situation or sunlight is sparse, I want to cram as many panels around the circumference as I can.  Both of those circumstances clearly favor the 1x6.

The 2x3 are one of those KSP parts that I don't think I've ever used even once (well, maybe once right at the very start just to try 'em out).  They look kinda cool in certain circumstances, but as a practical matter I've never seen anywhere that they're more useful than the 1x6, and many situations where they're less useful.

I view them as more cosmetic than anything else.

 

[KerikBalm]

as I said, I use them in specific scenarios where the 1x6 present a collision hazard.

For my mk3 spaceplanes, I like to reduce drag by having the panels internal, and I don't deploy them until I'm in space. I don't add a service bay, I just put them in the cargobay, surface attached at the front near the top of the doors. Sometimes the payload I place in there won't allow the 1x6 panels to extend without colliding with it... and sometimes due to not timing the launch right, it takes some time before I can rendevous with a target and release the payload... so its nice ot have power generation in the meantime... a 1x6 would hit hte payload, but a 2x3 may be just fine.

But also in those scenarios, I can typically get by with surface mounted OX-Stats, and just orient the craft so that the "front wall"(formed by whatever part the mk3 bay attaches to) of the mk3 cargobay is exposed to sunlight.

I've used them, but they're rarely something I needed to use.

I've been temped to use them paired with 1x6 , so that each panel is fully exposed when the craft is properly oritented and sunlight strikes from the side, but if sunlight is coming from directly above, the 1x6 would cast a shadow on the 2x3 pair.

In theory such a shadow would only occlude 2 of 6 cells of a 2x3, whereas it would leave an entire 1x6 in shadow... but I don't think KSP models the shadow like this.

[Geschosskopf]

On 5/22/2016 at 10:56 PM, SteveD80 said:

is there a reasonable (other than tech level) circumstance where the 2x3 solar panels are superior to the 1x6's?

Well, they cost the same, they're available at the same time, the make the same power, and they fold up into the same sized package.  Thus, the only difference between them is their shape.  Shape can, of course, be chosen for purely aesthetic reasons but it also has a minor functional aspect.

The main advantage of the 1x6 over the 2x3 is that more if its area is further out from the ship.  Thus, if you put them in the same place on the same ship and have the ship at the same orientation to the sun, more of the 1x6 will be out of the ship's shadow so it will produce more juice.  So the 1x6 is usually the better choice for spacecraft where the sunlight can come from any angle and thus ship shadows are frequent.

However, for stuff on the ground, the possible angles the sunlight comes from are much more limited.  This means you can control them or design for them, and a 2x3 will usually work.  Besides, for bases and rovers, the more compact shape is less prone to getting broken.