Why are later developed probe cores less useful?

[juanml82]

If you're building a 2.5m wide probe, the 0.4T of additional weight and the thousand or so funds are negligible. I rather keep the part count down than get 14 m/s more of dV

[ARS]

The larger probe core is still useful for me though, mainly to reduce part count especially since my computer can't handle high part count craft. They also fit neatly into lab module and habitat module, allowing me to send several station parts at once and construct them easily in space, since bigger probe core has reaction wheel sufficient enough to do orbital maneuvering. Their long range antenna and relay capability proves handy when doing faraway mission beyond duna. As for MK2 probe core, it has a special reaction wheel, it's pitch torque is higher than yaw torque, so it can be used to assist a craft in taking off (and extending ladders!)

Overall, what I did is, smaller non disc shaped probe core is usually used for cheap slap-together satellite, backup control or as.... Well, probe! HECS and OCTO core is good for symmetry placement of parts. While MK2 is strictly for planes and pancake shaped cores (last 2 cores) is for unmanned control unit that reduce part count and aesthetically pleasant appearance that fit neatly into larger parts

[Guest]

I gotta agree with the OP. I rarely use big probe cores. Need anomaly detection/ better Comnet signals? Get better antennas/scanners. Need Normal/Anti-Normal? Get the OKTO2 or the Avionics Hub. The lightweight cores requires less dv, allowing either more payload or less fuel. They also need less E/C. And fairings on 1.25 m rockets look much better on small cores. I only use big cores for Deep Space 1 style stuff. And the extra price...

Edited December 24, 2017 by Guest

[Cheif Operations Director]

I wouldn't say they are less useful just not cost effective

[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?

Sorry to butt in again, but I just found out something crucial:  Radial-out, on the ground, is "hover-mode".  It's crucial for stabilizing precision VTOL craft, especially anything which needs to land within meters of its target.  This also puts their targeting features in a new light.

So I think that's what the large probe cores are intended for:  Medium and large landers for hitting waypoints, assembling bases on the ground, etc.

The OKTO2 and HECS2 can also do this, but require containers or fairings.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Corona688

[Phelan]

On 17.1.2018 at 10:23 PM, Corona688 said:

Sorry to butt in again, but I just found out something crucial:  Radial-out, on the ground, is "hover-mode".  It's crucial for stabilizing precision VTOL craft, especially anything which needs to land within meters of its target.  This also puts their targeting features in a new light.

So I think that's what the large probe cores are intended for:  Medium and large landers for hitting waypoints, assembling bases on the ground, etc.

The OKTO2 and HECS2 can also do this, but require containers or fairings.

That last sentence is my whole point. Yes, the smaller ones require fairings to actually "fit" for larger vessels, but if you just take the probe core and the fairing, you have almost the same functionality - but you pay less (both in terms of money as well as weight), you only have that extra part (not good if you want to build "small" vessels and keep the part count down).

Essentially, my problem is that the kerbals who build the larger probes are just plain stupid since they build bigger, heavier, more expensive probes with almost no advantages compared to the smaller ones. It's basically just a 1.25m probe core with an empty, very heavy and expensive (and otherwise unusable) shell/fairing/dedicated service bay around it.

[Spricigo]

9 hours ago, Phelan said:

That last sentence is my whole point. Yes, the smaller ones require fairings to actually "fit" for larger vessels, but if you just take the probe core and the fairing, you have almost the same functionality - but you pay less (both in terms of money as well as weight), you only have that extra part (not good if you want to build "small" vessels and keep the part count down).

What you consider "almost the same" is still less functionality. The probecores with more functionality costing more...just makes sense.

We could discuss  how much should be the cost of that extra capacities. But I think it will end up being a question of how each player prefer to play the game or even mission particularities. I may consider a remote control point around Eeloo and invaluable asset, while you rely on better relay coverage and the next guy just play without commnet.

 

Anyway, you pointed what you think is the problem. What is the solution?

 

 

[Phelan]

3 hours ago, Spricigo said:

What you consider "almost the same" is still less functionality. The probecores with more functionality costing more...just makes sense.

We could discuss  how much should be the cost of that extra capacities. But I think it will end up being a question of how each player prefer to play the game or even mission particularities. I may consider a remote control point around Eeloo and invaluable asset, while you rely on better relay coverage and the next guy just play without commnet.

 

Anyway, you pointed what you think is the problem. What is the solution?

 

 

With the switchable part functionality, it shouldn't be too hard to add a switch so you could select during construction which functionality you want for a given probe core (with upper limits depending on the core/reserached techs/...) and to adjust the other stats of the part accordingly. So that after researching the 2.5m probes, you could use them with just SAS and prograde/retrograde hold and have it weigh and cost very little.

Without the "on-construction-switch", I'd probably just add two or three more parts.

And don't forget that my criticism applies to the 1.25m and 2.5m cores even more - no difference in functionality there, but the 2.5m one is heavier and more expensive than the 1.25m plus service bay. It doesn't make any sense.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Phelan

[Spricigo]

8 minutes ago, Phelan said:

Without the "on-construction-switch", I'd probably just add two or three more parts.

 

Can easily be made into a mod (either additional parts or tweaking the existing ones).

[Phelan]

1 minute ago, Spricigo said:

 

Can easily be made into a mod (either additional parts or tweaking the existing ones).

I know that it can be "fixed" with mods, and depending on how little one cares about it being "nice", rather easily. But that's a bit like saying that the vanilla game would be fine with just the 1.25m parts - you can afterall mod all the parts you want into the game.

No. When there is a noticeable fault, it should be pointed out. Even if it's just lowering the weight/cost of the 2.5m core to something more sensible compared to the 1.25m one (whether with again more sensible "built-in parts" like SAS wheel and batteries, like I listed in the calculations in my initial post, or just a much lighter and cheaper part).

[Spricigo]

3 hours ago, Phelan said:

 But that's a bit like saying that the vanilla game would be fine with just the 1.25m parts - you can afterall mod all the parts you want into the game.

Hint: No good suggestion benefits from the strawman argument. 

3 hours ago, Phelan said:

When there is a noticeable fault, it should be pointed out. 

I don't see any "fault", only your preference for probecores with less capacities. 

Improved cores have better performance, is a fact,. Higer cost is a consequence. Your disregard for every single advantage of the improved cores don't make it disapear.

 

 Anyway,  your choice: change the game to make it more as you like or endure the game as it is to not change it. Maybe you are lucky and someone else change the game for you, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Phelan]

1 hour ago, Spricigo said:

Hint: No good suggestion benefits from the strawman argument. 

I don't see any "fault", only your preference for probecores with less capacities. 

Improved cores have better performance, is a fact,. Higer cost is a consequence. Your disregard for every single advantage of the improved cores don't make it disapear.

 

 Anyway,  your choice: change the game to make it more as you like or endure the game as it is to not change it. Maybe you are lucky and someone else change the game for you, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Please list the better functionality of the 2.5m core over the (flat) 1.25m one.

[Capt Snuggler]

I wish they would add programmable flight script automation to the 2.5m probe core. *not an auto pilot as the player must assemble the command list.

for example, a basic launch script would look like:

1. set throttle: 100%
2. set SAS mode: rotation hold
3. set rotation hold: pitch: 90° yaw: 90° roll: 0°
4. Stage!
5. wait for: alt = 7000m
6. set rotation hold: pitch: 45° yaw: 90° roll: 0°
7. wait for: stage fuel = 0.0L
8. Stage!
9. wait for: alt = 20000m
10. set SAS mode: prograde hold
11. wait for: apoapsis = 100000m
12. set throttle: 0%
13. wait for: altitude = 71000m
14. Stage!
15. wait for: altitude = 100000m
16. set throttle: 100%
17. wait for: periapsis = 99000m
18. set throttle: 0%
19. print msg: (free text) You are now in orbit. have a nice day!
20. end

 

It would make the high end probe cores worth striving for.

[Spricigo]

12 hours ago, Phelan said:

Please list the better functionality of the 2.5m core over the (flat) 1.25m one.

 

No point to do so. You already ignored it when was mentioned in a previous reply.

[SnailsAttack]

7 hours ago, Capt Snuggler said:

I wish they would add programmable flight script automation to the 2.5m probe core. *not an auto pilot as the player must assemble the command list.

for example, a basic launch script would look like:

1. set throttle: 100%
2. set SAS mode: rotation hold
3. set rotation hold: pitch: 90° yaw: 90° roll: 0°
4. Stage!
5. wait for: alt = 7000m
6. set rotation hold: pitch: 45° yaw: 90° roll: 0°
7. wait for: stage fuel = 0.0L
8. Stage!
9. wait for: alt = 20000m
10. set SAS mode: prograde hold
11. wait for: apoapsis = 100000m
12. set throttle: 0%
13. wait for: altitude = 71000m
14. Stage!
15. wait for: altitude = 100000m
16. set throttle: 100%
17. wait for: periapsis = 99000m
18. set throttle: 0%
19. print msg: (free text) You are now in orbit. have a nice day!
20. end

 

It would make the high end probe cores worth striving for.

I think I'd be a bit too lazy for something like that, but it's a cool idea. I'm sure people could do some really crazy stuff with it.

[Spricigo]

3 minutes ago, SnailsAttack said:

I think I'd be a bit too lazy for something like that, but it's a cool idea. I'm sure people could do some really crazy stuff with it.

I'm also lazy, but seems the kind of stuff KOS users like to do. I mean, a super simplified version.

[Corona688]

On 1/25/2018 at 12:55 AM, Phelan said:

That last sentence is my whole point. Yes, the smaller ones require fairings to actually "fit" for larger vessels, but if you just take the probe core and the fairing, you have almost the same functionality - but you pay less (both in terms of money as well as weight), you only have that extra part (not good if you want to build "small" vessels and keep the part count down).

Reminder, the HECS2 costs 7500!  That's two entire kickbacks and change.  It is uniquely super-powerful and possesses every feature in the game, but boy oh boy you pay for it.  At 0.2 tons, it's not that light either.

On 1/25/2018 at 12:55 AM, Phelan said:

Essentially, my problem is that the kerbals who build the larger probes are just plain stupid since they build bigger, heavier, more expensive probes with almost no advantages compared to the smaller ones.

The only other small core with radial-out is the OKTO2, which has no reaction wheels.  If radial-out is important (which it sometimes is), the RC-001S is a nice solution.

In short, it's not useful to your ships maybe but I'd love to have it.  Sadly I can't afford the tech cost yet.

On 1/25/2018 at 12:55 AM, Phelan said:

It's basically just a 1.25m probe core with an empty, very heavy and expensive (and otherwise unusable) shell/fairing/dedicated service bay around it.

It has triple the torque and double the battery capacity of the 1.25m version.

[Phelan]

28 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

Reminder, the HECS2 costs 7500!  That's two entire kickbacks and change.  It is uniquely super-powerful and possesses every feature in the game, but boy oh boy you pay for it.  At 0.2 tons, it's not that light either.

The only other small core with radial-out is the OKTO2, which has no reaction wheels.  If radial-out is important (which it sometimes is), the RC-001S is a nice solution.

In short, it's not useful to your ships maybe but I'd love to have it.  Sadly I can't afford the tech cost yet.

It has triple the torque and double the battery capacity of the 1.25m version.

Did you actually read my OP? The entire post I mean? Because I laid out the calculation for full functionality as well as just pro/retrograde hold and showed that the 2.5m core is always worse than the alternatives in both price as well as weight.

[Corona688]

48 minutes ago, Phelan said:

Did you actually read my OP? The entire post I mean? Because I laid out the calculation for full functionality as well as just pro/retrograde hold and showed that the 2.5m core is always worse than the alternatives in both price as well as weight.

I see now you're hiking its price by including the pointlessly expensive Z-4K.  You don't "need" that.  Not a fair comparison.  A radial battery would be fine.  If you have a command pod, even less need.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Corona688

[Phelan]

6 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

I see now you're hiking its price by including the pointlessly expensive Z-4K.  You don't "need" that.  Not a fair comparison.  A radial battery would be fine.  If you have a command pod, even less need.

No, I never included the price of any batteries or additional reaction wheels to the 2.5m probe core, I only pointed out that at least some extra batteries would be needed. But for the actual price/weight comparison, I only added batteries&reaction wheels/service bays to the smaller cores and compared these "packages" with the 2.5m core all by itself.

[Corona688]

1 hour ago, Phelan said:

for the actual price/weight comparison, I only added batteries&reaction wheels/service bays to the smaller cores and compared these "packages" with the 2.5m core all by itself.

But didn't say what parts you compared.  I'm beginning to question your choices there.  You might have forgot the integrated science containers.  Let's try a fairer comparison:

• 1.25m core, 1.25m battery, 1.25m reaction wheel.  0.25T, 0.8m tall, 1K battery, 15.5 torque, 4330 cost.
• HECS2, science container, 1.25m fairing:  0.825T, 3.5m tall, 1K battery, 10 torque, 8800 cost.
• 2.5m core, 2.5m reaction wheel, 2x Z-400.  0.74T, 1m tall, 800 battery, 31.5 torque, 6600 funds.
• HECS2, science container, 2.5m fairing.  0.616T,  2m tall, 1K battery, 10 torque, 9100 funds.

The HECS2 plus science container is taller, weaker, twice as costly, and three times heavier than a 1.25m core stack!  It's not even any less parts.

It fares a little better against 2.5m, where it's actually a little lighter and one less part, but still taller, weaker, and more expensive.

"But I don't want a science container", you say?  Then all you need is a HECS2 and a 2.5m bay at 0.5 tons, 1.3m tall, 8000 funds.  Weighs a third less than the 2.5m core stack and takes half the number of parts, nice!  Still weaker, taller, and more expensive.

It still loses almost completely against a 1.25m stack, though.  Weaker, taller, heavier, more expensive.  But it's one fewer part, so there's that.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Corona688

[Spricigo]

3 hours ago, Phelan said:

Did you actually read my OP? The entire post I mean? Because I laid out the calculation for full functionality as well as just pro/retrograde hold and showed that the 2.5m core is always worse than the alternatives in both price as well as weight.

For "full functionality" all variants  need a part with:

MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleProbeControlPoint
		minimumCrew = 1
		multiHop = True
	}

 

[Phelan]

7 hours ago, Corona688 said:

But didn't say what parts you compared.  I'm beginning to question your choices there.  You might have forgot the integrated science containers.  Let's try a fairer comparison:

• 1.25m core, 1.25m battery, 1.25m reaction wheel.  0.25T, 0.8m tall, 1K battery, 15.5 torque, 4330 cost.
• HECS2, science container, 1.25m fairing:  0.825T, 3.5m tall, 1K battery, 10 torque, 8800 cost.
• 2.5m core, 2.5m reaction wheel, 2x Z-400.  0.74T, 1m tall, 800 battery, 31.5 torque, 6600 funds.
• HECS2, science container, 2.5m fairing.  0.616T,  2m tall, 1K battery, 10 torque, 9100 funds.

The HECS2 plus science container is taller, weaker, twice as costly, and three times heavier than a 1.25m core stack!  It's not even any less parts.

It fares a little better against 2.5m, where it's actually a little lighter and one less part, but still taller, weaker, and more expensive.

"But I don't want a science container", you say?  Then all you need is a HECS2 and a 2.5m bay at 0.5 tons, 1.3m tall, 8000 funds.  Weighs a third less than the 2.5m core stack and takes half the number of parts, nice!  Still weaker, taller, and more expensive.

It still loses almost completely against a 1.25m stack, though.  Weaker, taller, heavier, more expensive.  But it's one fewer part, so there's that.

I simply tried to put together 'packages' that at least give the stats of the 2.5m wheel. I also never went with the HECS2, so no idea why you keep bringing it up. You might as well bring up the ion engine in a talk about cheap, discarded upper stage engines.

Now look at your own list there and compare the ones that I actually mentioned myself, namely the "flat" 1.25m core compared to the 2.5m one (forget about the 0.625m ones for the time being).

6 hours ago, Spricigo said:

For "full functionality" all variants  need a part with:

MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleProbeControlPoint
		minimumCrew = 1
		multiHop = True
	}

 

Which of my 'packages' don't have that?

[Spricigo]

7 hours ago, Phelan said:

Which of my 'packages' don't have that?

 Only the package with a RC-L01 Remote Guidance Unit is can be a mupti-hop Remote Control Point. Single-hop Remote Cobtrol Point can be provided by RC-001S Remote Guidance Unit, Mk1-2 Command Pod or Mk2 Lander can.

You are simple ignoring the what RGUs are designed to do. The probecore part is just a bonus, for the intended use of the parts of little relevance.

 

So we come again to: don't want a RGU, don't use a RGU. 

Ifwhat you want is an advanced probecore that is the HECS2. If that is not enough mod your game.

[Phelan]

14 hours ago, Spricigo said:

 Only the package with a RC-L01 Remote Guidance Unit is can be a mupti-hop Remote Control Point. Single-hop Remote Cobtrol Point can be provided by RC-001S Remote Guidance Unit, Mk1-2 Command Pod or Mk2 Lander can.

You are simple ignoring the what RGUs are designed to do. The probecore part is just a bonus, for the intended use of the parts of little relevance.

 

So we come again to: don't want a RGU, don't use a RGU. 

Ifwhat you want is an advanced probecore that is the HECS2. If that is not enough mod your game.

Okay, my mistake. But your "don't want an RGU, don't use an RGU" completely misses the point. What should I use when I build a 2.5m drone ship with as few parts as possible that's also intended for vacuum usage only?