The truss parts

[The Aziz]

They're just dead weight. Anyone actually using them? Like, for practical purposes? I'm glad they're in the very back of the tech tree so they're not required for any other more important unlocks.

Yes I'm in the efficiency squad, anything that's not useful in any way other than shedding weight, adding functionality or vehicle capabilities, is garbage. I see no use for them when I can do effectively the same without them (as in, adding even more mass)

[cocoscacao]

Putting something below command pod and wrapping it with a fairing. I just have to figure out how to close the damn thing....

[The Aziz]

There are cargo bays or tubes specifically for that. No need for fairings.

[cocoscacao]

Yeah, but they have fixed radius. With fairings, you can make bulges where you need 'em.

[Superfluous J]

Most of the uses for trusses in real-life just aren't necessary in KSP, especially now that you can build any old spindly thing you want and it'll hold its shape perfectly.

Trusses are the cheapest (in mass at least) way to separate two or more things by a fixed distance without appreciable flexing or other relative movement between those things.

In KSP, we can accomplish this for free with the translate gizmo if we even want to, and there are no reasons to want to.

So the reason for the trusses is to make your spacecraft LOOK like spacecraft that would work in real life, even though there's no real need to.

[The Aziz]

5 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

Trusses are the cheapest (in mass at least) way to separate two or more things by a fixed distance without appreciable flexing or other relative movement between those things.

If I need to separate two things (idk, two 6 point connectors for docking ports) I'll just use something functional in between - a fuel tank, cargo bay with stuff, or hab module, saving the space elsewhere where I would normally place it.

[Bej Kerman]

37 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

If I need to separate two things (idk, two 6 point connectors for docking ports) I'll just use something functional in between - a fuel tank, cargo bay with stuff, or hab module, saving the space elsewhere where I would normally place it.

But that's dead weight or excess mass depending on the kind of mission.

[Superfluous J]

53 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

6 point connectors

Actually there's a perfect use case. Trusses are much lighter than those connectors and work just as well in most every case.

[The Aziz]

21 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

But that's dead weight or excess mass depending on the kind of mission.

It isn't if I'm going to make use of it, and, chances are, I am. Fuel capacity is important regardless of mission (may become useful in emergency or something), crew capacity is obvious when I'm going for more than minimal Mk1 capsule. Trusses just take that space and fill it with, well, nothing.

8 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

Actually there's a perfect use case. Trusses are much lighter than those connectors and work just as well in most every case.

That was a random example, I may as well just apply a 4x symmetry around a fuel tank and end up with same result.

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, The Aziz said:

That was a random example, I may as well just apply a 4x symmetry around a fuel tank and end up with same result.

So 4x the mass you'd end up with otherwise?

1 minute ago, The Aziz said:

It isn't if I'm going to make use of it, and, chances are, I am. Fuel capacity is important regardless of mission (may become useful in emergency or something), crew capacity is obvious when I'm going for more than minimal Mk1 capsule.

And that is virtually irrelevant because there's a lot of players who do  have a use for minimizing mass, so it's no good trying to figure out use cases for not  using trusses. Not everyone goes for the "overengineer everything" playstyle where "just add more boosters" is an acceptable alternative to just using trusses 

[The Aziz]

17 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

So 4x the mass you'd end up with otherwise?

What 4x mass? Instead of that connector I'd just directly surface attach whatever I was going to add on it. 

19 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Not everyone goes for the "overengineer everything" playstyle where "just add more boosters" is an acceptable alternative to just using trusses

As above  I'm in the efficiency, not overengineering. If I need to separate something, I'll use something that's useful. If I don't, I'll simply don't put anything because trusses are dead weight. They serve no other purpose than taking space, adding mass and distancing modules (which can be done with other parts that extend craft's capabilities).

[Kerbart]

They're essential for building craft that resemble what we see in SF movies. I think there's a good chunk of players who enjoy that. In that sense they're relevant.

From an efficiency perspective, yes, a total waste. Once we have robotic parts they'll be more relevant, as it's more practical to use them. But that'll likely be DLC and far over the horizon.

[Vl3d]

When building in space you don't really have to care so much about packaging for launch, so you can build wider and longer.

Besides that, later probably we will have to also build equipment vehicles for mining or other stuff.. idk.

I also build minimalistic, so if a part does not have a necessary useful function, I don't use it.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

5 hours ago, The Aziz said:

They're just dead weight. Anyone actually using them? Like, for practical purposes? I'm glad they're in the very back of the tech tree so they're not required for any other more important unlocks.

Yes I'm in the efficiency squad, anything that's not useful in any way other than shedding weight, adding functionality or vehicle capabilities, is garbage. I see no use for them when I can do effectively the same without them (as in, adding even more mass)

You can use the rotate and translate tool to slide a round truss over a radiation detector instrument and hang batteries and an antenna off it.  It’s more length efficient…

[Pthigrivi]

I think these are going to become much more important as colonies and resources are added. I find I use them all the time in modded KSP1 installs when I have a lot more equipment to haul around and most of that is happening in vacuum. I imagine they'll be cheaper in terms of resource cost as well. 

Edited January 1 by Pthigrivi

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, The Aziz said:

They serve no other purpose than taking space, adding mass and distancing modules

Unlike fuel on a vessel that already has enough fuel, or a hab module on a vessel that already has enough hab?

[The Aziz]

See you missed part of my earlier message. Instead of adding, I'll just change the location of required tanks or habs, so that they not only serve their basic purpose as they would elsewhere, but also act as a spacer between whatever is needed.

[Bej Kerman]

52 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

See you missed part of my earlier message. Instead of adding, I'll just change the location of required tanks or habs, so that they not only serve their basic purpose as they would elsewhere, but also act as a spacer between whatever is needed.

Good for you. Parts don't become useless when one (1) player doesn't find a use for them.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

Also, trusses will be really useful if they add radiation for all those big nuclear drives and reactors.  Heavy shielding vs simply distancing via a long truss would make for some interesting design decisions.

[The Aziz]

Big if, since last time I heard of it, they opted out from radiation.

But yeah, maybe once I have to make triple-digit long distance between engine and any other modules, trusses will become useful because they will become a necessity. Right now they aren't.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Big if, since last time I heard of it, they opted out from radiation.

But yeah, maybe once I have to make triple-digit long distance between engine and any other modules, trusses will become useful because they will become a necessity. Right now they aren't.

So I’m the kind of guy who insists on putting NERVAs behind Rockomax adapters to simulate radiation shielding because the game inexplicably omits a radiation mechanic. “Necessary to preserve some semblance of verisimilitude because the devs listened to people who think hard isn’t fun” is still necessary to some of us.  Just like maintaining a 3:1 seat:Kerbal ratio on missions to simulate LS, for the same reason.

[Audaylon]

On 1/1/2024 at 4:39 AM, The Aziz said:

Like, for practical purposes?

Um...  ... If used for launching Kerbals right?   

Do you like Catapults? 

[Scarecrow71]

To answer @The Aziz's OP question:  yes, I actually do use the truss parts.  Mostly when crafting satellites, as I tend to stick batteries, solar panels, and antenna on them.  It's a bonus that they strip a lot of weight off of the probe (overall) as this then helps the rocket not be too top-heavy (which helps in preventing it from flipping over during ascent).

[Sammys Stuffs]

I like to use them visually mostly. And for probes since they're light and can spread stuff out cheaply. I like using them to separate nuclear engines/generators from any sort of crewed modual or radio equipment since that just makes sense to me even if there's no direct gameplay benefit.

[Jeq]

50m/s impact tolerance might come handy when newbie friend first time rendevouzes with your luxury (not minimalist) space station.