The truss parts

[bigwhitey95]

I have found a use for the larger-size, semi-tubular trusses (in the payload parts menu) as a kind of cargo bay for rovers. The rovers don’t strictly need a walled cargo bay or to be put inside their own separate fairing, so it works well.

Plus it’s cool to have the rovers attached to the trusses via decouplers on the same stage, and to have the trusses (stacked on top of each other) rotated around their y-axis at equal angles from each other, then stage the decouplers and watch as a swarm of rovers (with detachable retro rockets of course) fan out from the mothership.

I have found uses for the smaller, rectangular trusses too. Sometimes they are just good to make a ship that looks slightly cooler, even if it is not the absolutely most efficient design.

Edited January 5 by bigwhitey95

[Bingmao]

Due to lack of imagination of how I can make use of trusses and tubes visually and practically, I would really appreciate some screenshots of how you used them, to spark my creativity.

[The Aziz]

I recently used a tube to protect my experiment sitting inside it. Needed a bottom attachment so that was the answer.

[Elfmaze]

I've tried using the truss sections to make a station... they seem to finicky with what they want to connect to.   If they "welded" easier you could build some cool things but only limited connection nodes

[SciMan]

The trusses might not be needed "now", but we already have one part that (if the simulations for it were in the game as well) we'd need trusses for.
That little 1.25m nuclear reactor part.
Notice how it's nuclear. As in radioactive. As in "keep far away from crew"
Sometimes you just don't need 20m of fuel tanks, because that reduces your TWR, and you can't use hab modules becuase... well you're trying to keep the crew AWAY from the radioactive thing.
Same with the nuclear thermal rocket engines.

When the game is more finished, I'm sure we're going to have radiological constraints on where we can safely put parts, almost certainly for crewed parts, but maybe for sensitive electronics like experiments and probe cores too (to a much lesser extent, but you'll still not be putting a probe core right up next to a SWERV, for instance).

That's where the trusses are "needed". They keep the atoms that are extremely energetic and begging for a reason to give away their energy (including "no reason", as in radioactive decay) away from the section of the vessel that houses the squishy and "harmed by that much energy" sentient biological entities (the crew).

So it's more of a "we will be very glad that these parts are in the game later, when it is more finished" than it is a "why are these parts in the game, they're just dead weight".

[The Aziz]

1 hour ago, SciMan said:

later, when it is more finished

So don't need them now. Also, if*. We don't even know if radiation is still planned or not.

[Jeq]

They are beautiful 

[Director_Valle]

I’m currently building a station, and I use trusses to keep the refueling tanks away from the habitation modules… you know… just in case.

I’ve also used them to build “sky cranes”, or as part of engineering sections, etc.

[Mickel]

I attach one end to a probe core, throw a baby engine on the other end, then put four Baguettes along the truss (one each  side).  Looks more interesting than yet another cylindrical fuel tank.

[ArmchairGravy]

On 1/1/2024 at 5:39 AM, The Aziz said:

Yes I'm in the efficiency squad, 

I squint in your general direction.

We here at Porcine Avionics have an avowed interest in being as inefficient as possible!

[feradose.]

Truss parts are pretty epical for orbital construction. Gives you that wide berth you need, provide extended surface area, balances mass around, and makes connections way less of a hassle, with great weight savings.

[steveman0]

I like the variety of connections and angles you can achieve with the various adapters. My most useful case was using adapters with a few truss pieces to put a radiation scanner on one side of my star lab and some balancing battery mass on the other side. 

[m4ti140]

On 1/1/2024 at 11:39 AM, 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)

They're very light weight compared to other parts, so they're the material of choice for more complicated designs. E.g. something like a skycrane with engines offset from the center - the engines can be connected by trusses. Also offset RCS ports. Granted, they'd be more useful if we could build in space or had robotics (both KSP1 features) but there's still plenty of uses for them.
One use I can think of early on is for escape towers - the existing escape tower part is useless (too little delta V and too much thrust vector offset, making the capsule spin instead of flying away from the stack) and only exists in S size.

EDIT: Another use I forgot about, one that is the most common although I don't really like it cause it's a bit of a hack: surface attachment of parts that can't normally be surface attached. There's a dedicated part for it but it's heavier and bigger.

Also yes, you can achieve anything you can build with trusses by simply using the offset gizmo and having parts float in the air, but that's not a problem with the trusses, that's a problem with offset gizmo being OP - it shouldn't allow offset outside of the bounding box of the original part.

Finally: replicas of real spacecraft and stations will often require trusses - this goes back to the escape tower use, yes you can just revert in KSP (unless you play with reverts and quicksaves off) but you might still want to make something like a Mercury replica and that will require a truss to build the LES tower.

Edited January 12 by m4ti140

[DailyFrankPeter]

Short answer: Voyager

Long answer: I use trusses for a lot of my builds. You say they have no function - by which you probably mean they have no other function than structural members spanning some distance. This is exactly their point in real life and I like the realistic look they add. In the real world they are also the most economic/lightest way to achieve a given span or stiffness.

This is as opposed to using e.g. empty fuel tanks as structural members, which gives crafts a toy-like look I'm not very fond of. And in reality you also would not pay for building a fuel tank, just to never fuel it but use it as a long structural member instead.

BTW, the efficiency squad are the very people who invented trusses. Trusst me.

Edited January 19 by DailyFrankPeter

[Fizzlebop Smith]

 

On 1/1/2024 at 7:43 AM, 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. Trusses just take that space and fill it with, well, nothing.

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

I feel this is only relevant to a degree. There is a point of diminishing returns for fuel.

As an arbitrary example.. you reach the point where you are spending 1/2 of the extra (not strictly needed)  fuel just to bring that extra tank along. 

This graphic is parabolic where I've seen it depicted. A point is eventually reached where the extra mass added by the excess fuel return either a 0 net gain in fuel.. or near enough its a wasted effort. 

The extra reaction wheels / Mono Prop to maintain stability wasn't factored into the graphic but mentioned later in forum post. 

Sitting at work I can't really search the Webz currently, but feel there are plenty of good reason to use the truss component (many detailed above).

I used a beam to connect the Atmorspheric sensor on top of a Stayputnik. Maintained centerline when there was no attachment node otherwise.

Reversing an engine mount could have achieved a similiar mechanical effect, but I used the lateral section of the exposed beam to attach solar / batteries. In the end, I was quite pleased with the overall aesthetic. 

Using a fuel tank would have looked absurd. I would have had to redesign the entire vehicle from the ground up with this newly unlocked science component in mind. 

Using the Truss Part worked well within the weight / aesthetics constraints I had set.

In the end though, there is a subjective aspect to the question. You asked for options on the subject when instead you were wanting agreement. 

Fuel is incredibly heavy. If you were trying to design a lightweight and stationary orbital relay, it makes complete sense to use a lightweight truss component as a foundation for attachment.

But, your opinion is that these parts are useless and therefore seem to argue against any point made. To try and justify fuel being something needed, initially or extra..(for a gro stationary relay) seems counterproductive.

Edited January 24 by Fizzlebop Smith

[m4ti140]

On 1/6/2024 at 8:23 AM, Bingmao said:

Due to lack of imagination of how I can make use of trusses and tubes visually and practically, I would really appreciate some screenshots of how you used them, to spark my creativity.

The entire landing stage structure is based on trusses. Also the RCS ports.

[Bingmao]

6 minutes ago, m4ti140 said:

The entire landing stage structure is based on trusses. Also the RCS ports.

Uuuh! I love your RCS solution! Simple but very smart!

[Superfluous J]

31 minutes ago, m4ti140 said:

The entire landing stage structure is based on trusses. Also the RCS ports.

Other than 45º RCS ports (which make my eye twitch) I absolutely LOVE that use of trusses. I especially like the use of the Science Jr Jr

[DailyFrankPeter]

12 hours ago, m4ti140 said:

The entire landing stage structure is based on trusses. Also the RCS ports.

This is one handsome lander!

[stephensmat]

Today I used a medium truss for the first time. I had the Radiation detector connected to the next part along, and it made my ship look like a mushroom. I added a medium truss, and then 'aligned it down' until it essentially contained the Instrument.

It made a more realistic visual, and provided a perfect spot to mount solar panels and such. Here's my thing: the connection points are on the ends. If they changed the trusses so that they could contain things by design, rather than 'alignment', then it becomes a low weight construction option.

Does sliding the trusses along until it 'embeds' in the solid part actually make them rigid/join together?

[The Aziz]

I doubt it - how do I know? Because docking ports ignore any part that has been offset in front of them and just dock through it.

[stephensmat]

Just now, The Aziz said:

I doubt it - how do I know? Because docking ports ignore any part that has been offset in front of them and just dock through it.

Hmm. But you can attach docking rings to the ends of trusses, and embed them into tanks... Back in KSP1, I had all my boosters include docking ports on the sides at equal height. Line boosters up in groups of three, and they became 'Drive Sections'...

[Brahms_IV]

I've tried a few times to use the XS trusses and hubs to offset landing gear around a Poodle engine for more stable and reliable no atmosphere landings. Unfortunately, attaching landing gear to hubs/trusses (or it seems almost any structural part) right now is almost always going to result in them falling off the craft either on the pad or whenever you stage. But assuming that gets fixed sometime soon, I'll be adding trusses to just about any lander pre tier-4 landing somewhere without atmosphere. Among other things (station construction) for utility and aesthetics. Gotta get that good solar coverage and keep weight down!

 

[ArmchairGravy]

On 1/29/2024 at 12:49 PM, Brahms_IV said:

I've tried a few times to use the XS trusses and hubs to offset landing gear around a Poodle engine for more stable and reliable no atmosphere landings. Unfortunately, attaching landing gear to hubs/trusses (or it seems almost any structural part) right now is almost always going to result in them falling off the craft either on the pad or whenever you stage. But assuming that gets fixed sometime soon, I'll be adding trusses to just about any lander pre tier-4 landing somewhere without atmosphere. Among other things (station construction) for utility and aesthetics. Gotta get that good solar coverage and keep weight down!

 

Good, I'll have to go +1 this. Makes a darn good little rover. Shame it falls apart.