Defunct Parts

[CooperKid]

Having played KSP for quite some time, I've wondered about some of the stock parts, which seem to be almost entirely pointless to the game.

Take the large aerodynamic nosecone for instance. It weighs quite a lot, and causes a fair amount of drag. I've stuck one on the top of a test rocket to use as an example:

Pointing this baby straight at the sky will get you to a height of 363,642m. But looking at the other parts available, I think we can make something rather more efficient using structural parts and a smaller nosecone:

This one is vastly more efficient - the structural part is waaay lighter than the nosecone. This reached a height of 420,037m. That's 56,000m higher for the sake of adding a 1 to your part count. So the question is, what's the point of an "aerodynamic nosecone" when it's much less aerodynamic that the structural part?

But I'm not done yet - here's another idea based on the same principles. Take the Rockomax Skipper engine I had on that test rocket - it provides a thrust of 650kN and an ISP of 300-350. You can build a very similar rocket using three LV-T45 engines instead:

In total, these will give you 600kN of thrust, so not quite as much as the skipper. But they have a higher ISP - 320-370. So they're a little more efficient. Using these, I got this rocket another 35,000m higher than with the Skippers. They don't have thrust vectoring, but if that's really important you can use the slightly smaller LV-T30s.

Just a little thought experiment for you there folks - are there any other parts you never use, simply because there are much better alternatives?

[csiler2]

Cost is a factor you ignored. The original design is currently cheaper than either of your improved designs. The parts may seem irrelevant now, but they will be useful on a budget.

[Johnno]

I've wondered about some of the stock parts, which seem to be almost entirely pointless to the game.

No part is pointless to the game. Someone somewhere is guaranteed to be using it for some reason. Usefulness relies entirely on your personal view.

Take the large aerodynamic nosecone for instance. It weighs quite a lot, and causes a fair amount of drag. I've stuck one on the top of a test rocket to use as an example:

Visuals, that's all there is to it. The aerodynamic system isn't finished as such, so right now you may feel that it's 'useless' but eventually it'll be more of a necessity. For now some people prefer to use it for looks, like a lot of parts.

So the question is, what's the point of an "aerodynamic nosecone" when it's much less aerodynamic that the structural part?

If you're fussed then you shouldn't be using either, as both add mass and drag, compared to just flying the tank as is with a flat top. Again, see above, visual preferences.

Take the Rockomax Skipper engine I had on that test rocket - it provides a thrust of 650kN and an ISP of 300-350. You can build a very similar rocket using three LV-T45 engines instead:

Part count comes to mind. Also, stackability. You'll have trouble stacking triple 45s on each jumbo tank in a twostage rocket made of a center tank and 4 or 6 around it. And to mention the very least, visuals, yet again, I love the skipper's looks. Also it fills the gap between mainsail and poodle , with just one part compared to 4 if you use three 45s.

In total, these will give you 600kN of thrust, so not quite as much as the skipper. But they have a higher ISP - 320-370. So they're a little more efficient. Using these, I got this rocket another 35,000m higher than with the Skippers. They don't have thrust vectoring, but if that's really important you can use the slightly smaller LV-T30s.

You confused the 45s and 30s. 45 has gimbal, 30 doesn't. Also 30 has more thrust, less mass. Which is another point I suppose, a skipper weighs less than three 45s on a tricoupler.

Just a little thought experiment for you there folks - are there any other parts you never use, simply because there are much better alternatives?

I've used every single stock part for something, and still quite often do. If it's not a specific performance I'm after then it may be size or simply looks. The beauty of having a large variety of parts is that there's something for everyone depending on your personal playstyle. You personally may be an 'optimizer' who goes for raw performance while others (myself included) design certain things for looks or even just fun functionality.

[Wayfare]

Also, part count. In your example the improved rocket has twice as many parts as the original one. This is fine with small craft but when you're building interplanetary cruisers in the hundred ton range, those parts will add up very quickly. I often find myself replacing certain assemblies with simpler, albeit less efficient ones to spare my CPU.

[Tw1]

Sometimes, you need a specific engine for a specific ship. Especially when it comes to making more complex things.

[Mercy]

Also, part count. In your example the improved rocket has twice as many parts as the original one.

First rocket has 4 parts. 4 x 2 = 8. Second rocket has 5. 5 =/= 8. Not twice the parts.

[FEichinger]

First rocket has 4 parts. 4 x 2 = 8. Second rocket has 5. 5 =/= 8. Not twice the parts.

4 parts

8 parts

[Mercy]

4 parts

8 parts

I was talking about the first improved rocket.

[Wayfare]

I was talking about the first improved rocket.

I was talking about the final improved rocket

[arq]

Also, weight is a consideration. If you use the 3x LV-45's to get gimbling, you have a higher mass. This can offset some of the gain of the higher ISP (or in some cases, all of it).

But engines aren't the place to look for unbalanced parts. Look at a lot of the other ones. For example, the Mk1 aviation fuel tank is heavier and carries less fuel than the Mk2. The ONLY reason to use the Mk1 is the shape.

Also, prices are meaningless right now. The above two tanks also cost the same. Along with many of the engines.

[Mercy]

I was talking about the final improved rocket

Yeah, I kinda realised that. I just made an assumption, the 3rd iteration slipped my mind entirely...

My bad.

[MR4Y]

Well, take a look at the engine colling unit. It doesn't do anything and it's just for asthetic purposes. That's a useless part.

[Tiron]

Some things to consider on this subject:

The 'Drag Model' is very unfinished and completely unrealistic. It works by multiplying the weight by the 'drag' stat of the part, which is more like a coefficient than an actual amount of drag. There's no accounting for shape or parts being blocked by other parts. The only thing it takes account of are speed, atmospheric pressure, weight, and the drag stat of the parts.

This means, for a start, that both of your 'nosecone' setups are presently less efficient than *using no nosecone at all*. You're ADDING drag on top of the additional weight. This isn't the case if you use the FAR mod, but in stock it very much is.

That said, the general idea goes a lot further: The new cylindrical radial RCS tanks have the same dry weight as the size 1 inline tank, but holds half again as much monopropellant. This means two cylindrical radial tanks hold as much monopropellant as three inline tanks, for the dry weight of only two inline tanks. The Delta-Deluxe winglets provide more lift than the AV-R8s for the same weight and drag (although possibly weaker control force, I'm not sure). The Canards provide stronger control forces, for twice the weight and twice the drag. The Ram Air Intake provides more intakeair than any other intake, and is tied for the lightest (which should negate its higher drag coefficient), and has the same cap on the extra drag as all the rest of them (it just gets there faster, but if you're hitting the super to hyper sonic regime they ALL get there anyway). The AV-T1 has more than twice the weight (and thus drag) as the Tail Fin, for the same effect.

The list goes on and on.

But as one of my friends points you, you have to remember there are other balancing factors here we don't have yet. In Career mode, you're not just going to be able to use every part. You'll have to worry about things like how much the parts cost, if you have the tech that allows you to use them, etc.

Career mode being one of the primary design goals right from the start, you have to keep in mind that it's been planned for since the beginning. Yes, there's parts that seem to be useless, but if it was what you had available, or all you could afford, you'd use it. That's going to come up, eventually, and make some of these 'useless' parts a lot more useful.

Edit:

Well, take a look at the engine colling unit. It doesn't do anything and it's just for asthetic purposes. That's a useless part.

It's the lightest and lowest drag radially attachable cylindrical part, and as such is absolutely ideal for providing non-fuel-carrying mounting points for engines and air intakes, with the advantage that it provides a mounting point for both simultaneously. The air-intake version provides very little intakeair but STILL gets drag-capped at speed, thus adding a lot of drag for very little benefit.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Tiron

[Johnno]

Well, take a look at the engine colling unit. It doesn't do anything and it's just for asthetic purposes. That's a useless part.

Things can be attached to it and it has less mass than the 'structural fuselage' (grey barrel of sorts) while having the same size, so not exactly useless.

This game is just as much about letting your imagination loose while building that is it about 'getting places'. If you can't figure out how to use a part then you're lacking imagination, it's not because the part is inherently useless and shouldn't be in the game.

Personally I'd wish for more structural parts, for me they're the fun part of building.

[Levelord]

Avionics is completely useless now since all pods come with the smooth SAS built in. Also, the avionics doesn't even have reaction wheels.

All the three ladders weigh the same, so you might as well use the longest one wherever you go.

The radial engine has the lousiest ISP, lousy thrust and overall completely pointless. Plus other radially mounted engines does the job better.

[Tiron]

Avionics is completely useless now since all pods come with the smooth SAS built in. Also, the avionics doesn't even have reaction wheels.

All the three ladders weigh the same, so you might as well use the longest one wherever you go.

The radial engine has the lousiest ISP, lousy thrust and overall completely pointless. Plus other radially mounted engines does the job better.

It's also the first radial engine ever added to the game, has Isp similar to the Mainsail (added at the same time), and the highest gimbal range of any engine which coupled with its radial placement gives it the strongest control forces of any engine. It also has higher thrust than any other radial engine.

So yeah.

[Giggleplex777]

Avionics is completely useless now since all pods come with the smooth SAS built in. Also, the avionics doesn't even have reaction wheels.

All the three ladders weigh the same, so you might as well use the longest one wherever you go.

The radial engine has the lousiest ISP, lousy thrust and overall completely pointless. Plus other radially mounted engines does the job better.

1: Adding a few avionics packages seem to give SAS more force

2: The small ladder can be used as a functional heat sink; the yellow one as a pretend drill.

3: The radial engine is not completely useless:

[Tw1]

The different size ladders are useful for complex ladder systems. Can't get a pic right now, but I used one to get a kerbal from the ground to a chair on the side of a rocket.

[Bothersome]

Yeah I've known about nose cone weight craziness for some time now... And those things need to be fixed along with some of the other parts...

But what the game REALLY needs is weights added to some things like Air Intakes. Put a quarter to a half ton weight on those. After all, jet engines aren't supposed to be light as a feather. And the fuel lines, it's not just the fuel lines that make fuel go from one tank to another. It requires pumps and pumps require power. Put a ton of weight for every fuel line you add and then we can see more engenius designs that overcome problems that would simulate a real space program. As it is, everyone is just taking advantage of crazy physics. Making all these silly rocket designs that would never have even have half a chance of a snowball in hell of working. Just look at my SST-18 in my signature for proof of what would NEVER get off the ground in a real space program. You couldn't pump the fuel fast enough and by the time you've added enough pumps and power, you'd be too heavy.

The fun of the game is overcoming hard problems. Taking advantage of crazy physics is only cheating us out of our own fun.

[Levelord]

It's also the first radial engine ever added to the game, has Isp similar to the Mainsail (added at the same time), and the highest gimbal range of any engine which coupled with its radial placement gives it the strongest control forces of any engine. It also has higher thrust than any other radial engine.

So yeah.

The gimbal range is useless with the new SAS stacking. You can turn a rocket on a dime with non gimballing engines now. Also, the high thrust means nothing; the radial Rockomax has a higher thrust to weight ratio, place 6 of those, and they perform better than the standard radial engine.

1: Adding a few avionics packages seem to give SAS more force

2: The small ladder can be used as a functional heat sink; the yellow one as a pretend drill.

3: The radial engine is not completely useless:

No, the avionics provides no torque whatsoever. The avionics is just a SAS flight computer (which all command pods and probe cores have already pre-installed since 0.21).

The ladder's heat sink ability is more of a game bug rather than an actual legitimate use of what it's meant for. The pretend drill is nice, but it's still a pretend aesthetic feature that has nothing to do with the ladder's actual intended use.

Also, your rocket would be able to go much higher if you replace the radial engines with other engines that provide higher TWR, higher ISP and with less fuel.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Levelord

[Tiron]

The gimbal range is useless with the new SAS stacking. You can turn a rocket on a dime with non gimballing engines now. Also, the high thrust means nothing; the radial Rockomax has a higher thrust to weight ratio, place 6 of those, and they perform better than the standard radial engine.

No, the avionics provides no torque whatsoever. The avionics is just a SAS flight computer (which all command pods and probe cores have already pre-installed since 0.21).

The ladder's heat sink ability is more of a game bug rather than an actual legitimate use of what it's meant for. The pretend drill is nice, but it's still a pretend aesthetic feature that has nothing to do with the ladder's actual intended use.

Also, your rocket would be able to go much higher if you replace the radial engines with other engines that provide higher TWR, higher ISP and with less fuel.

Six of the small ones might work better in every way...except one. Six parts instead of one, on a part you have to mount in at LEAST pairs? That makes a minimum of 12 engines. That's gonna push the partcount straight to lagville in a hurry.

As for the ladder, the yellow one at least does have one feature that can make it more useful than the big one: the container that holds the folded up ladder is much longer on the big ladder. So much so, in fact, that if you try to mount it onto most parts of a Mark 1 cockpit, it clips through the other side.

Probably the only part that's completely useless right now is the AV-T1 fin, and that's only because there's a lighter-weight part that otherwise has the exact same stats. There's no other two parts where it's that clear-cut, that I can think of anyway.

[cristof12]

Its a sandbox game. If you wanna put the yellow ladders cause you think its looks better on your rocket, do it. If you like the big white ladders, use them. Stop talking about the use or not of parts in a sandbox game. If you dont like the part, dont use it. What do you want ? You are asking devs to remove the parts that YOU think useless ?

[Wayfare]

Its a sandbox game. If you wanna put the yellow ladders cause you think its looks better on your rocket, do it. If you like the big white ladders, use them. Stop talking about the use or not of parts in a sandbox game. If you dont like the part, dont use it. What do you want ? You are asking devs to remove the parts that YOU think useless ?

I guess the more appropriate measure would be to suggest improvements so those parts become useful instead. I quite like the white radial engines as far as looks go and would love to see their performance brought on par with the LV-909, for example. The avionics nosecone could be repurposed as a pretty sweet probe core. Aerodynamic nosecones won't do much until aerodynamics get overhauled, but in the interim they could do with having their mass and drag values lowered to the lowest possible value.

[Levelord]

Its a sandbox game. If you wanna put the yellow ladders cause you think its looks better on your rocket, do it. If you like the big white ladders, use them. Stop talking about the use or not of parts in a sandbox game. If you dont like the part, dont use it. What do you want ? You are asking devs to remove the parts that YOU think useless ?

No, it's not about not liking the part and not using it, it's about having duplicate parts cluttering the parts menu. I say duplicates because they all have the exact same values.

I'm asking the devs to make them useful and unique from their other counterparts, with their own weight values and so on. Right now they all have the same stats for weight and price. SQUAD probably has more important work on the tech tree for the next update, but is it so hard for them to open up the part file for 5 minutes and assign a few numbers for the weight and price values?

[arq]

Its a sandbox game. If you wanna put the yellow ladders cause you think its looks better on your rocket, do it. If you like the big white ladders, use them. Stop talking about the use or not of parts in a sandbox game. If you dont like the part, dont use it. What do you want ? You are asking devs to remove the parts that YOU think useless ?

I think the main point of this thread is that a rebalancing is in order. Parts have been added over time and without a hard-set rule for determining stats. Since Squad went through all the trouble to model these parts, it would be nice if each part had a niche that it could fill. This will be much more important with the release of career mode (this game will not remain strictly a sandbox forever, or for much longer based on the dev's latest pushes).

For example, engine clusters outperform some of the bigger engines. This encourages higher part-counts, which the game does not like at all. Every part (especially nonstructural parts) should be pareto-optimal for some specific situation (ie the Ant engine gives the highest dV for very light vessels despite possessing abysmal ISP and TWR).