How to choose probe cores?

[lukeoftheaura]

OCTO,HECS,QUBE,OCTO2,RGU or stayputnik?

How do you decide what probe core to use in a rocket or plane or rover?

Edited November 12, 2014 by kerbingamer376

[cicatrix]

They have different mass / reaction wheel torque / electric charge requirements / diameter (though, I'm not sure about exact stats). If you do not have specific needs concerning the stats listed above you can pick whatever you want.

[iZen]

I too feel a lack of distinctiveness between the Cores. Stayputnik usually looks coolest, but the others are basically the same for all in-line needs one might have. I would wish for more elaborate remote vehicle mechanics in Vanilla KSP, which could in turn then make Cores more relevant and distinctive.

[The_Rocketeer]

On tiny probes and rovers, size and shape is everything.

If you're using tri- or hex- symmetry in your design, you might prefer to use the HECS over the OKTO. If you're using bi-, quad- or octa- symmetry then you'll be better off with the OKTO or QUBE. Stayputnik's obviously designed as a nose-cone probe, and historical coolness factor. The RGUs are designed to put into rockets of larger diameters. The OKTO2 is the super-lightweight of the group.

It also completely depends on what you're building and what it's for. Sometimes you're better off trading your core for a slightly beefier one rather than adding a reaction wheel, or you might consider a core with lower power demands rather than adding more batteries/panels. Sometimes all you really want is an onboard computer to make adjustments while the Kerbs are on EVA. The heat tolerance stat of the various cores may also play a role in the release version (correct me if I'm wrong in thinking it doesn't already).

[Superfluous J]

I follow this simple diagram:

STEP 1: Have you unlocked the OKTO2?

Yes -> Use the OKTO2

No

|

V

STEP 2: Have you unlocked he Stayputnik?

Yes -> Use the Stayputnik

No -> You don't have any probe cores.

[Th3F3aR]

I chose by design Aspects, simply because not every satellite should look like another (Based on what they are supposed to do).

For a Communication Relay i use the Staputnik because i have a lot space to put on Antennas.

Scanner Array Sats use a Okto, depending on how big the satellite gets i chose which type.

For Rovers i use the smallest Probe COre to prevent a high point.

[Geschosskopf]

How do you decide what probe core to use in a rocket or plane or rover?

For purely science probes, I like to use the Okto because its flat side surfaces are great for attaching solar panels, batteries, etc. All the science instruments are on a box girder mounted on top of the Okto.

For probes that actually do work (fuel tankers, drone planes, station modules, fail-safe "bring the ship home if the Kerbals die", etc.), I use whatever circular probe core is the same diameter as the main stack of the ship or plane.

[capi3101]

My decision tree is pretty much the same as 5thHorseman's, on account of the OKTO2 being the smallest and least massive probe core available. That said, I have been known to use the RGUs for final booster stages if they're available, because they are the cleanest looking when placed in-line and you don't need a whole lot of control - just some - to self-clean that last booster stage in stock.

[Laie]

My decision tree is pretty much the same as 5thHorseman's, on account of the OKTO2 being the smallest and least massive probe core available.

Me three. It also has the strongest torque in it's class. Several others are just as strong, but heavier. A few (weightless) struts easily provide enough mountpoints for everything.

I also like to use the Stayputnik every once in a while, just because. It's still pretty lightweight, cheap, and has the mostest surface -- saving a few struts for part count.

I rarely slip a wide-diameter probe core into the main body of a vessel: they create the same wobbliness issues as anything else. In the old days, I tried to find (or create) a spot where I could place an okto; meanwhile, I just slap on a mechjeb module and am done with it (torque and batteries have to be provided by the main vessel, of course).

[John FX]

I follow this simple diagram:

STEP 1: Have you unlocked the OKTO2?

Yes -> Use the OKTO2

No

|

V

STEP 2: Have you unlocked he Stayputnik?

Yes -> Use the Stayputnik

No -> You don't have any probe cores.

I follow the same diagram but in between the two cores I use the thicker heavier one with a node on top whichever I have unlocked (HECS? OKTO? makes no difference) so I can put chutes and other things on the top of it.

My diagram is like this

STEP 1: Have you unlocked the OKTO2?

Yes -> Use the OKTO2

No

|

V

STEP 3: Have you unlocked the HECS or OKTO?

Yes -> Use the HECS or OKTO

No

|

V

STEP 3: Have you unlocked the Stayputnik?

Yes -> Use the Stayputnik

No -> You don't have any probe cores.

[astropapi1]

I usually go for the OKTO2 for simplicity and usability, but the Stayputnik makes for good looking probes too.

If you're clever, you will be able to find a use for all probe cores. For example, just look at this little fellow's chest:

Or this Stayputnik used as a mini pod:

[LethalDose]

On tiny probes and rovers, size and shape is everything.

This. I use whatever probe core fits on the vessel I'm building. There are a lot of times the RGU-001S is exactly what I need for large probes and ATV/Progress style replenishment vehicles and the L01 is good for heavy automated tugs. I use the smaller cores for smaller satellites.

I have really found very few uses for the QBE, tho.

[capi3101]

I have really found very few uses for the QBE, tho.

Try sticking a small decoupler on one end, a batt and maybe a few science instruments on the other, and OX-STAT panels on the remaining sides. Instant drop probe for rovers. I use them with my Hellhound rover as ground markers - you drop one on both ends of the runway, another about a kilometer inland, another five kilometers inland, park the rover ten kilometers out and reset them all as bases, and boom: an ILS.

[LethalDose]

Try sticking a small decoupler on one end, a batt and maybe a few science instruments on the other, and OX-STAT panels on the remaining sides. Instant drop probe for rovers. I use them with my Hellhound rover as ground markers - you drop one on both ends of the runway, another about a kilometer inland, another five kilometers inland, park the rover ten kilometers out and reset them all as bases, and boom: an ILS.

From a rp/fun position, I see your points. I guess I've never needed drop-probes for rovers, and from a practical stand-point the ILS can be done with flags, and for less cost.

[Pecan]

I follow this simple diagram:

STEP 1: Have you unlocked the OKTO2?

Yes -> Use the OKTO2

No

|

V

STEP 2: Have you unlocked he Stayputnik?

Yes -> Use the Stayputnik

No -> You don't have any probe cores.

Your signature list several videos on YouTube :-(

WHY have you not published this flow-chart as a text tutorial here on the forums!!

[Jouni]

I always use OKTO2, RC-001S, or RC-L10, depending on the size of the main hull. The RC-L01 is a bit heavy, but usually it doesn't matter. It's also the only probe core with an access tunnel for kerbals to pass through, which is important for me when I add probe cores to manned ships.

[capi3101]

From a rp/fun position, I see your points. I guess I've never needed drop-probes for rovers, and from a practical stand-point the ILS can be done with flags, and for less cost.

True. Though I have a low-end box; the ground around Kerbin in my local KSP instance has a tendency to eat flags for breakfast. Hence the use of something a bit sturdier in my case.

[GoSlash27]

Always the okto-2 for me. Lighter is better. If I need more reaction wheel torque, I'll add reaction wheels further down the stack where they hurt my mass ratio less.

Best,

-Slashy

[cantab]

Controlling a 1.25 m stack, the applicable RGU. Controlling a 2.5 m or bigger stack, either an octo2 or a qbe mounted on a cubic octagonal strut, the big RGU is too heavy IMHO. The qbe masses the same as an RTG, which is the main reason I pick it.

If I think it's gonna be whacked, the QBE, since it's sturdier.

For a small probe, whatever I think looks good.

[Superfluous J]

Your signature list several videos on YouTube :-(

WHY have you not published this flow-chart as a text tutorial here on the forums!!

I may be being particularly dense tonight, but I don't understand either of these statements. Why is publishing YouTube videos worthy of a frown, and I did just publish (well, type) the flow chart on the forums in as texty a tutorial as I could.