KSP Weekly: What a week!

[CobaltWolf]

I personally think @RoverDude's LEM is fantastic, and I actually find it more visually appealing than my own (I'm booting up Unity and Photoshop as I type this...), my wish is just that the stock parts find some sort of consistency in their appearance. Nice new parts are great but the lack of unified art style of the existing parts is still an issue IMO.

[Raptor9]

59 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

I personally think @RoverDude's LEM is fantastic, and I actually find it more visually appealing than my own (I'm booting up Unity and Photoshop as I type this...), my wish is just that the stock parts find some sort of consistency in their appearance. Nice new parts are great but the lack of unified art style of the existing parts is still an issue IMO.

I was thinking about this yesterday, and one might speculate that this expansion is why the rocket part overhaul was cancelled.  Maybe Squad was already in the early planning or concept phases of this expansion pack and figured it might be wise to iron out future development plans before possibly having to redo any work later.  For all we know the mission builder or history pack functionality might have impacted the implementation of the rocket part overhaul somehow.

Again, this is pure speculation, but I hope perhaps a rocket part overhaul might get rolled into the development cycle of this expansion.  Not as a DLC, but a way to ensure a common standard or appearance consistency across the base game and the DLC pack, like you said.

[klgraham1013]

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

Nice new parts are great but the lack of unified art style of the existing parts is still an issue IMO.

Agreed.  I'm resigned to mods solving this issue at this point.

As with life support, necessary information being displayed, non-toy solar system, etc.

4 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

Maybe Squad was already in the early planning or concept phases of this expansion pack and figured it might be wise to iron out future development plans before possibly having to redo any work later.

Wouldn't it be the opposite?  Wouldn't you want to get the core finalized before expanding?

[Frozen_Heart]

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

I personally think @RoverDude's LEM is fantastic, and I actually find it more visually appealing than my own (I'm booting up Unity and Photoshop as I type this...), my wish is just that the stock parts find some sort of consistency in their appearance. Nice new parts are great but the lack of unified art style of the existing parts is still an issue IMO.

Yeah this. A unified art style has eluded KSP for its entire existence, and every time they've tried they get half way through and then those modelers leave. 

 

This new medium landing can looks great though and at least it fits with the roverdude and nova art style though not the porkjet one.

[Raptor9]

8 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

Wouldn't it be the opposite?  Wouldn't you want to get the core finalized before expanding?

Not if you're trying to ensure that a common visual appearance or functionality was included.  If you know you may be adding new content down the road, and you're working on existing content, it might make sense to hold off on the stuff you're working on until your future plans solidify, since they may impact your current work.

Example: Let's say they had released the overhauled rocket parts already.  Down the road, they release the expansion pack with new parts that may take advantage of some new lighting effect or texturing method they use (not a programmer, obviously ), and they look different than the base game's parts.  Now it's right back to square one in that you have two different visual schemes or appearance standards in the game.  Of course, this would only matter to those that purchase the DLC, but the predicament is still valid.

I'm just spit-balling here.

[RoverDude]

3 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Yeah this. A unified art style has eluded KSP for its entire existence, and every time they've tried they get half way through and then those modelers leave. 

 

This new medium landing can looks great though and at least it fits with the roverdude and nova art style though not the porkjet one.

(Also pinging @CobaltWolf)

Trust me, art consistency is something I take into consideration, and have discussed with Leticia (our Lead Artist).  A big part of this is making parts that 'fit' with the different art styles, while pushing towards more consistency.  There's definitely a 'Kerbal' aesthetic - not junk, but not human proportions either.  Chunky, with a slight cartoony feel with a bit of accompanying oversaturation.  

Two things to consider...  Airplane parts are different than rocket parts, and even further removed from parts that never have to deal with atmospheric use (like the LEM).  Another thing (and one that's very hard to see from the outside till the content is in your hand), is that I am making sure all of the new parts have a comparable level of detail (in terms of texture resolution compared to part size), using the Mk-2 and Mk-3 as baselines since those have a pretty crisp level of detail without being massive resource hogs.

[klesh]

2 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

*snip*

 

I think you have a very good art style that feels "kerbal" to me in a good way.  I've dug your additions to the stock game as well as the aesthetic in the USI suite.  I hope you and Leticia get turned loose on the old parts soon as they really need a facelift.

[StrandedonEarth]

4 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

Wouldn't it be the opposite?  Wouldn't you want to get the core finalized before expanding?

I can also see wanting localization done first, just in case there's any localization on the part textures themselves. Then parts can be localized as they overhaul them.

Edited March 20, 2017 by StrandedonEarth

[Wjolcz]

15 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

I can also see wanting localization done first, just in case there's any localization on the part textures themselves. Then parts can be localized as they overhaul them.

Oooooooooh! It actually makes sense since there's text on some of the parts. Damn. So we might actually get the stock part overhaul after all. Unless it's going to be a part of the DLC.

[passinglurker]

57 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

(Also pinging @CobaltWolf)

Trust me, art consistency is something I take into consideration, and have discussed with Leticia (our Lead Artist).  A big part of this is making parts that 'fit' with the different art styles, while pushing towards more consistency.  There's definitely a 'Kerbal' aesthetic - not junk, but not human proportions either.  Chunky, with a slight cartoony feel with a bit of accompanying oversaturation.

This is the problem right here you can't unify the aesthetic by trying to bridge kerbal's archeological layers of art leads you have to pick one (Porkjet style and only porkjet style) and throw away the rest as if they were only temporary placeholders. Anything else will look like squad is trying to get out of the rocket revamp which won't fly given peoples continued interest and inquires into the revamp despite the news that it's been shelved.
 

 

 

[mattinoz]

50 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

I can also see wanting localization done first, just in case there's any localization on the part textures themselves. Then parts can be localized as they overhaul them.

 

Well if you are going to localize text on parts it would be better to do it procedurally as decals over the base texure like flags.

If you are going to do that well why not expand to allow custom user text on parts.

[mattinoz]

34 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

This is the problem right here you can't unify the aesthetic by trying to bridge kerbal's archeological layers of art leads you have to pick one (Porkjet style and only porkjet style) and throw away the rest as if they were only temporary placeholders. Anything else will look like squad is trying to get out of the rocket revamp which won't fly given peoples continued interest and inquires into the revamp despite the news that it's been shelved.
 

 

 

 

There are many companies with flags in KSP already and it's a great way to sort parts. I'll agree within each company parts should be consistent in style. However would question the need for a full game consistency. You want to be able to see the character to tell what parts are used for craft people post on forums.

I might be more a case of a few mergers and company division spin-offs. Before deciding which one need work.

[klgraham1013]

56 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

This is the problem right here you can't unify the aesthetic by trying to bridge kerbal's archeological layers of art leads you have to pick one (Porkjet style and only porkjet style) and throw away the rest as if they were only temporary placeholders. Anything else will look like squad is trying to get out of the rocket revamp which won't fly given peoples continued interest and inquires into the revamp despite the news that it's been shelved.

I agree.  How can there be a style guide when the current aesthetic is so uneven.  That's what I meant with my comment on the previous page.  Get the core finalized and you can create an art bible for all future projects.

2 hours ago, RoverDude said:

Airplane parts are different than rocket parts

Indeed, but this being a lego-style building game, all parts should hypothetically work together.  Not sure if that is what you were getting at, but I've seen "rocket parts only need to go with rockets parts" as a defense for uneven aesthetics.  Allowing people to be creative and still have a craft that resembles a consistent whole can only be a good thing.

Edited March 20, 2017 by klgraham1013

[0111narwhalz]

12 minutes ago, mattinoz said:

There are many companies with flags in KSP already and it's a great way to sort parts. I'll agree within each company parts should be consistent in style. [...] I might be more a case of a few mergers and company division spin-offs. Before deciding which one need work.

The problem is, most of those companies have only a half-dozen parts. I don't think having a separate aesthetic for each company would solve any problems. This would necessitate a lot more mergers than divisions.

15 minutes ago, mattinoz said:

You want to be able to see the character to tell what parts are used for craft people post on forums.

I would say that the individual parts should be distinct, but their style should be uniform. You can tell the difference between a Mk II LF tank and a Mk II LFO tank of the same size, but they fit together nicely anyway. However, as it is, it's hard to tell the difference between a Rockomax x32 and two x16s.

I think the Rockomax Jumbo x64 should stay the "Big Orange Tank" it's always been, but it needs a facelift. The other 2m tanks should follow its lead, with perhaps a gray similar to their current state but less sheet-metal-and-rivets.

[mcirish3]

17 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

Indeed, but this being a lego-style building game, all parts should hypothetically work together.  Not sure if that is what you were getting at, but I've seen "rocket parts only need to go with rockets parts" as a defense for uneven aesthetics.  Allowing people to be creative and still have a craft that resembles a consistent whole can only be a good thing.

 

I would like this more if I could.  Bummer on the only one like per post.

[passinglurker]

36 minutes ago, mattinoz said:

There are many companies with flags in KSP already and it's a great way to sort parts. I'll agree within each company parts should be consistent in style. However would question the need for a full game consistency. You want to be able to see the character to tell what parts are used for craft people post on forums.

I might be more a case of a few mergers and company division spin-offs. Before deciding which one need work.

Yeah I may be interchanging some terms the wrong way but just to be clear there can be different styles (the difference between a sleek space plane and a technical looking lander) but they have to keep the same aesthetic (something in the ballpark of "not junky trash, but exaggerated, toyish, and by extension 'played with' in appearance") older parts aesthetic don't align with porkjet's parts. Many don't meet the same level of quality or detail because they were intended to only be placeholders and were never upgraded. These need to be replaced no debate the concern here is that if the history parts are trying to fit in with all the different aesthetics that exist in kerbal it might become an in to justifying keeping the old parts.

but it isn't all bad with the history parts meeting people's desire for mercury pods and F-1 engines and such squad would then be free to replace the old parts with more original designs unconstrained by the expectations of history buffs. That is again assuming they do this right and not try to justify wiggling out of the rocket revamp.

Edited March 20, 2017 by passinglurker

[regex]

55 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

I agree.  How can there be a style guide when the current aesthetic is so uneven.

I think any rocket part revamp is doomed to drab greyness without Porkjet's hand. I really liked the clean, fresh, ready-to-fly aesthetic of Porkjet's parts, and the NASA parts weren't too bad either, but the "55-gallon junkyard drum grey" has got to go...

Edited March 20, 2017 by regex

[klgraham1013]

41 minutes ago, regex said:

I think any rocket part revamp is doomed to drab greyness without Porkjet's hand. I really liked the clean, fresh, ready-to-fly aesthetic of Porkjet's parts, and the NASA parts weren't too bad either, but the "55-gallon junkyard drum grey" has got to go...

I'd like to believe that whoever the new art lead Squad has hired must have some skill.  Any evidence for that has yet to be produced.  Unless @RoverDude is the new art dude.  To be honest, after the Great Exodus, I'm not really sure who's who are Squad anymore.  I suppose it's not my business, but it does translate into a lack of faith after @Porkjet left.

Edited March 20, 2017 by klgraham1013

[regex]

20 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

I'd like to believe that whoever the new art lead Squad has hired must have some skill.

It's not skill I'm worried about, it's the overall aesthetic and coloring.

[Dr.K Kerbal]

Read the book. I thought it was kind of a magazine though, but good job anyway, I added it to my iBooks. Keep up the good work SQUAD. 

[0111narwhalz]

9 minutes ago, Dr.K Kerbal said:

I thought it was kind of a magazine though, 

It was supposed to be a magazine. 

[Dr.K Kerbal]

3 minutes ago, 0111narwhalz said:

It was supposed to be a magazine. 

Oh.

[John FX]

13 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

I was thinking about this yesterday, and one might speculate that this expansion is why the rocket part overhaul was cancelled.

I agree. I would imagine though that they thought they could make more money by charging for work which should have been included by anybodies judgement in a `finished game` (like a fully fleshed out set of parts) so now we have paid DLC.

This is a situation that I saw coming years ago and, like that uncle who always disgraces themselves at the christmas party, even though you know what is gong to happen well in advance, it`s still a little sad that it does.

Addressing all the areas which have previously been referred to as placeholders is mandatory to honourably be able to call your game finished. A finished game with placeholders you can only fix with a paid DLC?

To my mind, and this is only my opinion, the stock game is incredibly sparse for a modern game, it barely qualifies as a game, more like a set of physics rules and parts. There is no meat on the bones (the bones being parts, a way to put them together and a place to test what you have made).

I originally was enticed into the game through the name `kerbal space PROGRAM` but I obviously misunderstood the program part. I thought I would be running a `space program` like NASA, with budgets, maybe a government and media to satisfy, and so on. Engine development, pilot training, budget management, scientific exploration of new worlds, dreaming, building, and flying, with a purpose etc.

Turns out I am running a program on my computer which allows kerbals into space with elements to make up the `space program` which barely qualify, like a 13 year old handing in a school assignment they didn`t like doing. The work is still present but rather less than one would expect from the advance description of it. It feels more like a box ticking exercise.

Mods provide essential elements which make the game playable and that should not be the case.

Like I say, this is just my opinion, man.

EDIT :

13 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

A unified art style has eluded KSP for its entire existence, and every time they've tried they get half way through and then those modelers leave. 

 

It has indeed. It`s just a shame that now they have one it is in a paid DLC because it should be one of the basics to have your textures and models sorted before you say your game is in a state where it can be released.

 

6 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

To be honest, after the Great Exodus, I'm not really sure who's who are Squad anymore.

 

Same here.

Edited March 20, 2017 by John FX

[RoverDude]

Bear in mind (and to be 100% clear), there's a world of difference between establishing, documenting, and pursuing a consistent artistic style (Hyper-realistic?  Cartoonish?  Retro?) and standards (Specularity, color palette, guidelines for polygons/textures) vs. ensuring every single asset in a game, past and present, adheres strictly to that style.  I am speaking purely of the former.  I have no comment on the latter, as that would be an NDA issue.

KSP has a very distinctive feel (as noted before - it's a chunky cartoonish look, scaled for Kerbals not humans).  A hyper-realistic part... whether it's a hyper-realistic oil drum or a sleek engine nacelle... would be incredibly jarring.  So establishing and documenting what a 'Kerbal' part looks like is important. 

 

[XrayLima]

The LEM looks awesome!  Got to admit, I'm not a great fan of the "must have" RCS but hey, it is what it is.  If I don't like it, maybe I should go make my own rather than throw rocks....(EDIT:  This is aimed at myself, not any particular comment or member here, just a nudge for me to get modding!)   Thought though, using a 0.625 connection at the top means either a Clamp-O-Tron Docking Port Jr is used on the LEM and the CM nose or a 0.625 -1.25 adapter is needed to adapt to the Clamp-O-Tron Docking Port . Neither is going to look too good I wouldn't think? I might be being old fashioned but I'm not a fan of the 0.625 Clamp-O-Tron Jr for crew transfers, even if they do now allow it.  Thoughts?

 

Bloody good surprise though!

Edited March 20, 2017 by XrayLima