Form or Function?

[Agent86]

Which is more important to you when designing a mission? Are you happy with an ugly pancake lifter, so long as it gets the job done as efficiently as possible, or do you sacrifice delta-V, part counts and usability for a sleek, visually appealing vehicle?

Personally, I prefer to build a craft that looks great, no matter how inefficient it is, by using lots of unnecessary parts to create shapes that differ from the shape of typical stock parts, but I keep mods to the bare minimum.

[regex]

I prefer form, although I feel that my stuff ends up being more functional-looking.

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

All for efficiency and simplicity here. The only time when consider the looks is when I can choose where to place a part. Say I can place it at 90º to make it look better but I was going to place the part anyways. But if for some reason I can't place it at 90, then I really don't care. Also solar panels I usually place in pairs.

The rest of the time, whatever works, works, ugly or not, if it takes me to where I want to go, and allows me to do what I want to do, it's fine by me.

[helaeon]

Form follows function. Function follows form. It looks as it needs to look and if I did a good job designing it will be elegant.

This is what we learn from biology & biochemistry.

[cantab]

I tend to build quite functionally, within the overall design and objectives I've chosen. That overall design might not be the most efficient possible - for example I'll typically use a separate orbiter and lander, even if a direct ascent would be lower mass. I also like to "show my stuff", at least when it comes to spacecraft - things like batteries belong in plain view for me, not concealed in cargo bays and definitely not clipped inside other parts.

I will make some concessions to looks though. I don't want something that just looks daft unless that's my actual goal. I'll add parts to sort out aesthetic issues even if they add a bit of mass, or use a heavier component because it fits better. I'm not going to slap stuff like batteries on willy-nilly, they go somewhere sensible. And for planes, and occasionally spacecraft, I will be more likely to hide things out of sight.

[GusTurbo]

I build for aesthetics, while trying to meet a minimum level of function. I mainly make replicas though.

[moeggz]

Aesthetics where possible, but not at the cost of a single meter of delta-v

[Wanderfound]

Efficient enables aesthetic; it's a lot easier to sacrifice a few ÃŽâ€V for the appearance's sake when you know that you've got 1,000ÃŽâ€V to spare.

[Kibble]

When you play RO, form IS function! (especially with Tantares)

[Yukon0009]

@@!@!@!#!@!#@ effiency!

[White Owl]

With FAR, and probably with the upcoming revised stock aerodynamics, making an efficient launcher necessarily means making it look aerodynamic and pretty. "If it looks right, it'll fly right" is an old adage and very true.

[Robotengineer]

I try to balance the two. Though I will always sacrifice aesthetics on the altar of function if necessary.

[matts73]

Really? I miss the option " I don´t care either of these"

[JebNeedsHelp]

Or the option, "As long as the zarking thing doesn't blow up, it's all good."

[Tw1]

Generally, if I want a vessel to look a certain way, I'll do it with the minimum parts needed, and avoid weight and lag adding clutter.

However, this is not always the case with planes or rovers, where wing parts and structural panels are the only way to achieve the desired shape.

Some times I'll add lots of physics less parts to the outside of ships, just for look.

[zekes]

The last choice - I was born for it.

[Vanamonde]

Functionality is a kind of form to me. I like building something that works, and then being semi-surprised myself by what the final product looks like. But also, I put almost no non-necessary parts on my ships to keep part count down and avoid lag. When the working parts alone total over 500,

I can't afford to pretty it up.

[Daze]

If it looks good it's Ok, even if it has 300m/s of DV less than a similar-uglier-craft

[CaptainKipard]

Functionality is a kind of form to me. I like building something that works, and then being semi-surprised myself by what the final product looks like. But also, I put almost no non-necessary parts on my ships to keep part count down and avoid lag. When the working parts alone total over 500,

http://i.imgur.com/ytvhqmI.png

I can't afford to pretty it up.

This about sums it up for me too. With the new aero, function will be even more of a factor, which until then I roleplay... so form now, function after 1.0.

[TimePeriod]

Function is where its at.

Who cares what it looks like?

That's like trying to make a tank look pretty, its meant to kill, not to look pretty.

[Wallygator]

I build for function in the first pass, form next not in an aesthetic sense but more for form factor (needs to fit in a...), then an aesthetic purpose.

Since I just switched to RSS I'm stuck in the function cycle for a good while. ;-)

[Flixxbeatz]

Balanced, but leans more on the "form" part. I prefer to finish missions. I prefer to make crafts that can finish the mission while making them look good, realistic, and aerodynamic as possible. Because why not?

Check out these things I've made. Same aerodynamic launch vehicle (

) yet different-sized (and varying mass) payloads.

[Red Iron Crown]

When I make spaceplanes, form >>> function.

When I make rockets/conventional spacecraft, function >>> form.

Though I've been playing and looking at the craft of others for long enough that function is its own kind of form.

[Xaver]

Both! Nice in sandbox. Efficient in career.

[GoSlash27]

I don't care what it looks like. I just want it to do the job as cheaply and efficiently as possible.

Best,

-Slashy