Form or Function?

[Elthy]

If you dont have enough Delta-V to make your vehicle look good your rocket is to small. The biggest good looking rocket (aka "no pancake") i build with KW Parts gets 140T in a 500km orbit, so i never have a mass problem...

[Vaporo]

Hah! I don't care about efficiency or aesthetics. My rockets are ugly ten-story monstrosities that could be done with half the parts and a quarter of the weight. I build rockets that get places via brute force, not elegance.

[worir4]

If it blows up spectacularly, then it is both efficient and aesthetically pleasing to me.

[Bill Phil]

Functionality, utility, and affordability are my three main design rules. One is usually sacrificed to focus on the other two.

[Random Tank]

Supposing I use FAR, where things have to be aerodynamic (things in space don't matter so long as they're compact); most aerodynamic things are sleek, sharp and Gotta-go-fast looking, which is the epitome (in my mind) of cool looking. So as far as I'm concerned, most cases Function = Form

[GoSlash27]

If you dont have enough Delta-V to make your vehicle look good your rocket is to small. The biggest good looking rocket (aka "no pancake") i build with KW Parts gets 140T in a 500km orbit, so i never have a mass problem...

Heresy!!

I say if you have enough DV to squander on aesthetics, your rocket is too big!

Best,

-Slashy

[cicatrix]

Low cost and efficiency - that's what matters. Still if this ends up in a nice appearance I don't object. I know a famous words of one airplane designer though: An ugly thing won't fly well

[Madrias]

Build efficient primarily, then make it look good. If done right, you'll only sacrifice a little of your delta-V to achieve a look that you can enjoy.

[Jouni]

Simplicity is the primary concern. Efficiency and aesthetics come after it.

[r_rolo1]

Efficiency first, period. If a ship does not look good when it is efficient, the game is the faulty part , not the design

[Guest]

[something]

Edited April 5, 2015 by Jack Wolfe

[SkyRender]

To me, the greatest form is that of function. Nothing is more beautiful than a device which can perform a task efficiently and with similarly efficient contingencies in place to deal with potential problems. It's far more impressive than a massive space-waster that just sits there and does nothing of use.

[Mitchz95]

I usually start off with utilitarian designs, then switch to "cruisers" - multi-mission science vessels designed to be pretty as well as useful - once I start going interplanetary.

For example, here's two of my Ambassador-class cruisers from my previous save.

U.K.S. Ambassador:

U.K.S. Serenity:

[Lhathron the Elf]

I'm usually able to incorporate the parts that I need into my design while still making it look good, so this really isn't a problem for me.

[Wjolcz]

Both. I spend way too much time making my SSTOs look good. Not always tho.

[alexman142]

I go for mostly form. I can't stand an ugly rocket, so I make my rockets beautiful.

[Voculus]

Even before I was using FAR, I used nosecones on my rockets, and tried to make them sleek and streamlined. Any old Joe Blow off the streets can slap together a stack of pancakes, and strut them until the whole mess looks like a circus tent.

There's nothing in KSP that requires an ugly craft to get the job done. Any mission can be accomplished with a gorgeous, and thoughtfully-designed ship.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Voculus

[Valley]

Function - Function - Function. Maybe it is the fact that I prefer my science fiction hard or that I love the movies like Outland, Alien, and Moon Zero Two. I want spaceships that look worn, that look like they have been through heck and back, that look like they get the job done.

[panzer1b]

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.

Im pretty much like you in terms of my builds. While i always make sure my builds do get teh dV i want them to (depends on their function), i tend to build by making a frame that looks cool, and then cram its internals with stuff i need to make it fly/drive/whatever.

Im what youd call a for looks designer, and very few of my builds look conventional (mostly sci-fi inspired stuff), only a few of my designs are purely efficiency, recently prolly none, even my new tanker to keep my fleet of capital ships flying looks like a capital ship itself, instead of just a tank with a docking port liek i used to use.

never enjoyed replicating real life or making 1005 efficiency designs, always liked that original cool looking design over the commonplace classical rocket (i actually never touch rockets except to lift my capital ships into orbit). Actually the only stuff i make habitually that doesnt fit my aesthetic requirements are lifters, as in they get dumped asap anyways, so who cares what the monstrosity i made to lift my 500t capital ship looks like.

[Cupcake...]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-kEY3EhbDY&list=UUqgsE2C9kx62D1zYWHyAEow

Why not both?

Cupcake...

[keeper]

I've never built something to look better than its purpose.

I am actually starting to like my "functional designs"

[micr0wave]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-kEY3EhbDY&list=UUqgsE2C9kx62D1zYWHyAEow

Why not both?

Cupcake...

awesome !!!

[GoSlash27]

I've never built something to look better than its purpose.

I am actually starting to like my "functional designs"

Thinkin' about it further, this.

Ships that have been engineered to to the job as efficiently as possible without regard to any other factors wind up having a utilitarian style that I find very attractive.

Best,

-Slashy

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

Efficancy leads to elegance and thus good aesthetics. They're one of the same to me, obviously there are 'artsy fartsy' ships that serve no purpose other than to look good, but then they're being very efficient at their job (looking good). Thus they are efficient.

[Flixxbeatz]

Check out this ship:

Note the wings on the ship itself. While it may be functional if in the atmosphere, it's not meant to go down.

Basically it's there just for the looks

For the struts and dock ports, they're strategically placed.

Also, take note the lack of pancakes to lift something that big. Yes - I drained most fuel on the ship prior to launch just to avoid pancaking it. Therefore, majority of part count is on the ship itself and not on both lifter and ship.

I go for mostly form. I can't stand an ugly rocket, so I make my rockets beautiful.

Nice to see someone with the same mindset as me.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Flixxbeatz