Jump to content

Form or Function?


Form or Function  

255 members have voted

  1. 1. Form or Function

    • Efficiency and simplicity is the primary objective
      46
    • I make small sacrifices in efficiency to improve visual appeal
      96
    • I balance the two as equally as possible
      68
    • Making the vehicle efficient is secondary to making it look good
      34
    • I only build fantastic looking vehicles. Efficiency doesn't factor into the design.
      11


Recommended Posts

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.

This is efficiency: a staged rocket with payload fraction almost 74%.

jet_boosted_3.jpeg

If you see anything elegant or aesthetic there, you're a strange person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think function, always, but I think as long as you design your missions and vehicles yourself, your character bleeds into the design. I personally make everything very modular, so if something goes wrong, i can tear apart my vehicles and rebuild something new as I see fit. So my designs tend to have their own unique look.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Exactly our visual system is all about patterns, so looking right is fitting with the pattern of what we've seen works.

Only in the broken (hopefully old) aerodynamics of KSP could ugly be considered efficient.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, a spacecrafts form is a result of function. It's fun by itself to watch a craft changing by every iteration and the inclusion of new ideas.

Doesn't need to be ugly, so some adjustments are ok, but the Space Shuttle isn't famous because of it's looks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it depends on the goal.

When I try to recreate and existing craft (like Saturn 5, Mir, Soyuz etc.) Form is the most important, and then function should match the required performance, but it most certainly is not optimized for function.

When I build a craft to accomplish something in game, like a manned mission to eve or eeloo I try to make it (1) as light and efficient as possible with (2) a low part count and then (3) try to make it look the part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it flies good, it looks good.

And for aircraft in stock aero: If it looks right, it flies wrong.

(But really, spamming parts to fit some preconceived measure of beauty that has nothing to do with a craft's operational environment in KSP and often has little to do with real life seems boring)

Edited by UmbralRaptor
Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends.

If I'm going for eve return, I don't mind if the craft is so ugly that my eyes burn. However, sometimes I go for pure looks, "nerfing" the ships to oblivion in favor of sleeker wings etc. It really depends whether I can afford the looks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Functionality sometimes lends itself to really cool-looking spacecraft. Consider this latest undertaking of mine:

3g7YAp2.jpg

It took a long time to get that thing to look as good as it does, but it only looks that way because it was the only way I could balance the spacecraft and still get the functionality I wanted. If you can't tell, that's a lander probe slung behind the command capsule (it's designed to deploy in Munar orbit and land on the surface using RCS power). There's a suite of scientific instruments I have on the main spacecraft that exist partly to balance out the weight, but also to scope out potential landing sites!

I think that, in this case, I've managed to balance efficiency and appearance. After all: nobody likes an eyesore!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to make things amazingly beautiful, but it has to work at least a little. like my shuttle "technically" can make it to orbit, but being 1300 parts means most people won't use it every day. But it's sure pretty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I try to make my rockets efficient and visually...hmmm.....maybe not very appealing but symmetric, that for me, have some appeal and it becomes more efficient. So for example, what I put in the right side, I also put in the left. Since I use lots of mods to make my KSP real as possible (in a way I consider real for a space game).

Of course some things can not, and do not have any point of been symmetric, I do not put 3 extending ladders for visual because I have one in the side of the airlock.

I think when a rocket is balance in terms, not only in Dv but also in terms of not falling to one side because of CoM, it becomes visually appealing.

This does not mean putting weird stuff on a side of a rocket to make the CoM getting in the middle!

Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...