Aesthetics: Important to you?

[Terwin]

Aesthetics?

Is that the thing where you overlap 3 fuel tanks into the space 1 would normally take so your lander is short enough to be stable on an 8 degree tilt, or is that the thing where you put your ISRU inside a Mk3 cargo bay because it has weak joints and cannot surface attach?

 

If I can get it into space and it does it's job, then that is good enough.

 

Edited September 8, 2016 by Terwin

[TheDestroyer111]

I, especially in spacecraft, hate everything that sacrifices even a *tiny bit* of performance for aesthetics. That is because an aesthetic craft for me MUST look like something that just works well. For planes, the only real reason why I don't hate aesthetic-performance-sacrificing craft is because it rarely actually sacrifices performance  (ofc as long as this is done in the boundaries of the first school of replica building. I openly oppose the second school of replica building)

Edited September 8, 2016 by TheDestroyer111

[Curveball Anders]

It doesn't have to be beautiful to work, but if it works it's beautiful

[Sharpy]

41 minutes ago, Stoney3K said:

Please tell me how to get something like THAT into Kerbin orbit without having to use the 'Infinite Fuel' cheat.

The tanker? Into LKO? Chase all the kerbals except Jeb out of the cockpit, set it on the launchpad, press X, 1, 2, T, Z, lean into gentle, steep gravity turn, once you reach 1400m/s press 2 to shut down Vectors, with apoapsis above 70km switch off Rhinos. Circularize using the Rhinos.

Too bad LKO was unsatisfactory for me. I added four Twin Boar boosters, each with two orange tanks. Ended up with 2000m/s more than I needed.

[katateochi]

While I do like efficiency my general approach is to make something that looks how I want it to look and then begins the struggle of how to make the darn thing fly without compromising its appearance. The Zen point of KSP comes when efficiency and aesthetics work together rather than against each other. 

[Kerbart]

95% of my design time is spent on aesthetics. That doesn't mean I don't care about function or that I want things to look "pretty," but I do want them to look tight and functional as well. And make it look like it was designed on a drawing board, not like a bunch of lego pieces snapped together.

I suspect most people do it that way.

[Corona688]

To a degree, aesthetics have become important in the game, too...  Aerodynamics will now punish you for any flat tops and gaping holes found in your craft and fairings mandatory for some things.  Once in space anything goes, but it still has to get there.

Still, I have a weird aesthetic.  Partial symmetry is interesting.  I really liked the look of this thing but gradually realized it horrified my friends

Edited September 8, 2016 by Corona688

[MaxwellsDemon]

IMHO, form should follow function.

The Apollo LEM is a beautiful machine in the eye of the beholder-- if the beholder is an engineer.  Otherwise, it didn't have a lot going for it, visually.

[SpacedCowboy]

I usually strive for the best of both worlds,,, but it doesn't always work out like that.

[Corona688]

32 minutes ago, MaxwellsDemon said:

IMHO, form should follow function.

The Apollo LEM is a beautiful machine in the eye of the beholder-- if the beholder is an engineer.  Otherwise, it didn't have a lot going for it, visually.

It always reminds me of an easter island statue, somehow.

[Mikki]

Korolev was inspired by nature while designing the R7 ancestors, the nature itself creates efficient, light and effective in purpose and environment.
I have worked in robotics and powertransmission, we have studied lots of insects during that time, and some mammels and reptiles, even plants. We just copy nature, mostly.
 

[legoclone09]

3 hours ago, Andem said:

For me personally, A E S T H E T I C S are equally important as function, but my A E S T H E T I C choices typically make very functional designs.

Stole the joke I was going to make. Oh well.

For me, yes. I need sleek, Porkalike rockets. BDB, Tantares, and MoarMk1 deliver for me, and my stations/ships need to look good also, not an ugly hunk of metal and barrels. I like them sleek and modern.

[MaxwellsDemon]

Apart from the 'form-follows-function' rule, I do try to put things together that look something like what actually has been launched, or concepts that didn't get launched.  KSP is a very big sandbox to play in, and it's possible to put together some very (to me) outlandish designs, but that's not the way I do it.   Nothing against those with different preferences.

Edited September 8, 2016 by MaxwellsDemon

[panzer1b]

Im almost 100% aesthetic (most of my non-competitive capital ships i design the outer shell 1st and then cram whatever i need inside it there), so yeah, function comes second although i have built plenty of "ugly" vessels intentionally.  In terms of ugly, most of the time its because i want it to look that way as almost every single ship that is designed using pirate faction style looks like crap welded together in orbit (and some of it actually was done that way using KIS).  I kinda have a few visual styles i work with because i like to design variety of ships, so almost anything from super sleek curvy ships to simple and efficient boxy designs, to crap that looks like it was made out of wreckage.

That said, i do actually design almost every one of my ships with function in mind (only ones that i dont care about this is purely cinematic vessels which are intended to be hyperedited around and used for relatively static roles like command centers, rally points, carriers, ect).  Ofc i usually end up making compromized in the later stages of ship design so the initial prettiness may drop a tad in the final product, but i never make 100% utilitarian craft that are purely intended to function and dont have some visual appeal.  Then again, its all rather subjective, there are very few aesthetic styles in KSP that i consider lousy (ok hate me for it but i actually dislike most modern replica aircraft and all conventional rocket styled designs), i prefer sci-fi inspired vessels, but i pretty much like the majority of anything that isnt a pod with a fuel tank below it and then engine below that...

[Wraith977]

Well, lets take a look at one of the first craft I ever made back in the .13 demo version..

And now lets look at a little something I made a week ago...

They uh... they look pretty much the same huh... I guess you could say that as long as it works it's good for me. At least we can certainly appreciate how much better Kerbin looks now than it did originally, oil spill to a proper planet...

[Corona688]

Wait...  I see clouds on the horizon... 

[GoSlash27]

Yeah, I'm with @Curveball Anders on this one. I design my equipment to perform it's function cheaply, efficiently, and with minimal operator headaches. Any aesthetics it happens to have are strictly a result of form following function.

Best,
-Slashy

8 hours ago, Curveball Anders said:

It doesn't have to be beautiful to work, but if it works it's beautiful

 This is what engineers refer to as "functionally elegant". That's pretty much what I strive for. If it's been optimized to perform a certain job well, it takes on a certain kind of aesthetic all its own.

Best,
-Slashy

[kepicness]

When it comes to spaceplanes I find aesthetics to be as important as function. I love the challenge that aesthetic builds provide, since it adds a whole other layer of design. Most of the time things magically work out and I get planes with perfect CoM/CoL balance. Sometimes I have to compromise though, which is rather unfortunate. For example, I had to remove some wings on an SSTO because the added weight made a duna mission impossible...

With wings (the good looking version):

Without wings (the not as good looking but practical version):

I placed the rocket fuel tanks internally on the version with less wings to have a matching color scheme, still looks pretty decent imo, and I managed to do a round trip to duna without refueling (while carrying a rover! )

For rockets I really don't give a damn though, so long as it flies it's good enough for me

Edited September 9, 2016 by kepicness

[Norcalplanner]

My designs are largely driven by function, cost, and ease of use. My aesthetic efforts are generally limited to using the texture swapping options in SpaceY, Fuel Tanks Plus and Color Coded Canisters for snappy color schemes. 

[ouion]

I do aesthetics on my ships, but the aesthetics has to have a functional feature. I sometimes design ships in a certain fashion that looks good or is cool looking, but aesthetics is really just a minor part and last minute.

[RocketSquid]

Where aesthetics don't affect performance (fortunately most of the time since I have tantares and Stock Revamp), I use them whenever possible. When they do, I state that functionality is worth 10 times as much as aesthetics. This means that:

Two antennae instead of one, for symmetry? Yes.

Forty-some odd panels and wing boards on the outside to make it look nicer? No.

That being said, in sandbox I will sometimes make purely aesthetic designs.

[Kertech]

My original comment just looked way too much like I was paraphrasing the little prince. 

I design things to their nature, if it is in their nature to be ugly then they shall be.

[KerikBalm]

On 9/9/2016 at 4:40 AM, kepicness said:

When it comes to spaceplanes I find aesthetics to be as important as function. I love the challenge that aesthetic builds provide, since it adds a whole other layer of design. Most of the time things magically work out and I get planes with perfect CoM/CoL balance. Sometimes I have to compromise though, which is rather unfortunate. For example, I had to remove some wings on an SSTO because the added weight made a duna mission impossible...

With wings (the good looking version):

Without wings (the not as good looking but practical version):

I placed the rocket fuel tanks internally on the version with less wings to have a matching color scheme, still looks pretty decent imo, and I managed to do a round trip to duna without refueling (while carrying a rover! )

For rockets I really don't give a damn though, so long as it flies it's good enough for me

Personally, I like the 2nd one better.

 

Aesthetics... its sort of important to me... I prefer this:

Spoiler

Over the older version:

Spoiler

^ I don't think the above is so ugly, but I cleaned it up a bit and reduced part count/intake number, and have less engine nacelles just bolted on anywhere they have an unobstructed thrust line... but I also gave it more wings... but with aesthetics in mind I tried to make them fit into a vaguely delta arrangement, as if its one big delta structure

Which is much better than my pre 1.0 versions, you may not have liked the ones above, but you'll cringe at these pre 1.0 version:

Spoiler

0.24... with space plane plus and NEAR, after I heard SPP would become stock

Ok, thats not so bad, but lets look at earlier designs...

Oh god no....

Oh...Gooooddd... NOOOOOOO

There's also some "space aesthetics" I got for: I don't want everything to look like it flies in an atmosphere, sometimes I want it to look like a real space craft... so I'll have arms sticking away from a shaft with crew space on the ends as if its a rotating centrifuge.

While it basically doesn't matter in KSP, I'll have the radiators at a 90 degree angle to the solar panels (I was doing this with non rotating modded radiators before they added rotating ones). My biggest problem with this design below is that the 3rd pair of panels in solar panel array is at an angle to the others, spoiling some of the aesthetics.

[foamyesque]

I generally find that if I build it to work, the aesthetics take care of themselves. Maybe do some tweaking with the offset tools to deal with gaps and make things flush, or making sure things like struts or fuel lines are as short and hidden as possible.

 

The real killer are the 2.5m parts, and especially the orange tank. We honestly need upgradeable skins, so that you can go from bare-metal early looks (Flea, Hammer, 2.5m parts) to the sleek white and black of others (1.25m, 3.75m, Mk2 & Mk3 parts).

EDIT: A fuelled 2.5m->3.75m adapter would be nice too. The Mk3 slanted adapter sort of works but has those ugly indents.

Edited September 10, 2016 by foamyesque

[Curveball Anders]

On 2016-09-09 at 2:29 AM, GoSlash27 said:

This is what engineers refer to as "functionally elegant".

Most people will give you confused and slightly scared look when you describe a bit of code as 'elegant'

(Yeah, they are sad people who can't see the beauty in a functional design).