Jump to content

Rocket Part Revamp Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

I'm just giggling at the idea of the Mainsail, or the orange Jumbo, or any of the 2.5m parts being "original".  Back in 2011, KSP looked like this.

orbiter1-00.jpg

Massive stacks and bundles of 1m grey-and-black-and-yellow-striped "firecrackers" - and that was it!  If you wanted anything bigger, or any plane parts at all, you needed mods (like the capsule shown here, a replacement for the old stock Mk1).  Otherwise, you were stuck trying to build a Saturn V out of Estes "D"s.

One of the modders, back in those days, was this guy called NovaSilisko. You may have heard of him; he did pretty good work. Eventually SQUAD brought him onto the team, and on July 20, 2012 - almost a full year after the screenshot above was taken - 0.16 was released, with lots of new parts that looked nothing like the previous stock parts, ruining the aesthetic FOREVER.

(Note that the SRBs on the bottom are visibly misplaced.  We didn't even have automatic symmetry, let alone fancy stuff like a spaceplane hangar or persistence or other planets and muns to travel to... oh, and those engines are all -30s, because -45s weren't invented yet (engines that can gimbal, imagine); but when they were, they used the exact same model.)

 

Clearly this is the classic, original, authentically Kerbal visual style that we should (still) be following, five years and almost fifty releases later.

Edited by Commander Zoom
Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading this thread in it's entirety, I find it HILARIOUS that certain people here are all butt-hurt about KSP changing their art style to one that is CLEARLY far superior to the old standby. If you don't like it, stop playing. Squad owes you NOTHING.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Kokanee said:

 Squad owes you NOTHING.

Although I agree with you.  In accordance with generally accepted commerce.  We have exchanged money for a future finished game. :wink:

Whether or not Squad, you, or I think that arrangement has been fulfilled is another matter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kokanee said:

Squad owes you NOTHING.

Sure they do. They owe me a product that I payed in full for. They have every right to change that product, But I don't see how it's a bad thing to want it to be better in a slightly different way than everyone else, especially when I have brought sources to back up my stance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

In accordance with generally accepted commerce.  We have exchanged money for a future finished game. :wink:

3 hours ago, Andem said:

Sure they do. They owe me a product that I payed in full for. They have every right to change that product, But I don't see how it's a bad thing to want it to be better in a slightly different way than everyone else, especially when I have brought sources to back up my stance.

Actually you paid them for the game as it existed at the time you bought it. That's what early access is "we believe that we have produced a playable 15 dollars worth of a 30 dollar game want to have a go?" after that technically all bets are off. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, passinglurker said:

Actually you paid them for the game as it existed at the time you bought it. That's what early access is "we believe that we have produced a playable 15 dollars worth of a 30 dollar game want to have a go?" after that technically all bets are off. 

So, early access is another one of those terms in the game industry with a malleable definition?  I see.  I'll catalog it away with version number and beta.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

So, early access is another one of those terms in the game industry with a malleable definition?  I see.  I'll catalog it away with version number and beta.

Nope the business model is literally paying for how much the game is worth at the moment of purchase. any free updates you receive after is a generous gift but is in no way a promise of improvement or completion. If you were investing in the game's future you'd be paying more than its present momentary worth like when paying for pre-ordering or kickstarter or newb game devs who don't know how early access works and give the rest a bad name which is why its important to remember the definition and make your purchases accordingly paying only what a game is worth at the time of purchase if you don't want to get burned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

Nope the business model is literally paying for how much the game is worth at the moment of purchase. any free updates you receive after is a generous gift but is in no way a promise of improvement or completion. If you were investing in the game's future you'd be paying more than its present momentary worth like when paying for pre-ordering or kickstarter or newb game devs who don't know how early access works and give the rest a bad name which is why its important to remember the definition and make your purchases accordingly paying only what a game is worth at the time of purchase if you don't want to get burned.

I bought KSP with the expectation that development would continue as the developers were saying, and that was part of the value proposition when buying. It's not a legal obligation but it could certainly be argued that it's a moral one to continue developing an early access game. I would have felt a bit stiffed if development had been abandoned before reaching "release" status, even though that would have been within the letter of the purchase agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Basto said:

I am really loving the new engines. The art looks excellent. With the change to allowing smaller profile engines will we be getting additional mounting options to more easily cluster engines?

I would think they'd all be radially attachable like the current aerospike and vector, no extra parts required to cluster.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I would think they'd all be radially attachable like the current aerospike and vector, no extra parts required to cluster.

This could speak to me doing things wrong but one thing that always throws me off is how to attach an additional stage below a cluster of engines. 

Edited by Basto
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I bought KSP with the expectation that development would continue as the developers were saying, and that was part of the value proposition when buying. It's not a legal obligation but it could certainly be argued that it's a moral one to continue developing an early access game. I would have felt a bit stiffed if development had been abandoned before reaching "release" status, even though that would have been within the letter of the purchase agreement.

Sure we'd all wish those things and it is always unfortunate when a game goes south but taking advantage of early access discount pricing doesn't actually give us the right to make demands that could be detrimental to future sales.

Simply put more people will buy the game if the art is improved and unified over a cobbling of place holder assets anyone who opposes such a sound decision is out of luck squad already has their money the devs need to put the needs of future customers before old ones. Fortunately the two needs go hand in hand most of the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Porkjet Great job! Really enjoy the new parts. The gimbal animations are very cool. Makes me happy :)

@Andem I think the old style wasn't very sustainable (harder to add more realistic gameplay elements, which betrays the level of detail of old parts). 

ZCCEzJT.jpg

Redstone engine used in Mercury rocket.

d1NMfCu.jpg?1

Old LV-T30 engine

BzrqmPb.jpg?1

New LV-T30 engine

I would say that the new LV-T30 is still simplified and plenty Kerbal, but detailed enough that we believe it would exist in a world with such detailed physics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And again, if you look up at the top of the page, you'll see the current T30 has already had its look changed - I'm guessing by NS, back when he was with SQUAD, and making everything look the same (and good) was his job.

Between him, C7/bac9 (the first spaceplane parts) and now Porkjet, I believe that every part currently in the game is the work of one former-modder-turned-dev or another.  (I could be wrong, of course.)

Edited by Commander Zoom
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9-9-2016 at 3:06 AM, GeneCash said:

My "problem" (if any) is that they're TOO realistic. KSP is supposed to be just a bit cartoony and these don't fit.

Either that, or the game was in effect released with placeholder assets.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So... as part of this revamp, are we going to get an end of tech tree raptor equivalent? 1.25m, with a super high TWR. :D

I tried making a half scale BFR which could do the same job in the Kerbin system, and non of the engines even come close to lifting it off the pad and this is without the spacecraft on top.

 

I doubt it as it would ruin all balance, but maybe if done in respect to career mode it would be ok.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Frozen_Heart said:

So... as part of this revamp, are we going to get an end of tech tree raptor equivalent? 1.25m, with a super high TWR. :D

I tried making a half scale BFR which could do the same job in the Kerbin system, and non of the engines even come close to lifting it off the pad and this is without the spacecraft on top.

 

I doubt it as it would ruin all balance, but maybe if done in respect to career mode it would be ok.

 

I think it would be fine, if it came as a super booster configuration like the colonial transporter fist stage (42 engine configuration), and then a stand alone engine as the raptor final stage vacuum variant. In the meantime I plan to include a similar system in Mother 0.1 for launching 250 ton payloads.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, parameciumkid said:

Raptor equivalent? Can I get some love for a Merlin equivalent? With a vacuum-optimized edition too of course :wink:

The LV-T15 or T30 both work as a Merlin equivalent pretty well. You can make a vehicle which looks just like the Falcon 9 easily.

The Raptors TWR is the only thing which makes the BFR possible to have in that single long booster shape though. An engine the size of the Merlin but 3 times the thrust is beyond anything any rocket engine has done before.

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...