Rocket Part Revamp Discussion Thread

[Andem]

3 minutes ago, tater said:

I agree that to the extent there is any aesthetic that is coherent in KSP it's planes now.

You're very confusing you know. 

3 minutes ago, Temeter said:

You only see the engine nozzle with BDB, and they are relatively realistic. Only difference is that the engine mechanics are basically hidden inside the rocket.

So what exactly do are you asking for?

Simplify the engines to an extent, but not to the point where it's just a nozzle and a tankbutt. And, as someone who Uses BDB, most of the engines are actual engines, but there are shrouds that go over them and assorted adapter plates.

1 minute ago, tater said:

So rocket parts should look like a spaceplane mod's take on rocket parts? How about rocket parts look like rocket parts... Unlike spaceplanes (with my definition caveat above!), we have actual rocket parts to look at.

So should they match or not? Now you're being very confusing! 

2 minutes ago, tater said:

My ideal aesthetic would be a sort of retro-future look, but making sure that every single part fit kerbals, including all hatches. (with helmets, otherwise the hatches should not be allowed to open in space, ever).

I can agree with that. I can see it being possible as well, we aren't all that far off from it.

3 minutes ago, tater said:

Of the engines, I actually like the 1.25m ones the best... before I stopped using all of them altogether (I have), I never used the poodle, for example, even when there was not another choice... it was simply too ugly.

I tend to avoid using 2.5 engines at all costs as well, they're just terrible, 100%. I'm not advocating for any of the parts, all I'm saying is that the engines in the picture can be just as (if not more) incredible while remaining more faithful to the other parts and the rest of the game.

[Temeter]

1 minute ago, Andem said:

Simplify the engines to an extent, but not to the point where it's just a nozzle and a tankbutt. And, as someone who Uses BDB, most of the engines are actual engines, but there are shrouds that go over them and assorted adapter plates.

Well, then my only answer is:

I harshly disagree that engines should be simplified for no real reason other than some random feeling of you. Oo

[regex]

 

2 minutes ago, Andem said:

all I'm saying is that the engines in the picture can be just as (if not more) incredible while remaining more faithful to the other parts and the rest of the game.

But ... they are...

[Andem]

12 minutes ago, Temeter said:

Well, then my only answer is:

I harshly disagree that engines should be simplified for no real reason other than some random feeling of you. Oo

Fine.

11 minutes ago, regex said:

 

But ... they are...

100% identiticle, could never ever even for a second see any difference in the styling here.

Save style. 100%. Looks right at home, those engines. Wait... they really don't share similar styles at all! 

 

To The Point: If Porkjet's spaceplane Parts and Bac9's KSC is the graphical style we should be working towards, why are the engines so out of place?

Edited September 9, 2016 by Andem

[regex]

1 minute ago, Andem said:

To The Point: If Porkjet's spaceplane Parts and Bac9's KSC is the graphical style we should be working towards, why are the engines so out of place?

They are clean, simple, well-engineered, with hand-drawn textures. They look right at home with the rest of the aesthetic. They don't look out of place at all, except maybe in that they look more realistic in the light due to the PBR, which will happen for the rest of the parts and (hopefully) the buildings, and maybe even the terrain someday (how awesome would that be!)

[passinglurker]

43 minutes ago, Andem said:

I'm not saying that they fit perfectly, that would be silly, but I'm saying that they matched well enough. I'm seriously not saying that the old rocket parts were good, and I'm not defending them. I said earlier in the thread that I would have no issue if it was more akin to @passinglurker's MoarMk1. I would have no issue if the Engines had a LOD on par with BDB and the fuel tanks were like MoarMk1. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.

I should point out that my mod's narrow space plane like aesthetic is a cheap corner cutting measure to save me time when designing new parts. It's a safe and conservative approach to avoid anything objectable as much as possible.

meanwhile Porkjets ability to make something more broad and varied but still holding commonality is very impressive and should be embraced If you don't like all the nuts and bolts of a bare engine then you can turn on the boattails to get a more bdb like look. Porkjet has really covered all his bases.

[klgraham1013]

3 hours ago, Andem said:

We're talking about two different things and using the same word. You mean the graphics,  only the surface assets, when I'm talking about the entire game-- Stylized, Simplified, and "Comical." 

Nope.  We're talking about the same thing.   I do mean the entire game as a whole does not have a consistent style.  Agree to disagree I suppose.  Hope you're not taking offense to this.  I just think our opinions are different about the same thing.

Edited September 9, 2016 by klgraham1013

[Temeter]

15 minutes ago, regex said:

They don't look out of place at all, except maybe in that they look more realistic in the light due to the PBR, which will happen for the rest of the parts and (hopefully) the buildings, and maybe even the terrain someday (how awesome would that be!)

Oh damn, KSP could look so much better

I feels those engine images really opened the floodgates... Squad pls.

[Alshain]

Guys, he has this strange definition of 'graphics' stuck in his head and he is completely attached to it, even though it is incorrect.  He keeps saying you are discussing graphics but the only graphics that have been discussed in the entire thread is PBR, which was dismissed as being a global option for all parts and assets.  While you guys are discussing aesthetics, in his mind that is graphics.  It's like you aren't speaking the same language here.   It may not be true but that is what he thinks and you aren't going to convince him otherwise.

[Fred Cop]

Let me put down my two, simple, not-starting-arguements pennys to this revamp;

 

No.

Nononono...

Just, no thanks.

 

 

Spoiler

But it'll be coming in an official KSP update, so I can't avoid it like I can with a mod. Ah well...

 

[Andem]

2 minutes ago, regex said:

They are clean, simple, well-engineered, with hand-drawn textures. They look right at home with the rest of the aesthetic. They don't look out of place at all, except maybe in that they look more realistic in the light due to the PBR, which will happen for the rest of the parts and (hopefully) the buildings, and maybe even the terrain someday (how awesome would that be!)

Yeah, Having the shader would be pretty sweet. 

Perhaps a slight simplification, some of the greebling seems excessive for the rest of the game. It looks very off on the LTV 30, 45, and 15. Let me do some tinkering, and see if I can get something that would work better.

25 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

I should point out that my mod's narrow space plane like aesthetic is a cheap corner cutting measure to save me time when designing new parts. It's a safe and conservative approach to avoid anything objectable as much as possible.

meanwhile Porkjets ability to make something more broad and varied but still holding commonality is very impressive and should be embraced If you don't like all the nuts and bolts of a bare engine then you can turn on the boattails to get a more bdb like look. Porkjet has really covered all his bases.

Point noted. 

25 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

Nope.  We're talking about the same thing.   I do mean the entire game as a whole does not have a consistent style.  Agree to disagree I suppose.  Hope you're not taking offense to this.  I just think our opinions are different about the same thing.

I guess we have too, because I see a very clear aesthetic.

15 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Guys, he has this strange definition of 'graphics' stuck in his head and he is completely attached to it, even though it is incorrect.  He keeps saying you are discussing graphics but the only graphics that have been discussed in the entire thread is PBR, which was dismissed as being a global option for all parts and assets.  While you guys are discussing aesthetics, in his mind that is graphics.  It's like you aren't speaking the same language here.   It may not be true but that is what he thinks and you aren't going to convince him otherwise.

(Really not trying to be rude here, even though you blocked me) Did you actually watch the video? Assets are part of graphics. It is absolutely correct. For the most part, people here have been talking about graphics v.s. Aesthetics. We aren't speaking the same language here, as some of us are using the same terms to convey different meanings. Both are valid, but not in the same circumstances. Dismissing someone who uses a word in a different context than expected is not a good idea. Please stop doing it, it will make people debating things with you feel like they're debating a person instead of a wall. And I, respectfully, feel like I'm debating a wall when I debate you in particular.

[Red Iron Crown]

5 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

Alshain,
 If I had to guess (and clearly at this point I do), I'd say it's a revamp of the round-8 toroidal tank.

Late to this party, but my guess is that the spheres represent pressurant tanks for a pressure-fed rocket engine, which are often used for vacuum work (assuming here that the LV-303 is a smaller version of the LV-909). Were I to guess I'd say that the spheres and shrouds shown were not meant to be separate parts but instead things that could be added or removed in the tweakable menu.

[HebaruSan]

I have to say, I like these a little bit more every time I see them; they probably qualify as my favorite work by @Porkjet to date. Look at the little fuel and oxidizer pipes that stick up into the tank! There's some real attention to detail here that stands up to sustained scrutiny. I can almost smell the diesel fuel running the turbopumps.

I'll miss the familiar gold plating on the 909, but maybe that property could be refitted to some other member of the family, like the revamped Poodle. I hope to see these in stock someday, with or without any further alterations and refinements.

[Wjolcz]

Holy hell, these look good. And realistic. Which is a good thing.

This game suffered from the "cartoonism" approach enough. Good time to finally change that.

[Diche Bach]

2 hours ago, regex said:

Oh, that old argument. vOv. I prefer bac9's take on it, not the "disaster simulator" view:

I think Porkjet is doing a fantastic job sticking with the older aesthetics of hand-drawn textures and clean, simple parts. He's keeping it "Kerbal", and the style is progressing as the game progresses (and thankfully drops out-moded paradigms like "information starvation").

@regex Who is that you quoted? Very well said.

[Andem]

Alright, I don't have time to figure out Gimp, I don't have the proper tools in Paint.net, and I'm not dropping buttloads of money into photoshop. Anyway,

the 909 and the one next to it are fine. I would prefer it if the blue was toned down a little bit though.

the 30, 45, and 15, on the other hand, could do with some simplifications. Starting with the structural/Piping bits, less greebling. It would be better as a one diameter piece. on the 30, the topmost part of what I'm assuming is the fuel pump should be one cylinder, preferably tapered on the ends. the section below it could also do with less small deviations in the shape. On th 45, the side pump should get the tapered cylinder treatment as well,and the side tank doesn't need all those extra bumps in it, and some streamlining of pipes would help quite a bit. The 15 is, IMO, the worst offender. Firstly, the "pump" needs to be streamlined into one shape, and we should also lose all of that pipe greebling. After that, again, less blueness. After those (arguably) minor changes, I would be happy with the engines.

18 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Holy hell, these look good. And realistic. Which is a good thing.

This game suffered from the "cartoonism" approach enough. Good time to finally change that.

You should really go to somewhere like nintendo with that idea. Everyone knows that a game isn't good unless it's gritty and photorealistic. /end of sarcasm/ Why can't the game be stylized? I mean, it already is, what is your' rationale that makes that a bad thing? I genuinely want to know.

[Wjolcz]

2 minutes ago, Andem said:

You should really go to somewhere like nintendo with that idea. Everyone knows that a game isn't good unless it's gritty and photorealistic. /end of sarcasm/ Why can't the game be stylized? I mean, it already is, what is your' rationale that makes that a bad thing? I genuinely want to know.

The problem with KSP's style (up until now) was that it had too many styles. We had bac9, NovaSilisko, C7, that girl who imitated Nova's style really well (forgot the name, sorry!). They all had their own "styles" which ended up making this game look like a mess. There were realistic, semi-realistic and clunky parts.

If I had to pick one of these I would pick realistic. Simply because the rest looked just bad and realistic is easier to recreate. Also a personal preference, I guess.

[Andem]

9 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

The problem with KSP's style (up until now) was that it had too many styles. We had bac9, NovaSilisko, C7, that girl who imitated Nova's style really well (forgot the name, sorry!). They all had their own "styles" which ended up making this game look like a mess. There were realistic, semi-realistic and clunky parts.

If I had to pick one of these I would pick realistic. Simply because the rest looked just bad and realistic is easier to recreate. Also a personal preference, I guess.

Hmm. That's interesting, because I see it the opposite way. I think that it's significantly more difficult to get a bunch of different people to make something photorealistic, as everyone, regardless of training, will have little quirks that could completely break immersion. When you're working with something very stylized, smaller quirks that occur during emulation are easier to ignore because of the stylization. For example, You could ask 100 people to draw Bugs Bunny, and you would get maybe 8 or 9 really good Bugs Bunny's that are on par with the original, but you might not get any good (or even decent) ones when asking the same group to make a photorealistic rabbit.

--EDIT--

See even in that list of artists, you had someone who made excellent imitations, I'm not sure you could get that as often when working with photorealism. Also, photorealistic kerbals are truly terrifying. Which creates the issue, if you make some things realistic, then the things that aren't will jut out like a sore thumb. I prefer the "endearing" side of the uncanny valley much more than the horrifying, off-putting pit of despair that follows it, even if the end result is true photorealism.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Andem

[Wjolcz]

2 minutes ago, Andem said:

Hmm. That's interesting, because I see it the opposite way. I think that it's significantly more difficult to get a bunch of different people to make something photorealistic, as everyone, regardless of training, will have little quirks that could completely break immersion. When you're working with something very stylized, smaller quirks that occur during emulation are easier to ignore because of the stylization. For example, You could ask 100 people to draw Bugs Bunny, and you would get maybe 8 or 9 really good Bugs Bunny's that are on par with the original, but you might not get any good (or even decent) ones when asking the same group to make a photorealistic rabbit.

You are assuming all the creators of parts had the same vision. The truth is only two of them were close enough (NovaSilisko and The Girl). She really nailed the style Nova was going for and enhanced it to look even better.

Anyway, the point is nobody has the same vision and if you are trying to come up with something new and unique each person will have their own palettes of colours and vision of how it should look, so it's better to hire a bunch of skilled people that can recreate something that already exists instead of giving each one of them a piece of paper, let them draw their own thing and throw it into one box (I'm willing to believe that's the exact way career mode was created).

At least in my opinion.

[passinglurker]

31 minutes ago, Andem said:

Alright, I don't have time to figure out Gimp, I don't have the proper tools in Paint.net, and I'm not dropping buttloads of money into photoshop. Anyway,

Krita

[regex]

35 minutes ago, Diche Bach said:

@regex Who is that you quoted? Very well said.

bac9 wrote that in a developer article a while back. That quote has been removed, but it resonated with a lot of people, was re-added in the comments, and its removal was pretty suspect.

[Andem]

3 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

You are assuming all the creators of parts had the same vision. The truth is only two of them were close enough (NovaSilisko and The Girl). She really nailed the style Nova was going for and enhanced it to look even better.

Anyway, the point is nobody has the same vision and if you are trying to come up with something new and unique each person will have their own palettes of colours and vision of how it should look, so it's better to hire a bunch of skilled people that can recreate something that already exists instead of giving each one of them a piece of paper, let them draw their own thing and throw it into one box (I'm willing to believe that's the exact way career mode was created).

At least in my opinion.

Ah, yes, that I also agree with. Perhaps it would do @SQUAD a service to have some more rigid guidelines as far as how artists are selected, that way a more unified look can be guaranteed, Photorealistic or not.

4 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

Krita

Thanks!

[passinglurker]

1 hour ago, Fred Cop said:

Let me put down my two, simple, not-starting-arguements pennys to this revamp;

 

No.

Nononono...

Just, no thanks.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

But it'll be coming in an official KSP update, so I can't avoid it like I can with a mod. Ah well...

 

Yes.

Yesyesyesyes...

Your tears are delicious 

Any one who wants to keep the old mess deserves whatever grief they bring upon them selves stressing over it. Also mods can do anything you should use them.

P.s. You can keep your dang pennies

Edited September 9, 2016 by passinglurker

[Wjolcz]

6 minutes ago, regex said:

bac9 wrote that in a developer article a while back. That quote has been removed, but it resonated with a lot of people, was re-added in the comments, and its removal was pretty suspect.

That man/woman was a real treasure. Let this quote never die.

[klesh]

I think they look great, and KSP sorely lacks decent art in too many places.