A "KSP Loading..." Preview: TVR Stack Couplers revamp!

[Zero266]

YES!

[Ger_space]

My wishlist for 1.6:

Proper dx11 support and remove dx9 as the standard..

You already killed the win32 bit support, so the only Plattform bit supporting it is gone (winxp) 

 

[linecrafter]

Please, consider remastering engines

 

especially poodle

[CobaltWolf]

This pleases me. Much better than the new fuel tanks and solids.

12 hours ago, RoverDude said:

The idea is standardized structural end-caps based on part diameter.  As the 1.25m one is pretty ubiquitous, that's the standard.  The cap you see on the Mk1 capsule's nose is the standard 0.625m cap.

This also pleases me.

[Tyko]

@SQUAD Thanks for all the revamps. Please consider tackling the core parts that are commonly used in many rockets before specialty parts. Seriously excited for all the new parts, just tough when I see you working on parts that I've used rarely, but parts that I use in practically every early to mid-game rocket aren't updated.

Parachutes, heat shields and their shrouds, engine shrouds, nosecones, 1.25m engines - these are basic components and their lack of updates and color options stick out like a sore thumb when placed in stack with newer parts.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Tyko

[JadeOfMaar]

5 hours ago, linecrafter said:

Please, consider remastering engines

 

especially poodle

Where are all the likes??? Someone give this man a medal!

[StrandedonEarth]

5 hours ago, linecrafter said:

Please, consider remastering engines

 

especially poodle

That one they have to be very careful with, because one requirement of the revamp is to not break any crafts. The main complaint I’ve heard about the Poodle is that it has a tiny bell for a vacuum engine, but when it was created it was intended as a lander engine. The low profile gives it some ground clearance when used with the heavy landing legs. Giving it a proper vacuum bell would eliminate that clearance. 

The best (only?) solution I see is to model it as the end of a shrouded nozzle as seen on modern RL rockets, or the LEM (on mobile or I would post a pic), with the assumption that the rest of it is hidden in the tank it is mounted to, much like how Kerbal jet engines are just a nozzle with the actual turbine section “invisible”

Edited October 30, 2018 by StrandedonEarth

[RealKerbal3x]

Nice work @SQUAD!!

Keep it up!

[Tyko]

1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said:

That one they have to be very careful with, because one requirement of the revamp is to not break any crafts. The main complaint I’ve heard about the Poodle is that it has a tiny bell for a vacuum engine, but when it was created it was intended as a lander engine. The low profile gives it some ground clearance when used with the heavy landing legs. Giving it a proper vacuum bell would eliminate that clearance. 

The best (only?) solution I see is to model it as the end of a shrouded nozzle as seen on modern RL rockets, or the LEM (on mobile or I would post a pic), with the assumption that the rest of it is hidden in the tank it is mounted to, much like how Kerbal jet engines are just a nozzle with the actual turbine section “invisible”

How about using a cluster of smaller nozzles? 3-4 small nozzles would be a lot shorter and make sense for a lander engine. Then you could place the pump assembly in the middle between the engines.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Tyko

[Angelo Kerman]

1 hour ago, Tyko said:

How about using a cluster of smaller nozzles? 3-4 small nozzles would be a lot shorter and make sense for a lander engine. Then you could place the pump assembly in the middle between the engines.

I vaguely recall PorkJet suggested something similar..

https://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FiINdJyL.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FKerbalSpaceProgram%2Fcomments%2F60vfxk%2Fwe_might_never_get_porkjets_part_revamp_but_the%2F&docid=_xQJtDaoRQGECM&tbnid=64gTIJsUUa4zEM&vet=1&w=1875&h=5550&hl=en-us

Edited October 30, 2018 by Angel-125

[JadeOfMaar]

1 hour ago, Tyko said:

How about using a cluster of smaller nozzles? 3-4 small nozzles would be a lot shorter and make sense for a lander engine. Then you could place the pump assembly in the middle between the engines.

I'd like very much for the Poodle to be as this, and possibly a bit wider for the nozzles as well?

[StrandedonEarth]

1 hour ago, Tyko said:

How about using a cluster of smaller nozzles? 3-4 small nozzles would be a lot shorter and make sense for a lander engine.

That could work

1 hour ago, Tyko said:

pump assembly

OTOH, lander engines are usually pressure-fed, for “it’s gotta work” simplicity 

[Tyko]

15 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

OTOH, lander engines are usually pressure-fed, for “it’s gotta work” simplicity 

Okay...how about two valves with red handles plus a little hatch so Jeb can reach through and open the valves?   

[Poodmund]

18 hours ago, panzer1b said:

Anyways, the ONLY thing i see that can be improved is the overuse of the porkjet end cap.

Whilst it is nice to hear that there is a defined standard going forward I still feel that the Porkjet endcap was pretty... err... lousy... just not as bad as the other examples that are represented in the stock parts. The graphic looks incredibly flat because it utilizes no techniques either via mesh geometry or normal maps to try and represent any surface detail to the whole face of the endcap. Some might say, "Oh I don't want an extra hundred or so tris on my models," but I think even just one tier of depth in the end cap would make it look considerably more 'believable' and if you go for a couple of depth tiers it gets even more so:

4 hours ago, Tyko said:

@SQUAD Thanks for all the revamps. Please consider tackling the core parts that are commonly used in many rockets before specialty parts.

I'd actually advise against that as it allows for the artists to hone their skills, artistic style and build continuity before working on the parts that players consider "core" pieces.

----------

As far as my opinion goes, want it or not (  ), I feel that the white variant is pretty nice and well balanced overall between the panel line separation, the complexity and placement of the panel shapes and the included wear and tear marks on the panel faces. The darker one feels a little muted and matte in comparison but I think thats due to the panels lines separating the central white part and the upper/lower black parts are almost disappearing into the black colour of said regions. The orange part, whilst interesting with respect to the panel layout, is not to my taste because I am not a fan of Soyuz orange (don't hate me) and the the maintenance panels look so flat because it appears as though no normal maps are being used (or they are but super low contrast and ineffectual). Just a comment of structural panel placement, these parts, although simple, feature much saner placement of the structural, pressurized panel segments in comparison to the somewhat crazy placement on the new fuel tanks. It'd be nice to see some considered thought being made as to how pressurized containers (cylinders) are made and how their panels tesselate together as opposed to a Tetris style layout.

All in all, the white part variant could be a good example of what I feel should be referenced going forward with regards to the techniques being applied on a technical design level but there's still a lot of scope for improvement; particularly around the visual aspect of depth for smaller greebles and also the end cap (in my opinion) should just be scrapped at this point and something not so rudimentary and basic should be implemented. Panel scratches, marks and grime could be ever so slightly(!) toned up a little as they are very subtle at the moment but I appreciate its a fine line to tread because if over-shown, it ends up looking rather bad.

TL;DR: White variant is nicest remade part so far with respect to a consistent, well executed design. Greebles and part face/mesh/normal depth could be improved. End caps are still a bit bleh!

Stick a pin in the white variant and slap it on the front of the design reference documentation!  

Edited October 30, 2018 by Poodmund
Grammar

[panzer1b]

7 hours ago, Tyko said:

I agree except NO touching the nosecones (or any other porkjet parts unless its purely to add variants and still leave the base texture as is), those are porkjet parts and NEED to stay as they are (as in prettier then anything ive ever seen squad do post porkjet and dev exodus).  The only aerodynamic cone that needs revamping is the really really old one with the blue circle on the top (the blunt one) since it does look like trash.

 

But yeah, id love to see the smaller engines redone, specifically the 909, 48-7s, and the lvt-30/45 series.  Id say that 95% of ships which dont use nukes or jets (at least in my gameplay) use one of those engines in them (or the aerospike but thats already good looking).  After that maybee take a look at the 2.5m engines, some of those really could use a facelift...

[basic.syntax]

@Darth Badie, @nestor  - The Steam store page for KSP has a Day of the Dead / Halloween -themed picture, that may be wallpaper-worthy. But its really tiny.

Can we have a link to the highres version? Perhaps it could be added to the official website wallpaper collection (along with any other neat images that have been produced since the official site was last touched.) Thank you   

[Darth Badie]

18 hours ago, basic.syntax said:

@Darth Badie, @nestor  - The Steam store page for KSP has a Day of the Dead / Halloween -themed picture, that may be wallpaper-worthy. But its really tiny.

Can we have a link to the highres version? Perhaps it could be added to the official website wallpaper collection (along with any other neat images that have been produced since the official site was last touched.) Thank you   

Of course! Here you have

 

[Zhetaan]

44 minutes ago, Darth Badie said:

Of course! Here you have

Why weren't these included as space suit variants for 1.5?  I'd absolutely take Skebediah, Count Bobula, and Dr. Franken-Bill's monster on a mission to see whether were-kerbal-wolves still turn on the far side of the Mun.

... And also to see whether Minmus is made of mint candy.  That part ought to be obvious.

[Black-Two-]

On 10/29/2018 at 10:16 PM, UomoCapra said:

Yes they are!

If you guys are working on the decouplers, anyway, can we get versions with integrated RCS, like the command pods have?

[Foxster]

I've rarely used these because they introduce a lot of drag to a craft, both from the part itself and because the attached parts are not seen as matched mesh sizes. 

Maybe you could take a look at that too while revamping their prettiness. 

[KingPhantom]

On 10/29/2018 at 10:40 PM, linuxgurugamer said:

This new schedule makes it difficult for models is to keep up. Not the frequency, but the numbering is a real pain

most of the revamp updates doesn't destroy the mods. mods just got problems when something in the core will be changed. probably squad can announce that to prepare the modders.

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, KingPhantom said:

most of the revamp updates doesn't destroy the mods. mods just got problems when something in the core will be changed. probably squad can announce that to prepare the modders.

@KingPhantom I maintain more than 170 mods.  Even a minor change internally, which doesn't change an API, can cause problems.  A case in point was Kronal Vessel Viewer, which broke when 1.4.5 was released, because an internal variable was changed to a get/set.  Very innocuous, but can have a significant impact.  This is why I rebuild ALL my mods for every major release, to avoid those issues.

Obviously, parts mods don't get impacted the same way, but any mod with code is a potential issue

[Psycho_zs]

Cool )

Can we have bi-coupler with the same height and roughly the same slant angle as other multicouplers? Right now it is very flat and looks unaerodynamic with its flat shoulders.

[Psycho_zs]

On 10/30/2018 at 3:46 AM, RoverDude said:

The idea is standardized structural end-caps based on part diameter.  As the 1.25m one is pretty ubiquitous, that's the standard.  The cap you see on the Mk1 capsule's nose is the standard 0.625m cap.

Speaking of end-caps, Mk1-3 capsule's top is smaller than 1.25m and does not mesh well with decouplers, nosecones and LES, which is very sad.

[Nightside]

On 10/30/2018 at 8:17 AM, StrandedonEarth said:

That one they have to be very careful with, because one requirement of the revamp is to not break any crafts. ...

What would be the problem with breaking crafts?. Crafts in-flight wouldn't change as long as the assets are still in the game. 

Otherwise redesigning your list of favorites to work with new models just sounds like fun (this is a rocket building game after all).