A "KSP Loading..." Preview: Kerbodyne ADTP-2-3 Adapter revamp

[Tyko]

On 11/16/2018 at 11:13 AM, razark said:

Exactly!  You'd never see rows of bolts like that on a rocket, would you?

  Hide contents

 

Actually...here's a real pic of the Ares 1 launch. Note the rows and rows of bolts all the way down the booster...I don't like them either, but there are RL examples

 

Edited November 17, 2018 by Tyko

[Chel]

Saturn V engines are amazing @razark.

[passinglurker]

RE: Bolts

Kerbal is stylized and simplified compared to real life dropping/reducing small technical details like engine wiring or bolt spam and keeping/exaggerating key visual features like turbo pumps, door handles, windows etc...

I stand by what I say that that over using bolts/rivets as a visual element is just a cheap way to fill space via copy/pasting cause someone can't smudge, nik, scratch, or highlight...

Edited November 17, 2018 by passinglurker

[Deddly]

5 hours ago, passinglurker said:

RE: Bolts

Kerbal is stylized and simplified compared to real life dropping/reducing small technical details like engine wiring or bolt spam and keeping/exaggerating key visual features like turbo pumps, door handles, windows etc...

I stand by what I say that that over using bolts/rivets as a visual element is just a cheap way to fill space via copy/pasting cause someone can't smudge, nik, scratch, or highlight...

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. Your posts have historically been about consistent quality and perceived flaws or unrealistic modelling, and there is merit to most of your arguments. But bolts and rivets are seen on all sorts of rocket parts in real life and arguing against them is no longer a critique of the art quality but rather a highly subjective preference for a certain style. It's unrealistic to expect the artists to agree with that, don't you think? 

[Vexillar]

IRL there are different approaches to rocket construction for atmospheric/launch conditions.  One approach is to make the outer skin as smooth and streamlined as possible, the other is to keep structural mass to a minimum.  This is nicely illustrated by comparing the US Thor Able and UK Blue Streak:

(Photo my copyright, taken at UK National Space Centre, Feb 2007; Higher-res view here: https://imgur.com/a/9Oi9DYs )

These show show the minimum and maximum in greebling.

Thor Able (left) has a first stage fuelled by RP-1 and LOx.  The tank structure is rigid and very smooth on the outside.  Note that it is displayed on a support frame from the base.

Blue Streak (right) is similarly fuelled (though the British didn't use the RP-1 designation, just called it kerosene) but mass was reduced by using "balloon" tanks that are held rigid by internal pressure when charged.  This rocket is displayed with no support underneath - it is suspended from the roof by cables - because the thin tank walls would buckle in the absence of internal pressure.  This happened a few times with Atlas rockets, which crumpled on the pad before ignition.

The channels attached to the outside of the tank are there for two reasons: primarily to stiffen the lower, unpressurised kerosene tank, and also to provide aerodynamic stability (tiny elongated fins, in effect - and why they continue on the engine cover) .

At this distance (about as close as we normally get in KSP play) there are some rivets visible, but a close-up view of the Blue Streak would reveal thousands of the things.

(Photo my copyright, taken at UK National Space Centre, Feb 2007; Higher-res view here: https://imgur.com/a/5lXg4ny )

 

Edited November 17, 2018 by Vexillar
Correction, checking additional sources, the LOx tank is above the kerosene tank, not below it.

[basic.syntax]

4 hours ago, Vexillar said:

Thor Able (left) has a first stage fuelled by RP-1 and LOx.  The tank structure is rigid and very smooth on the outside.  Note that it is displayed on a support frame from the base.

Blue Streak (right) is similarly fuelled (though the British didn't use the RP-1 designation, just called it kerosene) but mass was reduced by using "balloon" tanks that are held rigid by internal pressure when charged.  This rocket is displayed with no support underneath - it is suspended from the roof by cables - because the thin tank walls would buckle in the absence of internal pressure.  This happened a few times with Atlas rockets, which crumpled on the pad before ignition.

Great post - goes to prove the meme that I literally know nothing about the true variety of rocket designs in the world  "except what I learned in KSP."           At first I wanted to argue that if KSP were to adopt a chronological progression "look" to the career-mode tech tree, it should start with heavily detailed fuel tanks and engines. Parts unlocked later should look sleeker. (The NASA parts, pre-overhaul) But here we have two rockets, both designed in the 50's and 60's, where one is smooth-sided.  If I had to pick just one, I would feel bad, since I've long advocated that the "used oil drum" aesthetic has a worthy place in KSP design. But now KSP has texture and mesh variant switching, enabling alternate design styles for the same tank and engine sizes.

[Kerbart]

18 hours ago, razark said:

Did you look at the spoiler?

Looking back I should have started with I'm in agreement with you. The reaction of OMG... seems out of place.

Once again I get defeated by the “text online is just text online without any meta-cues as eye-rolling, nodding in agreement or voice variation” monster.

[razark]

1 hour ago, Kerbart said:

Looking back I should have started with I'm in agreement with you. The reaction of OMG... seems out of place.

Once again I get defeated by the “text online is just text online without any meta-cues as eye-rolling, nodding in agreement or voice variation” monster.

Yes, text does lack some nuances.

[lunardog15]

i constantly wish I could express sarcasm with out having to point it out but text is text there are some pros and cons

[Tyko]

12 hours ago, Deddly said:

17 hours ago, passinglurker said:

RE: Bolts

Kerbal is stylized and simplified compared to real life dropping/reducing small technical details like engine wiring or bolt spam and keeping/exaggerating key visual features like turbo pumps, door handles, windows etc...

I stand by what I say that that over using bolts/rivets as a visual element is just a cheap way to fill space via copy/pasting cause someone can't smudge, nik, scratch, or highlight...

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. Your posts have historically been about consistent quality and perceived flaws or unrealistic modelling, and there is merit to most of your arguments. But bolts and rivets are seen on all sorts of rocket parts in real life and arguing against them is no longer a critique of the art quality but rather a highly subjective preference for a certain style. It's unrealistic to expect the artists to agree with that, don't you think? 

I honestly don't care which style they adopt. I just wish there was some consistency.

The fact that there are more panels and small details on a structural adapter than on a probe core is what bothers me. I'd imagine a probe would be greebled like crazy to represent all the various functions while a structural adapter would be really clean and simple since its only job is to hold other parts together in as aerodynamically clean and light way as possible.

[Deddly]

2 hours ago, Tyko said:

I just wish there was some consistency.

There are at least consistently rivets

(Couldn't resist) 

[Ozymandias_the_Goat]

On 11/17/2018 at 5:12 PM, Deddly said:

There are at least consistently rivets

(Couldn't resist) 

That’s basically the equivalent of being good at darts, but always using your skills to hit the same spot off the dartboard

[swjr-swis]

2 hours ago, Ozymandias_the_Goat said:

That’s basically the equivalent of being good at darts, but always using your skills to hit the same spot off the dartboard

It may have nothing to do with their skill...