A "KSP Loading..." Preview: The FL-A5 and FL- A10 Adapters

[SQUAD]

Designed for connecting 1.25m parts to 0.625m parts, these adapters were in need of a fresh make-over. Our artists optimized the UV maps and created new diffuse, normal and specular texture maps, as well. Additionally, we included a new variant that will match with the orange FL-T tank series.

Click here to see the high-res images

[Tyko]

Cool... I wish you'd keep a really basic dark variant of FL-A5 though.

Those two new textures look too fancy for the many utilitarian uses that part can have. They're not going to bother to paint everything and that isn't really a "stack" part. It's more often (at least for me) used as a structural element that probably wouldn't be painted. Bottoms of landers, for example.

[severedsolo]

Parts look good, but can we please talk about your variant names (and subsequently the " theme painter" in the Editor.) This is "white"

This is "Black and White"

A) They wouldn't look out of place together, so they could have the same variant name. B) the first image is clearly alot closer to black and white than the second one (honestly though, they should both be "white" there isn't enough grey/black on either of them to justify calling it "black and white"

There just seems to be no consistency at all (including in the 1.25m/Making History parts - I could give you half a dozen examples I found while making Consistent Variants)

Edited November 15, 2018 by severedsolo

[DerekL1963]

Yuck.  Making things all greebly is not an improvement.  The "new" design of the FL-A5 in particular is a huge step backwards.

[Serenity]

They re an improvement for sure!!!Keep them going pls, we want more stuff  .

[Chel]

Yay! Friday surprise from @SQUAD!

[panzer1b]

1 hour ago, SQUAD said:

 

 

1 hour ago, SQUAD said:

 

Alright i will be honest, and i really really dont like the fact that you decided to keep virtually identical geometry for these parts.  That bump at the bottom of the A10 adaptor looks like crap (and has since day 1), is not aerodynamic at all and thus should not have any useage on a spacecraft (unaerodynamic on the flatter A5 is fine imo since that is more of a part youd use on a starbase as flat isnt meant to be aerodynamic, but not on the more aeroy A10).  Im not asking for a ideal cone (as that would be boring), but maybee tone down that bottom square blocky bump that makes me seriously avoid using the part.  Maybee try something akin to the RT-5/10 circulary bumps which may add some drag, but are not blatantly square and unplausible on every level.

Aside from that, the textures are ok, but i would like to see the parts become a little simpler (for something that is purely meant to bridge the gap between 0.6 and 1.2m cross sections) like what @Tyko said, too complex and detailed for a barebones part like an adaptor.  Normally i like details and features, but there is a point where such details become overkill, and i think this part has crossed the line into overkill territory.

Other then that, ill take them over the old ones (which are utter garbage), but its a bit of a step backwards compared to some of the other parts ive seen made (especially unhappy with the decision to reuse the pathetic 3D models and not make 100% new ones), and really should be looked at again before release.

[FleshJeb]

Is the FL-A5 going to retain "PhysicsSignificance = 1" ?

The FL-A10 is at the default 0.

As far as the part revamps are concerned, I'm having a really hard time telling the difference between part diameters in the editor without reading the names. Is it possible to get different colored part backgrounds in the editor, by cross-section size? Yes, I know there are filters, but the cross-section one doesn't work for fuel tanks, and sorting by size takes more than diameter into account.

Also, I'd happily play KSP in wireframe on a green monochrome screen, and I'm still holding out hope for a stupidly cartoony cel-shaded version, so it's best not to listen to my opinion on aesthetics.

[Whirligig Girl]

Can you include texture modes with less greebly detail on it? I get the impression from all of these that my rockets are going to look very busy and incoherent after this patch. Like, some detail is fine, but it feels like it's being overdone from what I've been seeing. Also, for the flat adapters, it'd be real nice to have a low contrast gray or white version in addition to B&W, Orange modes. The dark grey stripes on the white panels are just too distinctive for what should be a plain structural part. And the very tiny panels here, I don't see the point.

In general I think high detail should be reserved for very important objects like engines, command pods, utility parts. Structural parts should be subtler, they should not draw in attention like these seem to.

1 hour ago, severedsolo said:

Parts look good, but can we please talk about your variant names (and subsequently the " theme painter" in the Editor.) This is "white"

[clipped for space]

A) They wouldn't look out of place together, so they could have the same variant name. B) the first image is clearly alot closer to black and white than the second one (honestly though, they should both be "white" there isn't enough grey/black on either of them to justify calling it "black and white"

There just seems to be no consistency at all (including in the 1.25m/Making History parts - I could give you half a dozen examples I found while making Consistent Variants)

Oh yeah this is something that KSP should do as a general art pass I think for 1.6, both new and old parts. Make sure all the variants are nicely matched and have consistent color shades.

[qzgy]

Looks ok..... I think I have to agree with the above it kinda has too much detail. Also with the many superfluous things, it seems like the detailing doesn't really have to exist. Kinda also thought the flatter adapter was fine because of the kinda bare metal appearance. 

Also, hey I thought there was going to be something about a writing challenge result.... @UomoCapra

[Zero266]

this is lip licking good

 

[klgraham1013]

2 hours ago, GregroxMun said:

consistent color shades.

They should probably do this while, I don't know, making the parts.  That's just my two cents though.

[captainb]

So far I strongly dislike all of the revamped adapter parts.  I actually think they look significantly worse than the originals.  I agree with some other posters about too much detail. IMO squad should remove all the excess lips, ridges and lines and just go for a smooth transition between sizes, potentially with a slight curvature of the cone part.  I tend to use the Rockomax brand adapter 02 and the FL-05 adapters (the flat ones) a lot in my creations but if they go this route for the Rockomax ones I will have to find some other part instead.

[passinglurker]

Ok it's not a total and utter slap in the face like the ADPT-2-3 so I'll try to avoid the bold red text this time...

FL-A10
Hey gang remember when everyone was happy squad dropped the silly barrel lips from the ends of the fuel tanks? Well...


...This oversight illustrates yet again why you shouldn't recycle meshes form geometrically simple parts like this. First its a grossly missed opportunity to reevaluate what the part is for and how to make it useful(should it be taller? should it be shorter? should it have fuel?), and second it usually carries over flaws the previous iteration had such as the bottom lip people were happy when you made the 1.25m parts flush why would you keep this?.

Moving on to the texture it's nice that you guys have the loud details porkjet used down pat but now you're overdoing it and leaning on them like a crutch. Yes you flipped the needle around the other way and now the details are too loud (I'm not saying the detail is excessive haveing detail is good but you can't have all the detail stand out at once or it looks busy I'm afraid that when I zoom out on that part its gonna look shades darker than the ones around it thanks to all the tiny panels you've tiled it with) and the whole thing just looks heavily mirrored creating visible patterns that compound the loudness problem. It's almost like you went full Skwod-mode and tried to go back to doing the minimum that would satisfy the most people for the least work instead of simply doing your best within the established standards. People notice when you do this @SQUAD and they lose faith in you don't be a Skwod Squad.

I will say the texture design on the orange version is better but again give it an original mesh and don't mirror every other UV-polygon like this.

EDIT: This may be hypocritical for me to say, but you know what would probably make a better Q&D 0.625m-1.25m adapter? this...

Simply lop it off at the 0.625m mark and while you're at it turn the bit you lopped off into an extra mk-0 nose cone for those times the curvy one won't do.

FL-A5
So remember what I said above about mesh recycling being a "missed opportunity to reevaluate what the part is for and how to make it useful"? This part is the epitome of this. Consider how this part is normally used what comes to mind? If vacuum vehicles like space stations, landers, rovers, bases, grandtour motherships came to mind then I'm sure you'd see the problem with giving this part launch vehicle paint jobs (if vacuum vehicles didn't come to mind then wow you are really disconnected from this community or really big into kraken-tek...) You should take this part back until you settle on what you are going to do with the station parts and lander cans and then come up with a design that goes with those parts because that is where it will be used the most I guarantee it.

Also...

Even if you keep the station parts white this dark spokes over white paint look in particular is gonna stand out sorely from miles away so if you're not gonna make this and the station parts grey like the mk2 lander can then double please scrap this part and try again.

Edited November 16, 2018 by passinglurker

[AlamoVampire]

@squad i really agree with the majority here, this time yall took a huge step backwards. They are going to stand out and are physically identical to the old parts... More greeble isnt always good. This is such an instance. 

[RealKerbal3x]

This one isn’t really doing it for me. Keeping the old models while adding super-busy textures is not a good combination. The FL-A10 is the only one that looks alright, and it’s still a bit busy-looking.

And while we’re here, the variant names need a go-over. The ‘white’ variant of the ADTP-2-3 has black stripes on it, while the ‘black and white’ variant on the FL-A10 is in fact grey and white.

Edited November 16, 2018 by RealKerbal3x

[swjr-swis]

New textures look crisp, they move these two parts from eternally looking 'out of focus' to a well-defined look. Especially the end-caps were sorely needed. Thank you.

I don't have much issue with the square edges etc. It allows you to keep the old models, which means less work; I'm fine with that. If you do decide to smooth the model more between now and release: please make sure they still fit perfectly flush to the 0.625m and 1.25m diameters on each side, just as the current models do.

The FL-A10 surface texture is too busy. It's a very small part to be so overly subdivided. If you absolutely want to have panel divisions, and I'm not against it, I'd say that the bigger panels in the center row are more than enough.

I have to agree that the part variant names seem to lack consistency when compared to the actual colours of the parts.

 

Back to the endcaps for a second, in particular the FL-A10: in replacing the black holes by clearly defined endcaps, you've removed the implied (if not real) hollowness of the part. While the implied hollowness fit with the part being purely structural, now the part is very clearly not hollow anymore. What I'm getting at: even as small as the part is, the new look would be very deceptive if the part doesn't get internal tank volume.

 

[GrandProtectorDark]

Looks cool. Although the details could be a bit bit more subtitle.

[GearsNSuch]

I really do appreciate all the work, and the details are quite well done in themselves, but, as others have stated, these are structural parts and really not the "center of attention" on the rocket.

First off, parts that people click on a lot need to be unique and somewhat more detailed; easy to find. Pods have windows, probe cores are shiny, engines are strangely shaped, but a part as "boring" and "everyday" as an adaptor just doesn't quite need the uniqueness. They are practically never clicked on, so they don't really need to look "awesome," as these do. Same goes for the previous adapters.

Secondly, I think this would really break up a rocket's feel or smoothness. The FL-A10 "black and white" in particular just seems that it contrasts with the smooth white textures of other tanks, so I can see the texture used in only a small number of specific applications. Perhaps, if developer time allows, you could add another "white" variant that uses the line schema of the "orange" variant but with the "white" variant colors.

 

Once again, I really do appreciate all the hard work put into the revamps, but I do believe this is a case of too much of a good thing. The adaptors are expertly drawn, but their detail draws attention away from more mission-critical parts.

 

Thank you!

[Stevie_D]

Yeah, a bit of a case of overkill.

Large parts need lots of detailing (2.5 upwards for example) small parts like this, well; i guess i don't understand why your other new adapters in the other thread are minimalist in detail, but these are busy. Yeah, i can see they need to be "apollo" schemed to make rockets look a bit more on theme when changing sizes, but just a black band and white like the old one was fine.

I'm also baffled (again, like other folk) as to why the new 1.25m fuel tanks had their lips removed and these don't. You have a nice chance to use this part in particular to make the transition less harsh from 1.25m to 0.625 by having a tapered edge instead of a lip.  That way, just for the same poly count (or less as in the case below), you can have rockets look a bit more like their real world counterparts do when their shapes change.

 

Edited November 16, 2018 by Stevie_D

[Frank_G]

Looks very nice

[edit] And i forgot to mention, that i like the new dev-update format much better... Good to get a constant flow of information coming.

Launch dangerous!

Edited November 16, 2018 by Frank_G

[lunardog15]

as I play on a potato I am slightly worried that this may be more resource intensive  but  the rather chaotic look mam just be the new norm  

[Foxster]

But will the parts now actually do anything other than visually match differently sized parts? In other words, will drag be reduced by using these parts?

[Dfthu]

I really don't know why lots of people are complaining. All of these parts look great! Keep up the good work guys.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Dfthu

[severedsolo]

1 hour ago, Foxster said:

But will the parts now actually do anything other than visually match differently sized parts? In other words, will drag be reduced by using these parts?

Do they not now? (genuine question) - I thought that using an adapter to go between sizes reduced drag.