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

[Vexillar]

There are so many comments above I agree with...

FIrst impression of the FL-5 was very positive - the new B&W texture is much better looking than the old silver-grey, taking it as a standalone object.  However, what is this part in-game?  It's really just a metalloid plate to make a nice interface (for looks and for the aero model) between different sized components.

But for me, flat adapters most commonly serve either (a) to provide a little "realism" between two parts that could be attached directly but look better with a little extra something, or (b) as a cap over a tank end or other part (perhaps as a tanker module or a surface tank in a base).  In the latter case, the half-painted flat ends on the old part bother me somewhat; but the nicely detailed ends on the new part would actually be worse - they would need a cap on the cap, (ad infinitem!).  As has been said above, consider the use cases for the part.

It's a little different with the FL-10 - I'd hardly ever use this without something attached to the end.  The sloped surface textures are interesting, but I agree with the many comments above saying that there's still just a little too much panelling on the black-and-white variant; the orange variant is better.

Agree generally with comments about the mesh-shapes, but could live with these.
 

[Frozen_Heart]

Technically I prefer these new textures for these two parts....

 

But that's a very low bar to stumble over. Doesn't matter what you do to these, they will always look downright awful.

[Foxster]

1 hour ago, severedsolo said:

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

AFAIK the longer tapered parts do reduce drag. The flatter ones no. 

[SpacedCowboy]

I think they look great, especially if you could mount them on the sides of rover wheels as spinners

Why is it in the VAB, the FL-A5 gets no response when right-clicked? No rigid attachment, no auto-strut, no nothing! no problem with the FL-A10 though.

[Pthigrivi]

Did I miss whether the 2.5 meter rockomax adapter had been updated? Because...



*shudders*

Also obvious +1 on putting fuel in it.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Pthigrivi

[basic.syntax]

See what happens, Squad? You update one part, or six, and suddenly they want ALL the parts to be updated    

[Enceos]

@passinglurker I believe mesh recycling of structural parts was intended to protect all vessels community built with these part from breaking. You can beat them for that, but they're definitely walking the path of "do no harm". Altering a collider by a fraction may render all those steampunk vessels, which use this part, inoperable. A compromise would be having an old mesh as a default choice and introducing a slicker version in the mesh switcher.

[passinglurker]

@Enceos you answered your own excuse. If mesh changes are a problem they could leverage the mesh switch system or hide the old parts and phase them out more slowly. We can still (and should) expect squad to consider each part's usage case and design the part to fit those uses using switchable variants if necessary. In the case of these adapters it doesn't look like they actually considered how the parts would be used they just checked a few boxes about how porky it looks before dropping a preview and moving on. This is not a good trend to see.

Edited November 17, 2018 by passinglurker

[Enceos]

@passinglurker Problem with the current mesh switcher module is that it can either switch textures or meshes, it can't do both.

There's a dirty workaround though

Edited November 17, 2018 by Enceos

[Poodmund]

I concur pretty much with the sentiments in this thread that these parts do not correlate to the scale of detail that we seem to be expecting from parts of this size. The small rectangular repeated sections at the base of both adapters have a very weird bright white stroke around the inside of each rectangle section... which looks SUPER weird. This bright white striping also occurs very prominently up the inside of the segment edges on the A5 adapter as they go upwards to the central circle hub... I just don't get what they are trying to communicate here from a shaping context with reference to lighting. It seems it could be highlighting/shadowing/shading just for the sake of doing 'something' and it doesn't necessarily make visual sense. It is as if each small rectangle has an small intake vent that goes into the interior of the adapter because the bright white edges would form the flat face of the panel and the internal shadowed region would represent a sunken intake.

I appreciate that SQUAD have decided to make multiple variants for these parts going forward for 1.6 and onwards (I also acknowledge Severedsolo's comments on inconsistent theme names and looks) but for parts of this scale the common context of usage also should be considered when designing the aesthetics of the part. With reference to the FL-A5 adapter specifically the current part represents a bare metal adapter cap that is commonly seen in use on small payload adapters or in use on payloads rather than external use in the main rocket stack; due to this, the bare metal look seems appropriate. Now that the revamped part seems painted and in keeping with, say, the fuel tank aesthetics it makes it a little odd when using it as a payload adapter or for use in an internal payload structural piece. Basically, what I am inferring is that the bare metal version should be retained as a default variant.

Finally, it seems there is a technical execution mis-match between these adapters and the ADTP adapters that were shown previously. The parts this week seem a little flat with the surface shape baked into the diffuse map will manual application of highlights and shadowing in start contrast to the adapters shown previously where the surface shape detail seemed to be rather exclusively done through the normal map usage. Consistency through technical application of processes and methods in this art is as important to get a consistent aesthetic and style as the overall 'design aesthetic'.

[klgraham1013]

13 hours ago, basic.syntax said:

See what happens, Squad? You update one part, or six, and suddenly they want ALL the parts to be updated    

I'm not sure if suddenly is the right word.  People have been asking for an overhaul for quite a long time.  Consider Ven's as evidence.

[passinglurker]

5 hours ago, Enceos said:

@passinglurker Problem with the current mesh switcher module is that it can either switch textures or meshes, it can't do both.

There's a dirty workaround though

These parts both use the tiniest sliver of texture mirrored and repeated to infinity around the circumference. If necessary fitting these texture slivers into the unused spaces on a better master texture sheet is not an insurmountable task.

Though honestly I'd rather they just break old craft I don't see why the over all gameplay and aesthetic unity should suffer to accommodate old replica and kraken-tek builds. Their fun comes from building does it not? So they can always build again and use the cheat menu to rapidly relocate the replacement to wherever the original resided if a change to the cosmetic render'd mesh somehow causes a problem (note they can change the render'd mesh and keep the underlying collision mesh identical to the old part there is really nothing here to fret about keeping the old render'd meshes is just cheap and lazy).

Edited November 17, 2018 by passinglurker

[theJesuit]

16 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Did I miss whether the 2.5 meter rockomax adapter had been updated? Because...



*shudders*

Also obvious +1 on putting fuel in it.

There was a great mod one that utilised those panels by treating them as doors, covers for two pop out as lights (facing ahead down the 1.25 barrel of you craft), or an inline solar panel!   So great.

Lost it in many updates as I think the lights went kerfunk.

Peace.

[Vexillar]

It looks very much as though we're being treated to a progressive rework of all the parts.  I for one welcome our alien overhauls. 

[Xurkitree]

I concur on the texturing part - it looks kinda crowded.But its nice to see that we are moving in the general direction of a Structural parts overhaul.

SQUAD, is it possible to preview these parts in attachment to other parts? Like could you show us a picture of it being an adapter between whatever? This would give a better idea on how the part is going to look or behave around other parts and give a sense of scale.

[FahmiRBLX]

On 11/17/2018 at 7:36 AM, basic.syntax said:

See what happens, Squad? You update one part, or six, and suddenly they want ALL the parts to be updated    

Now I wonder why some people talked about KSP 2.

Spoiler

I also thought of Kerbal revamps (Which have human bodies, arms, legs) but still having their signature Kerbal heads)

 

[RealKerbal3x]

9 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

I also thought of Kerbal revamps (Which have human bodies, arms, legs) but still having their signature Kerbal heads)

Hmm, no. The Kerbals are supposed to be cute and cartoonish, and giving them human bodies while keeping their current heads would remove that feeling and make them kind of creepy looking TBH. Besides, while a lot of the parts in KSP sorely need a revamp, the Kerbals have been unchanged in the game for so long that changing their look would get a mixed (and most likely negative) reaction.

[DragonsForce]

On 11/17/2018 at 4:43 PM, passinglurker said:

Though honestly I'd rather they just break old craft I don't see why the over all gameplay and aesthetic unity should suffer to accommodate old replica and kraken-tek builds. Their fun comes from building does it not? So they can always build again and use the cheat menu to rapidly relocate the replacement to wherever the original resided if a change to the cosmetic render'd mesh somehow causes a problem (note they can change the render'd mesh and keep the underlying collision mesh identical to the old part there is really nothing here to fret about keeping the old render'd meshes is just cheap and lazy).

No. That is not a thing you can or should do with a published game. The fun in WoW comes from grinding, right? So let's just overhaul a class, doesn't matter that that breaks old chars, just grind out a new character!

[passinglurker]

@DragonsForce ksp's publishing was premature but that doesn't change what needs to be done. I'm afraid you're just gonna have to deal with it fortunately there is the cheat menu for easily replacing any craft they break.

[DragonsForce]

6 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

@DragonsForce ksp's publishing was premature but that doesn't change what needs to be done. I'm afraid you're just gonna have to deal with it fortunately there is the cheat menu for easily replacing any craft they break.

No, I'm pretty sure I won't have to deal with it, they are not going to do it. So far at least they have not done it; the old parts are even still available via some roundabout methode iirc. My old crafts definetly still work.

[passinglurker]

@DragonsForce a phase out is certainly an option but either way you can't expect to shackle the current dev team to the past teams [snip] mistakes if ksp is to see it's full potential in the end the lip must go.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Deddly
Let's not insult the guys, eh?

[DragonsForce]

8 hours ago, passinglurker said:

@DragonsForce a phase out is certainly an option but either way you can't expect to shackle the current dev team to the past teams [snip] mistakes if ksp is to see it's full potential in the end the lip must go.

I don't think having the assets in the game costs much performance, if any. Thus, I don't see why crafts should be broken, the assets can just remain hidden so stuff continues to work.

[passinglurker]

@DragonsForce and eat all that ram? The whole reason they are being revamped is they are inefficient inconsistent and sub optional. Nope they gotta go and you gotta deal. Craft don't even really "break" from parts having slightly different designs or dimensions. Things might clip differently or float but it's not exactly a nightmare and if you are one of the few where the end result of a change is unacceptable there is the cheat menu for that. There is no reason to get bent out of shape over an adapter losing it's funky lip.

[DragonsForce]

We shall see. I have never looked at the code, so I really can't say what keeping them in would cost. I just know that so far, they are all still in.