Nertea

[WIP] Restock: KSP Part Art Revamp (Released March 06)

Recommended Posts

Today, let us Poodle. And pod.

The Poodle follows Porkjet's concept sheet closely. After close examination of the master's concept work, modeler @riocrokite determined that this part was based on the quad-nozzle, single turbopump RD-0124. This configuration gives a nice balance to the model, and calls back to the bulky centre of the original model. We managed this way to easily have nicely vacuum proportioned nozzles with high expansion ratios. It might be a bit contentious, as stock has gone for a dual nozzle interpretation, but we're confident in our choice and really like the result.

Included is also a compact variant for effective clustering and as usual, new effects.

j5sR7It.png

The Mk1-3 command pod was a bit more challenging. Two requirements drive this model - firstly to resolve the awful too-small top area and make it consistent, so nosecones, parachutes and covered docking ports would fit well, and secondly to preserve the window footprints to avoid redoing the IVA. This was challenging, but after a few throwaway prototypes and much swearing a result was had. The final version is well unified with other parts and sports the general set of improvements that we make to everything we redo. 

CkkcbMB.png

QHpgdmd.png

6q8Rq8S.png

VMx7qhN.png

CbjfsrP.png

QsHStdx.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Nertea said:

After close examination of the master's concept work

I LOLed.  So very true.

Peace.

37 minutes ago, Nertea said:

This was challenging, but after a few throwaway prototypes and much swearing a result was had.

I LOLed harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Poodle's gimballing mechanism looks amazing in motion and it's so nice to finally have a Mk1-3 Pod that doesn't have rediculous gaps and sizes different to whatever is stacked on its top node. Awesome work to those involved... and as a little tid bit... the compact Poodle seems just the right size to fit in a 1.875m (Size 1.5) stack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dat service bay though. And shielded docking port. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inb4 concerns how new poodle works with MH 1.875 parts and soyuz-esque rockets > compact poodle fits within 1.875 envelope; proof:

eE3oRI6.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nertea said:

Today, let us Poodle. And pod.
<snip>

Dat's beyootiful *sniff!*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Single Engine Poodle, eat your heart out!

Also all those people who want single engined poodles can now have 4 times the triggered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Xurkitree said:

Single Engine Poodle, eat your heart out!

Also all those people who want single engined poodles can now have 4 times the triggered.

Both ReStock and Squad's (old and new) models are single engine.

Edited by Kradgger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 4 bell poodle makes sense, the proportions of the bells look right too.

Is that a LES on top of a shielded docking port? How will the LES work? Will it finally have a fairing when stack attached, like engines or heatshields do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

The 4 bell poodle makes sense, the proportions of the bells look right too.

Is that a LES on top of a shielded docking port? How will the LES work? Will it finally have a fairing when stack attached, like engines or heatshields do?

I can chime in on this one. Unfortunately that is just the stock LES (https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Launch_Escape_System) thats been attached to a decoupler that has then been clipped down into the shielded docking port with some fancy offsetting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are stock landing legs in the list for restocking? They really look out of place on recent screenshots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2.5m service bay looks way better now, never liked the weird yellow on stock.

I support you on the quad-poodle, if you look very closely at the faceted engine bases on the design doc it even seems to suggest exactly the same kind of square/octagonal compact mount you modeled. good eye @riocrokite!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sh1pman said:

Are stock landing legs in the list for restocking? They really look out of place on recent screenshots.

Eventually™ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Nertea said:

QHpgdmd.png

I never realized how much better a consistent art style and precision diameter match-ups make KSP ships look so much better until I saw this screenshot.  That is gorgeous.  The smooth lines and consistent stock-a-like style of that nose shroud, Mk1-3 nose diameter, and service bay are in a word "seamless beauty".  Well done. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

I never realized how much better a consistent art style and precision diameter match-ups make KSP ships look so much better until I saw this screenshot.  That is gorgeous.  The smooth lines and consistent stock-a-like style of that nose shroud, Mk1-3 nose diameter, and service bay are in a word "seamless beauty".  Well done. :)

A-Am I smelling a faint 'Raptor9's Hangar: ReStock Edition' in the distance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sh1pman said:

Are stock landing legs in the list for restocking? They really look out of place on recent screenshots.

They're some of the most difficult parts to make drop in replacements for so not right now.

7 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

I never realized how much better a consistent art style and precision diameter match-ups make KSP ships look so much better until I saw this screenshot.  That is gorgeous.  The smooth lines and consistent stock-a-like style of that nose shroud, Mk1-3 nose diameter, and service bay are in a word "seamless beauty".  Well done. :)

Yeah. It's quite shocking what the game can look like with this installed alongside a few visual mods. It's one of the reasons the newer squad revamps are so depressing, they waste a lot of potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kradgger said:

A-Am I smelling a faint 'Raptor9's Hangar: ReStock Edition' in the distance?

Having a bone-stock version and a Restock version of my craft catalog would be entirely too much work to maintain.  If I were to convert my craft files to Restock versions, I would commit to it entirely.  Not saying I will or will not, just saying it would be one or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

Having a bone-stock version and a Restock version of my craft catalog would be entirely too much work to maintain.  If I were to convert my craft files to Restock versions, I would commit to it entirely.  Not saying I will or will not, just saying it would be one or the other.

Yeah, thought the same. I've played around with some of your craft and ReStock and there isn't much conflict, might be because one of the prime goals for the team was `don't f**k around with the stock colliders'. Shame they're not doing the MH set, which you use a lot to great effect (have an Atlas V hangar myself and the 1.5 parts are obligatory for the centaur), but I can't really blame the guys, the 1.875 set and, even more ridiculous, structural panels shouldn't be DLC.

Edited by Kradgger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In love with this project, this is exactly what we've needed, thank you guys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cineboxandrew said:

Eventually™ 

 I hope you guys fix the angling of the LT-2 landing legs - on recent crafts, its gotten to the point that they're unusable on any craft because they're aren't tall enough instead being too wide. They aren't even strong and they don't provide proper engine support. Its too small for a poodle without Offsets, nvm a LV-N pod clipped in a fuselage. I end up using LET's Landing legs, but they're designed for really heavy landers.

Please keep this in mind - it would go a long way to make sotck function better if each landing leg was a bit longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is 90 degree rotation and lack of lateral symmetry intentional in shielded docking port model?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xurkitree said:

 I hope you guys fix the angling of the LT-2 landing legs - on recent crafts, its gotten to the point that they're unusable on any craft because they're aren't tall enough instead being too wide. They aren't even strong and they don't provide proper engine support. Its too small for a poodle without Offsets, nvm a LV-N pod clipped in a fuselage.

 

I've noticed this too. Last patch I made some stock Falcon 9 analogues and they worked like a charm. Come 1.6.x and I had to remove their legs because they're way better off landing on their engine nozzles, since for some reason the LT-2s decide to snap all the time.

Oh, speaking of Falcon 9s, @Nertea, are there gonna be pure white variants for the Rockomax tanks and maybe orange ones for the size 3 set?

Edited by Kradgger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Psycho_zs said:

Is 90 degree rotation and lack of lateral symmetry intentional in shielded docking port model?

Yes, this is intentional. Two reasons:

  1. Since it's asymmetrical two ships with shielded ports can dock without rotating. If they were symmetrical the "petals" of the two ports would collide with each other.
  2. If it's symmetrical, it blocks the view of both right and left pilot. Rotated 90 degrees it actually gives a much better view forward for docking.

 

Edited by Tyko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Xurkitree said:

 I hope you guys fix the angling of the LT-2 landing legs - on recent crafts, its gotten to the point that they're unusable on any craft because they're aren't tall enough instead being too wide. They aren't even strong and they don't provide proper engine support. Its too small for a poodle without Offsets, nvm a LV-N pod clipped in a fuselage. I end up using LET's Landing legs, but they're designed for really heavy landers.

Please keep this in mind - it would go a long way to make sotck function better if each landing leg was a bit longer.

We're trying to keep colliders the same as the stock parts for save compatibility, ESPECIALLY for kraken-bait parts like legs or wheels, so modifying the shape of existing legs is a no-go. I'll keep that in mind for possible Restock+ parts though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kradgger said:

Oh, speaking of Falcon 9s, @Nertea, are there gonna be pure white variants for the Rockomax tanks and maybe orange ones for the size 3 set?

Probably no white variants. It's just... variants are more work. So much scope creep can be added really easily, I have to be aggressive when treating suggestions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.