SQUAD

A "KSP Loading..." Preview: Vernor Engine Revamp

Recommended Posts

Also known as the  VR-N1ER Veer-Governor, it has now been the turn for the “Vernor” Engine to receive some love. Our artists not only reworked this part’s geometry and texture maps, but added a pretty nozzle with a metallic look that also includes an emissive texture for when this engine is in action. We hope you like it as much as we do!

tumblr_inline_pmkgy7EcvB1rr2wit_540.png

Click here for the high-res images

There’s more coming, so stay tuned!

  • Like 26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks good to me. I'll be more inclined to use it now. :)

Also first.

And my first first post. :)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Major improvement! Not so much because the new model is fantastic but because the old is rather horrible with a bafflingly weird and low poly mesh. The new version will be far easier to use as a decorative element thanks to its "reduced personality", it will most likely look a lot less out of place in most spots.

Speaking of decorative elements here comes another tangent because I'm not done being a nuisance. KSP has a parts catalog that is almost entirely dedicated to nothing but purely functional pieces, since my first time getting halfway up the tech tree in career mode I've wondered where all the decorative and otherwise useless parts can be found. I'm still wondering. Perhaps one day my question will have an answer that doesn't leave me unsatisfied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man i'm glad the geometry got fixed on this thing, being concave on top was always the worst when trying to use it.

I mean, the shape of it is inconvenient overall, but there's only so much you can do without entirely reinventing the part.

I've gotten around it by using the small intakes as "strakes" for mounting them in the past:
awBJieV.png

sO5eDEr.png

 

but there's only so much you can do to a part without just completely needing to replace it, so this seems like a good way to do it!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

 

   P-body.png

Beat me to it by 5 minutes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the artist be able or care to specify what shader is being utilized on the nozzle? It looks as though a bumped specular shader is being used but the nozzle material also has an emissive... so can we finally expect an Emissive Material that supports Bumped Specular (Mapped) in Part Tools with 1.7?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rejected Spawn said:

KSP has a parts catalog that is almost entirely dedicated to nothing but purely functional pieces, since my first time getting halfway up the tech tree in career mode I've wondered where all the decorative and otherwise useless parts can be found. I'm still wondering. Perhaps one day my question will have an answer that doesn't leave me unsatisfied.

There are quite a few structural/decorative parts in Making History. 

 

The new Vernor looks nice! It's still going to be a pain to stick them everywhere needed for full RCS control on large vessels, but the visuals are definitely a lot better than the old one, and of course that's the whole point of this upgrade. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Rejected Spawn said:

Speaking of decorative elements here comes another tangent because I'm not done being a nuisance. KSP has a parts catalog that is almost entirely dedicated to nothing but purely functional pieces, since my first time getting halfway up the tech tree in career mode I've wondered where all the decorative and otherwise useless parts can be found. I'm still wondering. Perhaps one day my question will have an answer that doesn't leave me unsatisfied.

This reply will likely not satisfy either. Rockets are not known for having superfluous parts that are just for show. Things look the way they do because that way they are light, cheap, and strong enough to do their job and nothing more.

I'm fairly sure that if they didn't have to paint the rocket anyway, they wouldn't even bother with putting the flags and words on them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

I'm fairly sure that if they didn't have to paint the rocket anyway, they wouldn't even bother with putting the flags and words on them.

Exactly - The Shuttle external tank was left unpainted to save 600 pounds. https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/podcasting/flyout_et_srb.html Not only are there solid gameplay reasons to not add decorative parts. There's the added reason that increasing part count would slow the game down.

Back on topic - the most famous NASA vernier thruster I'm aware of was the one on the Atlas rocket - this one was gimbaled. Why don't we have a gimbaled vernier like this in the game? (we have the MH russian downward pointing vernier, but nothing that's designed for firing sideways)

170px-Convair_XSM-65B_launch.jpg

Edited by Tyko
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the Twitch largely fills that roll, doesn't it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

--Rockets are not known for having superfluous parts that are just for show.--

While this is completely true you may have forgotten a small but important detail. A huge amount of players prefer building rockets that don't look like dull cylinders solely created to get from point A to point B. As much as I loathe having to dredge up the endless "realism vs. freedom" arguments we are sending little green idiots around a completely unrealistic solar system for no reason other than "because it's fun" so it may come as no surprise I don't care one bit for the excessive enforcing of subjectively chosen fragments of realism that some forum users keep insisting is The One True Way To Play. There is no point to the entire game of KSP except "it lets us do what we feel like" so a refusal to add pointless but entertaining things to a pointless but entertaining game is incomprehensibly illogical in my eyes. Look at the Steam Workshop for KSP, there is an absolutely overwhelming focus on aesthetics above functionality among the "random anonymous people who never get a KSP forum account" and if anything that should be a clear indication that the average player outside this niche forum is far more interested in Having The Option of using pointless pieces.

@Deddly I'll admit Making History did add some pieces that can be used as decorations and it's a step in the right direction, however these parts are still functional structural elements that have been created with a mindset of functionality before form so they can't be primarily called decorations - what's worse they are difficult to incorporate in visually pleasing ways.

Wow I'm really making friends today, pardon my sour tone guys. I mostly just want KSP to appeal to as many players as possible and it grinds my gears when the Realism Enforcement Agency randomly stabs the creative hearts of millions in the name of their self proclaimed True Way Of How You Must Play KSP.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it. The metallic nozzle is a very nice touch

Now while you're at it, is there any chance of adding a variant that has a nozzle that points forward from the "nose" of the teardrop shape? So that it can be used in the fore/aft thrust direction with having to rotate it into an ugly, un-streamlined position? That would be so, so nice...

Regarding the request decorative parts, there's no reason they need to slow the game down. They could be made "physicsless" like some other parts are, with their mass and drag added to the parent part.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Rejected Spawn said:

While this is completely true you may have forgotten a small but important detail. A huge amount of players prefer building rockets that don't look like dull cylinders solely created to get from point A to point B.

I'm totally cool with them installing mods to do that.

And I don't mind the opinion or the tone. You're adamant, which is totally cool by me. I'm also adamant. There are already too many parts in the VAB, I don't need a Greebles tab to add to the clutter.

Edited by 5thHorseman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finaly I understand how this Engine works :wink:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree the new revamped model is a marked improvement over the existing one, I am disappointed that the new model hasn't been revised to be more compact to be more interchangeable with the monoprop-powered RCS thrusters.  That's quite the large aerodynamic blister to cover the Vernor thrust port, but for vacuum craft, it's excessive and unnecessary.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All in all, a great revamp, I think.  In keeping with the old part, but better in so many ways (esp. rivets gone :) ).  As @Lupi alluded, the old part's concave top made it difficult to clip/blend it nicely with angled surfaces while trying to get the position and direction just right.  The new one should make that a bit easier.  Bit if it were possible to have an "unblistered" bare nozzle variant as per @StrandedonEarth's suggestion, that would be the sprinkles on the icing on the cake. :D 

(I've wondered about the rationale for the aero blister... in my head, it's because this part would be used mainly on large craft - that would not fit inside a fairing - and so even for a deep space missions the verniers would be out in the wind on launch.  Also because it came before fairings were in the game, and because Eve.)

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a nice revamp! Thanks SQUAD, all of our vessels will look much nicer by the end of this revamp effort! :D

Edited by RealKerbal3x
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a pretty good revamp.  Unfortunately, it's still an awkward shape.  Other than that, seems good.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very solid revamp, same as the Puff. You managed to retain the charm of the original yet fix its problems and add detail. I appreciate that the small things aren't just being overlooked.

Thank you for all the work, and looking forward to more updates in the future!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same as everyone else. Good job, but kinda wish there was an alternate shape or bare engine option for my non-spaceplanes since part variants are a thing now.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now