passinglurker
-
Posts
2,134 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by passinglurker
-
-
14 hours ago, qzgy said:
Engines perhaps? The smaller sizes, such as the 1.25 and the 2.5. While there's nothing quite wrong with them, given fow the art update is looking I think those would begin to clash at least a little with the new parts.
Engines might be some pretty big shoes to fill.
I think I'd like to see them maintain good quality over multiple consecutive previews before they take a pass at competing with this. maybe other early parts or deep space parts? the service bays, the parachutes, the 2.5m pod, the 1.25m/2.5 fuel tanks, the radial decouplers, the nose cones, etc plenty to do first. -
2 minutes ago, basic.syntax said:
I'm only referring to hand-painted AO. If that's still true, then your blanket statement "anything RD said" should be qualified. Also, the MH parts were up to the standards Squad wanted, when MH was released.
RD came after Porkjet established baking as the standard through his space plane parts. You can't exactly chalk up the simulation of light to "space planes and rockets are different" so purely airbrushing the AO like RD's done on stream should never have been part of thier style guide for making history (ergo the infamy of this quote), and even with this "style guide" MH's art assets still came out inconsistent with each other that's a pretty big clue whatever they were trying to do in that regard fell apart at some point if they were ever serious about it at all and it wasn't just RD making excuses.
You're really not doing Squad any favors digging up these quotes it just highlights various times and ways player trust was eroded because they made excuses and failed to even implement thier excuses well within thier own little DLC microcosm. Something has clearly changed for the better though Squad's now actually listening to and responding to feedback in ways we haven't seen since 1.2 instead of pointing to the loudest fans and saying "they're fine with it we don't gotta fix nothing" like RD had essentially done in this quote, but either way we have no basis to assume this quote holds any clue to the contents of thier internal style guide that still holds true. -
4 minutes ago, basic.syntax said:
This is one of few things we can know about their style guide: hand-painted AO.
yet another infamous RD quote that didn't age well at all considering just this week they revamped a recent MH part because it wasn't up to standards.
I think its safe to say that anything RD said during MH development just doesn't hold true any more. -
22 minutes ago, JP_Magoo said:
Man, all i want is some smaller parts for satellites. Like a cube sat core, and some smaller RCS, engines, reaction wheels, solar panels. I think this would improve the game overall. I'm always wishing I had smaller parts while building my craft. But the new models/textures look SICK.
A lot of this stuff is already in the game or is unneeded due to the scale you are proposing.
Cube sat core = QBE
Smaller RCS = Nothing. Smaller probes don't usually carry docking ports, and integrated reaction wheels are more than ample for attitude control. (though granted what we have now is a bit oversized for some of the smaller dockables people build)
Engines = Ant, Spider, Standard RCS in engine mode. Doesn't get much smaller than those.
Reaction wheels = Nothing again. As I said integrated reaction wheels are more than ample for attitude control for smaller probes.
Solar panels = The basic fixed solar panel.
just how much smaller do you want to build? I imagine getting the camera in the editor to cooperate would be a challenge if you went much smaller than we have now. -
51 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:
Since you use mods, why don’t you use the mod which does fix the controller, ABFW?
Do you have a mod for him? I think you of all people would know not to disrespect and blow off someone who actually takes the effort to properly use a bug tracker.
I'm an idiot I didn't realize AFBW was a mod name. -
22 hours ago, SQUAD said:
The team is working tirelessly on Update 1.5 and at this stage, progress is quite evident. For instance, the revamped part catalog continues to grow and this week was the turn of another classic: the Probodobodyne QBE Command Module. As you can see in the image below, the art team worked on completely new texture maps using diffuse, normal and specular maps for this part. The geometry was also reworked, and as with the other command modules we’ve shown, we added a new shader to give the QBE a metallic look that shines and interacts with light. Check this gif to see the new QBE Command Module in motion to see what we’re talking about.
So before I get into artistic feedback I'm a little confused here @nestor in previous weeks it was said that the revamp was first focusing on early game parts but at the same time we've been getting a lot of probe related parts does this mean probes are being moved to earlier in the tech tree? It is certainly a common request I just hope it would be properly planned out, balanced, and play tested if it were the case.
Anyway on to the part itself I'll echo all of what @Poodmund said, and add that in my own words that the part looks less "grounded" engineering wise, like elements came out of some molded early 2000's car interior rather than the strong researched showing we got last week with the OCTO. I would encourage you not to let up on your design research since that can make or break a part and could sink even a perfectly textured one in an extreme case if something looks too out of place. Also you're doing that top and bottom lip thing again I'm wary if that is allowed to pass next thing we know we'll be back to soup can style fuel tanks... finally similar to what @panzer1b said with how the foil panels are inset it feels like there should be more of an ambient occlusion effect or octo-style foil panel edge to suggest the foil panels end at or tuck under the structural supports. It feels too CGI if the material transition is abrupt like this.
Don't get me wrong it's overall much improved over your earlier HECS previews but the hiccups with design and attention to detail on the foil panels makes it feel like an overall small step back from the progress you made with the OCTO, and the ultimate goal here is consistency. Still since you are able to recently produce the OCTO part I have full confidence that improving QBE further isn't beyond your art teams skills.
22 hours ago, SQUAD said:The art team also revisited the SP-R, S and T Structural Panels. For starters, the team created a brand new texture variant for these panels, but all of them got their diffuse, normal, and specular texture maps redone. Both the silver and golden panels include the new shaders that makes them interact with light as a bright metallic part would, while the striped panels now have some cool indentations at their edges, as well as some cool erosion effects. Check these gifs to see the new silver SP-S and gold SP-R Structural Panel variants in motion.
This came from MH, is still exclusive to MH, and doesn't seem like the sort of part that should be exclusive to MH given its general purpose. Not gonna lie but I don't particularly care for these, but... Credit given where credit is due it looks like you got some good practice is on painting conventional panel details and I hope to see this translate into other panelized parts so good job. (the foil meanwhile looks maybe a little too realistic this is what makes foil in kerbal hard and why I often plug cobaltwolf's foil'd parts as examples) -
20 hours ago, Deddly said:
I'm dying to know what @passinglurker thinks of these new textures. At first I didn't know what to think about the plain grey part on the HECS but then I figured that it is probably where the flag goes.
I had another busy weekend so sorry this was delayed, but in addition to ditto what @Nertea @Poodmund and @panzer1b said I'd say to @SQUAD...
-
The IVA looks nice! Subjectively I think it could use more clutter (cargo bags, air bottles, small lockers, fire extinguisher, etc...) but I have no real technical issues with it.
-
Its good to see them take nert's and others advice about the endcap on the mk1 pod, and the hatch may open easter egg it builds trust that they are listening
-
I like the details on the OCTO probe core I noticed they used scratches instead of noise clouds for a change (now that's what I call progress!) and the choice to use mariner as a reference is solid.
-
The mk1pod's paneling style still isn't consistent with porkjet's parts or even thier recent attempts at paneling with the SRB's. The panel corners need to be more rounded rounded/blunted like I said when I first saw it. The panel edges need the same details as other panelized parts. The pallet needs to be consistent mk1 pod "white" should be the same shade as mk1 cockpit "white" etc...
-
While I'm presently assuming this just wasn't fixed yet due to time constraints making a 90% normal map free variant of the mk1 pod is still no excuse for using the normal map baid-aid technique AT ALL. They shouldn't normal map anything on a conventional panel unless the detail is also reflected and fleshed out in in the diffuse map otherwise its like they are using this "normal map corrugation" as a crutch when normal maps should really only be used to enhance parts that already look pretty good without it.
-
That styrofoam noise like on the mk1pod's heat shield just needs to be dropped from any part that uses it its ugly and in this single case its improper as heat shields are smooth.
-
Ditto what @HebaruSan said about octo2 looking a little flat up top I assume this was an error and again this shows the importance of these comprehensive in game renders. Now just imagine how much better things would be on top of that if we could get a preview of the unwrapped texture sheets. It would totally feel like a proper devnote to get some crunchy details like that.
-
I still stand by what I said that cobaltwolf made the best example of kerbal foil but I'll respect squad's need to experiment in this regard since foil is especially tricky to nail down its certainly better than what we saw with the HECS2.
- Maybe they shouldn't go to crazy with the pallet swap variants all we really need is a "unique" texture for character and a "space plane" style texture for people making more blended looking craft. The saturn/redstone/soyuz style schemes can be left to modders/MH/MH for consoles at a much later date after the revamp is largely resolved.
And finally @nestor this one's for you, and is an extension of nert's question about if you are hiding or directly replacing the old parts that get revamped. If old art assets do wind up being hid are you guys going to use this opportunity to refine the part balance? Early on requests for reballances and requests for better art went hand in hand because previous devs pointed to a distant on coming revamp as the time when ballance issues would finally be resolved. While I can't expect a newer team to remember and respect every old dev promise I would hope this is considered as a lot of kerbal's physics flaws come to light when you build crazier planes/rockets. Sure some people like crazy rockets, but it's frustrating for others when the carreer/science mode ballance steers you toward crazy and unintuitive rocket design to actually get anything done (and when you get something done you suddenly clear a quarter to half the tech tree in one fell swoop if you don't pace yourself which is rather unrewarding). I feel making clean and elegant vehicle design be a viable way to approach career mode would go a good ways toward making kerbal feel more like a space game and less like goat simulator. -
The IVA looks nice! Subjectively I think it could use more clutter (cargo bags, air bottles, small lockers, fire extinguisher, etc...) but I have no real technical issues with it.
-
1 hour ago, basic.syntax said:
If anything has ever changed between a part preview and the released build, the quote counts as a true statement - even If a change occurred but it missed the point a 3rd party was trying to point out.
Context: the post you quoted was from the thread where they preview'd the rd-107 which as you'd recall was a part that received wide spread criticism from virtually everyone.
While it seemed a reasonable thing to say at the time Rd's post turned out to ultimately be deflection against the growing spread of criticism. As far as anyone could tell on release the rd-107 was the only one that got a second pass and everything else(including the parts that came before which he alluded to) looked as bad as the day they were previewed in addition to the across the board under the hood QA issues that a polish pass should have caught(missing emmisive animations, config file typos, mesh artifacts, inefficiency, incorrectly sized nodes etc) even if we entertained the notion that this could be technically true and just exaggerated the outcome is still the same squad at that time failed so bad we can't simply trust them to notice and correct obvious flaws and errors themselves now. This might change if they can deliver a solid update in the future but until then they can't escape their past mistakes so easily.
-
Oh man @basic.syntax did that quote not age well.
-
16 hours ago, panzer1b said:
Also, what mod is that, id love to snag that texture to put on the part...
Sadly I never got around to actually releasing that part (real life and stuff) one of these days I'll probably dig it out and finish it I've been wanting an excuse to play with the blender plugins ability to export mu's directly instead of having to go through unity
-
11 minutes ago, Lisias said:
PorkJet's parts (re)defined the the game aesthetics. He did exactly what you said an artist should not.
Porkjet was hired and paid to make parts in a particular style as requested by his employer/client(I'm not sure his exact relationship to squad). That style just happened to be his own. What I meant is that squad asking an artist to learn and emulate any particular style still isn't to much to ask because this is just a part of the job.
of squad can indeed replace porkjet parts but it would be a disaster if what they replaced the parts with were a regression. They want to top porkjet I wouldn't be opposed it might not even be that hard for them. The reason porkalike keeps getting brought up is because it set the current bar(a bar they haven't met yet let alone exceeded) and is therefore the quickest cheapest easiest way out of the obligation to fix the art mess thier predecessors made without giving the community a downgrade.
27 minutes ago, Just Jim said:But for myself, personally, it's really, really hard to copy someone else, not matter how hard I might try.
I think that's normal I found it hard too. (warning GIF)
but I also found it wasn't impossible. Be it passion or paychecks people still can find thier reasons to do hard things. -
16 minutes ago, basic.syntax said:
I agree with you in general, if this drags on for years more and a current artist leaves Squad and has to be replaced again. But they have been making good progress ( you have disagreed that some work constitutes "progress" but Squad did touch the part, and so it counts) I see a lot of parts being revamped. I don't know how long they will spend on v1.5 ... they may revamp a dozen more parts for v1.5, perhaps even get to all of them by the end of this year, and reach a new baseline for KSP's look.
If that sort of incremental revamp cycle didn't slowly drag on for years then you'd have a new problem where craft file's wouldn't be good for more than a few months. This is post release ideally when they revamp a part it should be for the last time and therefore they should leave nothing wanting if you get what I mean.
11 minutes ago, Just Jim said:I am not playing word games... And it was my personnel opinion... I thought I made that part clear.
But you're right, I am now part of Squad, and I am extremely proud of it, and I am not going to comment further.
Good day...
I meant this as a rebut to the player opinion you were responding to and answering you as if you were a player. I don't consider you deep enough in squad itself to speak for the direction of development if it's any consolation
-
Just now, Lisias said:
You weren't around before PorkJet's, were you?
I was I even relayed a story of how yellow came to mean monoprop to nestor on the first page of this thread though I don't see what seniority has to do with this.
1 minute ago, Just Jim said:OK, I've been reading this all weekend, and I have to be really careful about what I say, obviously.
But I'm saying this not as a squad employee... but as an amateur artist and fan-fiction writer.And I totally agree with these...
Even if I try to copy an artist like Giger, or a writer like Lovecraft... it's not going to be a Giger painting, or Lovecraft story... and it won't be one of my best either...
I am myself, and no matter how much I might try to write or paint like someone else, it's still my work in the end, and not someone else's.And every other artist I've ever known is the same...
I'm getting sick of these word games you all should already know full well that despite the subtle differences between artists that you can get close enough to achieve consistency from the audience/reader/player perspective other wise large productions and collaborative works would simply be impossible. Therefore its not to much to ask that squad get as close as they can like the true professional studio they are supposed to be.
-
Just now, Pthigrivi said:
Im just happy to see the effort going in
That is something I can agree with and I hope we can continue to see them keep up thier efforts to do better until we reach aesthetic consistency
-
25 minutes ago, Lisias said:
Artists are rarely motivated by copycatting other people's works.
That motivation is called a paycheck falling in line with the style the employer or client wants/needs is part of the job. Thats the way it is because its the way it has to be otherwise every game would be thid unholy mish mash of individualized styles instead of relative consistency...
39 minutes ago, basic.syntax said:Squad has the people that they have, and is clearly working to improve parts uniformity, over time. I thank them for continuing to work on it.
Uniformity overtime as RD described it is not practical. It's a constantly moving target and makes yet more work as you have to go back and revamp your revamps as the average shifts. You draw a line in the sand and scrap everything sitting on the wrong side of the line otherwise you're just wasting time, and money making worse assets. That is not something to thank someone for.
-
3 minutes ago, Lisias said:
Doesn't matter if the artist's works are easily cloned, copied or mimicked. People tend to prefer the "original" over any kind of copycats.
There's a reason anyone could buy a poster with Van Gogh's "The Portrait of Doctor Gachet" for a few bucks, or even a very good artesanal and faithful copy for a few thousands. But yet the original would cost you about 150M USD.
There's a lot of people able to mimic and surpass Porkjet's work. But yet, it's Porket's works that have fans around here, not them.
You can debunk the Porkjet's "legacy" how many times you want, it's pointless. We are not talking about a tool, we're talking about art and style.
It's a game not an art auction for all practical purposes the style can be emulated for the sake of a unified aesthetic that builds off the work that was already done with the space plane overhaul.
-
19 hours ago, basic.syntax said:
Porkjet has moved on. No two people are going to make the same brush strokes. I could try to copy his brush strokes, but my hand is not as steady. I might not overlap stokes to the same degree or follow a curve as he would. Did he paint on paper and scan that, or was it 100% digital brushes? At some point even parts he worked on may be remade, to match up with the post-pork parts and emerging unified style. (And I will keep all my KSP version backups for the textures and models, in case I'm massively dissatisfied by something.)
Brush strokes? That sounds like an excessive level of emulation, no one's asking for that. The idea that porkjet was some unequalable, unemulateable art god has been debunked multiple times before and I would appreciate it if you didn't perpetuate this myth.
-
8 minutes ago, Redneck said:
Ive seen you mention porkjet multiple times now. And i get it that that is where the bar is raised. So my question is what if the current artist just isnt "like Porkjet". Meaning for example I can play a jimi-hendrix song on guitar but it will never be as good as Jimi's because, well, im not Jimi. So what can we expect from the current artist? He is not porkjet. So now what? Where does that leave us? I dont have an answer
Any professional should be able to do what porkjet did its not exactly revolutionary stuff multiple artists in the community can already emulate or exceed his style if they want to.
-
@basic.syntax If @SQUAD cracked the code to formulating "kerbal" and rendered in reference document form that they simply neglected to adhere to during MH development then I would bet the modding community would love to see it, and Squad would love to show it off on a slow news week.
But RD also said this immediately before your quote...On 3/19/2017 at 6:02 PM, RoverDude said:Trust me, art consistency is something I take into consideration, and have discussed with Leticia (our Lead Artist). A big part of this is making parts that 'fit' with the different art styles, while pushing towards more consistency. There's definitely a 'Kerbal' aesthetic - not junk, but not human proportions either. Chunky, with a slight cartoony feel with a bit of accompanying oversaturation.
Two things to consider... Airplane parts are different than rocket parts, and even further removed from parts that never have to deal with atmospheric use (like the LEM). Another thing (and one that's very hard to see from the outside till the content is in your hand), is that I am making sure all of the new parts have a comparable level of detail (in terms of texture resolution compared to part size), using the Mk-2 and Mk-3 as baselines since those have a pretty crisp level of detail without being massive resource hogs.
Yet the revamp previews we've been getting so far have been below space plane level of detail. I think its safe to say this project he's referring to ultimately didn't come to fruition or like porkjet's overhaul was shelved and ignored. We can't simply rely on squad to come around to what should be the easy way to do this right all by themselves. We unfortunately have to keep pushing, and show this is an aspect of the game we care about.
11 minutes ago, dvader said:Main point: Colored backgrounds for parts indicating their size (or other visual clue).
could "other visual clue" be giveing each size its own distinct paint scheme as its in editor default, and have uniformity styles like "spaceplane" or "saturn" be mesh-swap variants? best of both worlds and you don't have to ask how spaghettified the editor catalog code is
-
12 hours ago, Deddly said:
I haven't seen much from you, @passinglurker, about these. I saw that (like me) you would apparently prefer one stripe instead of two, but I'm curious what you think about the overall art quality, particularly the end cap, which I think was a big improvement over the HECS2 one?
I haven't had much of a chance to sit down and make a post I'd be satisfied with before now.
On 9/7/2018 at 2:00 PM, SQUAD said:The part-revamping effort continues. In this release we are focusing on some parts that are used heavily at the start of every career mode, this includes the MK1 pod and the FL-TXXX fuel tanks. This week the art team completed the makeover of the RT-5 “Flea” and RT-10 “Hammer” Solid Fuel Boosters. While working on these parts, we took various real-life references and worked on giving the boosters a panelized texture and new top that brings them closer to their real-life analogues. As you can see below, the belts and other heavy rings were also removed to make the boosters look lighter and more aerodynamic. Additionally, both of these boosters will have a secondary stripe-less texture variant that you’ll be able to choose at will. Click here to see a rotating gif animation of the new RT-5 “Flea”, and here to see the RT-10 “Hammer”.
@SQUAD This is a step above last week. First the positives to your credit It looks like you are trying and largely listening to feedback (as well as one can within the limits of "can't please everyone"), and that's all very appreciated. Its probably the first time since the revamp started that someone tried to emulate porkalike edge detailing on a large scale and though there is still room for improvement this effort is really nice to see (compare this to last week where low effort copy-paste techniques were depressing if not frustration inducing). It's also good to see you doing research for the stock revamps a lot of stock's less apreciable parts (the poodle engine for example) came about because someone didn't study up before hand or didn't consider the details important (an understandable viewpoint but this game has a knack for inciting a thirst for learning and engineering in people making it more fun to find technically accurate nods to reality here and there amid the stylization and exaggeration) It's a good start I bet two or three iterations off from a good finish.
Now for the negatives/places for improvement. First as others have said it's definitely missing its normal and specular maps or at least ones of appreciable fidelity and strength to be noticed in any way ( @nestor thanks for listening to feedback and implementing the spinny gif's btw so we can catch issues like this ) This makes the part look matte and dull which compounds the parts "loss of character" problem the others have mentioned (see this post by panzer1b from last week to get an idea of how much detailing should go into a specular map). Second the edge smudge/grime/darkening whatever you call it is much too bold for porkalike the effect though present is usually a lot subtler (see example here). Third the texture is all very "Uniform" I'd argue that it's too uniform considering the point of detailing is to introduce subtle imperfections to give a model character if you look at the previous example again you'd see the smudging and highlighting along the edges are anything but uniform but rather comes in wide's, thin's, high's, lows, etc... all along the edge. This uniformity costs you character which as others have said this part lacks.
Unfortunately I think I know why it's this uniform, it looks like you are leaning pretty heavily on mirroring It's not a bad thing in the right place and time, but I can tell you split the outer circumference of the part into 8 adjacent mirrors of the same UV island which is too much for a player facing surface like this as any character-detail will repeat in pattern multiple times within the player's field of view. I recommend taking apart some of porkjet's textures to see how he strikes a balance between details and efficiency with his UV mapping but generally you'll find that symmetrical tanks/boosters/fuselages like this avoid mirroring more than 4 times around the circumference of a part and often breaks things up with smaller UV map segments sandwiched in between. Any more than 4 and you can't really rely on the curvature of the cylinder and other pattern breaking optical mind games to hide what you are doing, and if you can't hide that you are mirroring then you can't create efficient detailed parts. -
Just now, Nertea said:
Well unless it's 2 completely different textures for switching. You know, for waste.
Oof that'd be no good why duplicare the end caps and nozzle?
-
4 minutes ago, nestor said:
But open to hear what others think about the possible player confusion.
Story time! As I'm sure you would recall waaaaaay back when these parts were made "yellow" was the color the jeb's junkyard manufacturer who made alongside the SRB's and LFO engines the monopropellant tanks with this color scheme. Then much later modders like @hoojiwana's popular RLA or @bac9's B9 aerospace mod started using that yellow color scheme to denote all monopropellant parts to tell them apart from LFO tanks. This in turn influenced @Porkjet's spaceplane plus mod which was made stock. As far as the community is concerned yellow is now shorthand for monoprop so people could find it odd and inconsistent to find other parts sporting the yellow stripes or could grab the wrong one if they aren't paying attention in the editor. As a result of all this its a popular mod solution to paint SRB's with a red stripe instead.
Btw while I have your ear could you answer if this part has an emissive heat animation, and an engine shroud? At the very least these seems like things to show in engine preview's going forward.19 minutes ago, nestor said:Sounds like you don’t like it
btw you'll find a lot of people aren't fan's of in your face texture repetition(same problem with button rows of rivets) Since you obviously already have a stripeless version of the SRB segment this can easily be avoided by using both portions of the UV map for the striped variant of hammer so that there is still only one stripe like on the old hammer. Seems reasonable no?
-
@Nozza Ok this is getting out of hand I'm not gonna get into a crazy quote battle with you for the sake of not derailing the thread(and because @Mako worded things so well already). Instead let's try to clear the air. Now usually when I give a squad apologist the full technical run down the response I get back goes along the lines of "I'm just a player, I don't put anything under a microscope, so I don't care how it looks just leave
britneysquad alone" followed by more thread derailing word games and philosophical nitpicks. If I were to make an exception for you do you promise to not play games and actually listen and discuss calmly? I have no interest in humoring you if all you want is material to try to tear apart, or ultimately fall back on this common excuse. -
@Nozza I should be grateful? For them retextureing the old part mesh to look generally worse? There's a laugh. We've seen even as recent as last week that I've been positive when there is something to be positive about no one can rightly fault me as one who hates everything without a reason so you're wasting your bytes trying to lecture me about this.
Look I can get where this is coming from you think it's unfair to judge squad for some exhaustive myriad of reasons and if this was the first time this was happening or even the first time with this post 1.2 iteration of the dev team I'd even say you were right, but this isn't the first time. When 1.4/MH was released everything was half baked both visually(which I criticized a lot leading up to release) and under the hood(which everyone else criticized soon after release) I think this is related if they are cutting corners here where we can see them then why would we assume they aren't cutting corners everywhere else? Especially considering their past releases? Either way a small minute "improvement" is insufficient because it means in all other regards they are cutting corners why should I be grateful for this?
Lets talk about the new update.....
in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Posted
@KerbolExplorer people being upset because the visual revamps are not a big enough step forward I can understand. What I can't understand is people who reverse course and step back into the mess we had before.
There are things I'm not satisfied with about the revamp (they could have at least enabled the normal map shader for the fuel tanks even if they weren't gonna use it it would have been a nice hook for a modder, or better yet don't make excuses and give all tanks normal maps damgit!) But at the very least with the standardization it started it'll be a study enough foundation to build off of unlike the layered mess it's steadily replacing.
As for the present mismatch of old and new you're just gonna have to bear with it for a while this stuff should have been done pre 1.0 as active people have actually been asking for all this time...