CobaltWolf

Slave Nickname : CobaltWolf Slave's desirability to being a slave : 9/11 Slave's softwares licenses : Maya, Modo, Mari, Adobe Creative Suite, Substance Painter, ZBrush, UV Layout, Mudbox, etc etc etc... Slave's Skills : Modeling, UV Layout, Texturing (Realistic and cartoon), Animation, Rendering Slave's Portfolio : Demo reel Slave's Contact Info : [email protected] Misc : I make memes. EDIT: Added resume with additional pertinent information.

What a rollercoaster.

I I believe two copies of the same parts.

Textures mostly. I think @tg626 has some parts I don't like the Big G escape tower. Can you post a screenshot of it in your gamedata?

(that's basically how it is now... )

Holy smokes that's awesome!!!

Who knows...

... OR IS IT???

Slowly improving the Saturn textures... sorta trying to figure out what changes I'm making to the design (reducing the # of panel edges to smooth it out, might rethink how I'm doing the look of the S-II stage) before trying to get the exact style of paint laid in.

What pictures? EDIT: NVM just saw that Beale linked them above... EDIT2: Wait no that's just Polyus stuff.

Have you tried deleting your PartDatabase.cfg in your KSP folder? That will regenerate the drag cubes for all parts next time you start the game.

I've been sitting on these partially textured probe cores for too long... I really should finish them. (Right one is Ariel btw)

At this point, I do not believe it will be save breaking. However, please remember that there is a complete remake of the Atlas parts scheduled, which will be save breaking.

Not with that attitude you can't.

I made a babby decoupler since there was a little space on the Scout texture sheet. Thoughts? 0.625m Castor for scale.

Meanwhile, new WIP ribs for the Saturn series!

Y'all have behaved recently. Have a cookie.

The list of parts for the DLC has likely been set for months. Except, the appearance of the stock parts dictates what mods have to look like.

I am well aware that we use that stripe from the Saturn 500F. I got a LOT of flak about it back when I was working on the parts...

You need DMagic Orbital Science and DMagic Science Animate (note that those are two separate mods)

Louis-something? I think? Since the inspiration for this was Bac9's critique of the Tier-0 space center buildings, we wanted to jump on this as fast as possible while there was as much time left to correct things. If they wanted to show something WIP, that's fine (though I doubt it) but then why not add that disclaimer? No, from my POV better to voice criticism now since once they're released it will be even more difficult to fix this. Yes but the game's artstyle should be consistent, even if the individual functions of the parts isn't. For what its worth, the LEM design in particular is almost impossible to create without integrating RCS because otherwise you're left with just a variant of the Mk1 lander can - the shape is defined by those arms. In computer graphics, you almost always add wear and weathering to things. That gives them 'life' and the aesthetic appeal of feeling like they're a real object in an environment. The parts will be subject to scuff marks while assembly, environmental weathering during transport (say, to the pad) etc. The existing rocket parts in the stock game certainly have evidence of that, but they are lower quality and thus don't present them in such a detailed way. I don't think that the weathering on the spaceplane parts are a result of them being reusable, its just aesthetic to make them more visually appealing. If they don't plan on completely it (even though, to my understanding, Chris left material intended to guide subsequent artists to completely his effort) they should say so, because then this entire discussion is somewhat moot. Frankly, even just a general update to the textures to homogenize their styles would GREATLY improve the game's visuals, even without the new engine systems, or PBR shaders, etc. The redone size 1 fuel tanks, pod, etc are drop in replacements as is. Why were they released seperately and not simply integrated into the stock game? It wouldn't have caused further harm with the inconsistent art styles, since it would be effectively replacing on without adding another one into the mix. You shouldn't be resigned to accepting the current inconsistent textures, because its something that is completely doable. The style standard was implemented in the spaceplane parts, which are some of the only decent looking parts in the stock game. Why should newly created parts take a step backward in quality? I want answers from Squad. Even if I don't like them.

Definitely not. The revamp in fact planned on emphasizing the appearance of the different brands - Jeb's use of yellow on the engines, Rockomax's orange, etc. The point is that the palette is consistent. I actually enjoy the models personally. I have no issue there. I actually am completely in love with Roverdude's model for the LEM - I love how obviously its a LEM while being kerbal-proportioned. Can you name a reason why the black should be so inconsistent? There's a difference between having variation in the 'top coat' of the paint, and having different base colors. These little things add up. Someone asked for specific critiques of the parts (similar to Bac9's critique of the barn when it was shown) and we did. I posted a written critique/summary of the differences between the style several posts down from the OP. I also feel that is unfair to Porkjet, since we don't know the full details of why he left. If you have something you'd like to share, feel free. Don't forget that he created style guidelines (part of which we saw in the engine design sheet) for the language and thought process to use moving forward, for other artists to consult. I'd also like to repeat that for me, the question on the table is - are we or are we not getting some sort of revamp in the future? We were never given any information on its future apart from Porkjet leaving. I feel that if expectations had been set for that, these would not have been such a blindside. These parts imply that we're sticking with the, in my opinion, lower detail and now dated-looking graphical style of the current stock parts - which, might I remind, were mostly meant to be placeholders when they were added. Is this DLC also full of placeholders? My other feeling on the matter is this, and I know it's anecdotal - almost exclusively, the people I know that don't play KSP say its because of the graphics. Squad obviously needs money if this game is going to continue to be viable. We can see this with their decisions to port the game to consoles, improve the localization features, and release an expansion pack. If they want to make money off the game again, from my (again, anecdotal) point of view, a valid way would be to increase the graphical fidelity of the game. Something that these parts are a very clear step back from.

@Beale I found a new use for BDB's unstable engine module: http://spacenews.com/nearly-every-engine-stockpiled-for-use-on-upper-stages-of-proton-rockets-has-defects-investigation-concludes/

I'd refer you to this post by @passinglurker: We already have remade 1.25m parts, as well as style guides for the design language and intent to be used moving forward. As a rocket part user, how about this: Why keep making rocket parts that look worse than the spaceplane parts? Also, they likely won't affect attachment. @DuoDex speaking from experience, the implication that this is as close as another artist can come to emulating another's style is insulting. It is completely doable. How else would any game development team with more than one artist function?

So, I suppose part of the issue here is this - Squad never properly explained whether or not the rocket parts overhaul was well and truly dead. Are we, or are we not, getting an upgrade to the quality of the stock parts? The style of these Saturn parts (in that they match the existing NASA parts) implies that we are not getting that - ever. If so, fine, ok. But I think the community should know that moving forward, since it definitely changes some things.