CobaltWolf

nerd.

I can confirm that the Vostok parts are now in capable hands.

They're objectively different in both style and direction (see below) We got a similar thing when 1.1 released - someone at Squad went through every part with a window on it and unified them to that teal color that first appeared in the Mk2/Mk3 parts. Prior, windows were all over the place - some purple, some blue, some teal, etc. What you're talking about is definitely doable at a bare minimum, but doesn't solve the fact that the visual quality of the stock parts is all over the place. Re: Metal on the inside of the tank, sure. If you like that (I honestly don't have a strong opinion, I'm after bigger fish at the moment) I don't think it detracts significantly from the point that overall these parts are lower detail at a time when we've been effectively promised more. And if it's that WIP, maybe that should have been said? It is entirely within their rights to do so. And that same reasoning applies to any critique of the rocket revamp parts as well. In either case, the direction both part sets are heading is clear. My summary on the subject: Porkjet's style involves building up layers of detail subtley. The parts are sufficiently cartoonified ('iconized' is another good term) to be immediately readable, but upon zooming in they have a fair amount of detail to the textures, with edge wear, grease smudges, paint strips not mixed properly, etc. This makes the parts detail scale at a variety of distances. The hand painted nature of the details maintains the 'cartoony' aesthetic while increasing the fidelity and visual appeal of the parts. The style very deliberately decides which real life details to include or not to include, and purposefully sticks to a handful different 'scales' of detail - simplified main features, detailed edge wear etc in the texturing, but often omitting smaller physical details. In contrast, this style is plain and lacks visual depth. Little is done to add fine detail that increases fidelity while maintaining the cartoon aesthetic. There is a lack of strong unifying direction past the most basic level - parts don't use matching hues and values where they should, but are uniform in places where they should be varied. Opportunities to add detail are missed - mipmapping and simple screen space scaling would make small details like paint scratches blend into the overall part at the size seen in this screenshot, but it is obvious that there isn't more to be seen by zooming in. They are, in fact, too simplified. These are a base to start from, not a finished product.

Just gonna drop this here...

D-did you look at the OP? At all?

I can't find it, but it was either @Angel-125's ATM module from M.O.L.E., or @raidernick's Skylab ATM with @Drakenex's fixes/modifications. EDIT: Not really working today, but here's the Titan 2 first stage tank that I was working on briefly yesterday.

That meme died with Cloud Aerospace fam.

#SporkGate

The docking ports will try and snap to 45 degree increments, meaning when you dock two things together they'll align to eachother, rather than being able to dock at any old angle. Makes station assembly in particular much easier.

1) I'm not sure. @TimothyC might know but I think it's because they were before that nomenclature was established. 2) I'm not sure I follow. The model is made, and then a UV map is created - basically, taking the model, cutting it up, and laying it out on a 2D plane to map it to an image. If you look at the texture I posted, on the left hand side there are the 5 panels. So I was taking rectangular chunks of the booster walls and choosing which of those 5 panels to align them with. The result is that, they're very efficient on UV space, but they look repetitive. Adding or subtracting segments in the model is fairly simple - just add or remove segments from the middle, and perhaps change which panels some of the sections of the model are assigned to. I just feel that there are already a ton of UA120x boosters and we don't gain much from adding more, and I'd rather not reuse the textures for the UA156x boosters because they're already repetitive and I'd rather make more bespoke textures. Now, to pay my screenshot tax...

No, the point is that parts have performance exactly inline with stock parts. Thanks! The SOLTAN is named the 'Sultan', not the SOLTAN, right? And yeah, I wrote that they were for the Prometheus I since I figured nobody knew what they were, and it made sense to put them there. I'd like the UA156x to have more bespoke textures. The current Titan solid textures have run their course IMO. If you look at the texture, the 'panels' on the segments (each segment is 2x rows of 4x panels) are basically just chosen from 5 different ones on the texture sheet. The result is they look very repetitive. I feel like I've added enough parts using those same repeating textures at this point. If not for that, it would be an easy thing to do model-wise.

very coo. first.

tokyo drift

It depends on how smartly you can use the textures/UVs. You might be able to do both for maybe only 20% more work. The question is, what purpose does the realistic one serve..?

Does this support the old Mk3 cockpit?

Copied from the old FAQ cus I'm a lazy boye: NOTE – BDB is balanced to have parts inline with stock values. This means that the rockets significantly overperform in the stock system. The alternative would be to have parts that are very underpowered compared to contemporary parts. To achieve proper balance, we recommend using a 3.2x rescale, which requires rockets to be built with more realistic proportions. So, basically, assuming that the Mk1 command pod is the same diameter as a kerbal-scale Mercury capsule, then if you build a kerbal scale Saturn (for example) you'll have ~160% of the dV that you need (3700 dV vs 5500dV to make orbit). In 3.2x, the rockets should perform roughly accurately (with obvious issues with rounding the diameters to fixed sizes, etc). The takeaway should be, parts made with stock performance values (despite being nerfed compared to real life!) are severely overpowered in the tiny stock solar system.

Is it interactable?

@Daelkyr does your IVA have a spork in it?

Calm down Handy dandy guide, for anyone wondering. "Titan.md" and "SaturnMB.cnf"??? Thanks br0. Screenshot tax time, redone Titan 1 first stage (engine hasn't gotten full treatment, just adjusted colors) and WIP Titan SRBs. Sort of an 'announcement' but I do plan on finishing the Titan SRB decoupler as part of this work. In general if there are any parts you're desperately 'missing' (ie that really should be there, but aren't...) please let me know and I'll see if I can cram them into these updates. It's somewhat slow going - the urge to keep tweaking and perfecting these textures is strong, and I'm spending far more time than is strictly necessary on everything. I think the results are looking to be worth it, though.

first.

first.

Don't think so?

!nice edit: first.

Gemini lander can.