What are the rocket parts stylized after?

[Wjolcz]

I always liked the small rocket fuel tanks texturing, but never understood the need for the dark rings (I guess they are some sort of structural support). They don't look like something very aerodynamic. Especially when they poke out with some of the nose cones on:

What are they influenced by? In my opinion they could be slightly more standarized. The texturing of the small ones is OK, but I wouldn't mind if they got slightly redone to look more "smooth" and the size 2 and 3 tanks got some love (texture-wise) too.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Veeltch

[regex]

They're supposed to look like cartoonish, clunky bits of scrap and junk. Which is all fine and good until you look at the beautiful KSC what bac9 made in contrast, at which point they just look bad. Don't get me wrong, the originals were well-textured, by hand it seems, but the pieces just don't look charming anymore. In fact, they make Kerbals look stupid, like the hilarity of the game was taken way too far. All the new parts share this terrible clunkiness, too. The stock game is just painful to look at anymore.

[mikegarrison]

They're supposed to look like cartoonish, clunky bits of scrap and junk. Which is all fine and good until you look at the beautiful KSC what bac9 made in contrast, at which point they just look bad. Don't get me wrong, the originals were well-textured, by hand it seems, but the pieces just don't look charming anymore. In fact, they make Kerbals look stupid, like the hilarity of the game was taken way too far. All the new parts share this terrible clunkiness, too. The stock game is just painful to look at anymore.

Yeah, it's like an archeological dig through the different visions for the game. Some of the parts are carefully modeled after current rockets and planes, but some of the older parts are from when the design ethic was that all this stuff was cobbled up in "Jeb's Junkyard and Spaceship Parts". You have some parts that have big gouges and scratches and dirt patches on them, mixed in with other parts that are gleaming and look super clean.

It would be cool if these parts got new skins as you progress through the tech tree and/or the levels of KSP buildings. Your first rockets could look like they were made out of old 55-gallon drums, and your later rockets (of the same size) could look like they were made in some SF utopia.

[Guest]

I think it would be nice if the parts made by a particular manufacturer would have a consistent color scheme. Say, all Rockomax fuel tanks are orange colored or something. There's a curious mix of grey, black, and white colors, which is thrown off by the single orange colored tank, then it's back to grey, black, and white again.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

They're supposed to look like cartoonish, clunky bits of scrap and junk. Which is all fine and good until you look at the beautiful KSC what bac9 made in contrast, at which point they just look bad. Don't get me wrong, the originals were well-textured, by hand it seems, but the pieces just don't look charming anymore. In fact, they make Kerbals look stupid, like the hilarity of the game was taken way too far. All the new parts share this terrible clunkiness, too. The stock game is just painful to look at anymore.

Actually, I like the new parts (.25+) it's the old parts that I don't like. I'm okay with the engines, though. But not the jet.

[Wjolcz]

I think it would be nice if the parts made by a particular manufacturer would have a consistent color scheme. Say, all Rockomax fuel tanks are orange colored or something. There's a curious mix of grey, black, and white colors, which is thrown off by the single orange colored tank, then it's back to grey, black, and white again.

I would like that, but I'm also afraid the spaceplanes and rockets would look even more like a bunch of randomly welded pieces of junk that someone forgot to paint properly.

But not the jet.

I agree. They should look more like this:

than this spiky thing:

Edited August 18, 2015 by Veeltch

[GoSlash27]

The black 'n' white paint makes perfect sense. The gray, not so much...

Best,

-Slashy

[Red Iron Crown]

Ven's Stock Revamp makes the rocket parts look so much prettier:

They still pay homage to the originals, just tidier and shinier. I miss the big 2.5m tank being orange, though.

[Xeldrak]

I for one really like the stock parts. Some of them could get an overhaul for more overall consitency. But the clunky cartoon style really grew on me.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Ven's Stock Revamp makes the rocket parts look so much prettier:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61004449/KSP/1.0.4/VSR/screenshot23.png

They still pay homage to the originals, just tidier and shinier. I miss the big 2.5m tank being orange, though.

I used that mod for quite a while, but I had to stop because it added new parts, and I was forgetting which ones were revamps, and which were new. Plus, you can't make a stock replica with different models and textures.

[Red Iron Crown]

I used that mod for quite a while, but I had to stop because it added new parts, and I was forgetting which ones were revamps, and which were new. Plus, you can't make a stock replica with different models and textures.

I pruned out all the new parts (it's easy as the configs for them are all in a separate folder). The replicas I make are for me so the second part doesn't matter as much. I should take some of the craft I've built and see how they look in regular stock.

[selfish_meme]

I pruned out all the new parts (it's easy as the configs for them are all in a separate folder). The replicas I make are for me so the second part doesn't matter as much. I should take some of the craft I've built and see how they look in regular stock.

I had a rover that was made using Venn's, worked great, loaded it in stock and it exploded on load.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

I pruned out all the new parts (it's easy as the configs for them are all in a separate folder). The replicas I make are for me so the second part doesn't matter as much. I should take some of the craft I've built and see how they look in regular stock.

I didn't know that was possible!

[Red Iron Crown]

I had a rover that was made using Venn's, worked great, loaded it in stock and it exploded on load.

That is surprising to me, I thought the idea was that craft would be interchangeable with stock, they use the same colliders and all. Though I have noticed some of the engines have additional nodes for the auto-tankbutt feature, not sure how much that affects things.

I didn't know that was possible!

Just remove the "Part Bin" folder in the Ven's Stock Revamp folder in Gamedata and you're good to go.

[Whirligig Girl]

They're supposed to look like cartoonish, clunky bits of scrap and junk. Which is all fine and good until you look at the beautiful KSC what bac9 made in contrast, at which point they just look bad. Don't get me wrong, the originals were well-textured, by hand it seems, but the pieces just don't look charming anymore. In fact, they make Kerbals look stupid, like the hilarity of the game was taken way too far. All the new parts share this terrible clunkiness, too. The stock game is just painful to look at anymore.

I would like to mention that Bac9 did make the buildings to supplement the stock parts. And to me they don't look all that junky. Look at the LV-T45 or the LV-N. They look like nice pieces of technology. And when you see the new parts of Porkjet, they do tend to look considerably sleeker. Kerbals do however seem to be content with using pre-developed componenets. Why manufacture special in-house built batteries when you can just hook up a car battery to do the same job? Why build your own fuel tanks when you can reuse perfectly sized industrial pipes? Why build a lander tank when you could just reuse a pool frame? And the further through the tech tree you go, the less and less junky things look. The Kerobdyne parts look very much like specially-built tanks, as do many of the C7 aircraft parts.

Sure none of them are perfect (though Porkjet's work comes pretty darn close), but they're considerably more interesting than the totally flat model of procedural tanks.

Some examples of the stuff that is, to put it lightly, extremely not perfect:

-Poodle. What the heck is this anyway?

-The Jet Engines. 'nuff said.

-Mainsail is kind of strange. It actually looks more scrappy than the LV-T parts that are supposedly made from found parts. (or premade parts at least)

-Toroidal Aerospike and the small mounting point, both developed by C7 aerospace, still use the sub-par original Chad Jenkins' textures.

-The Mk1 cockpit is pretty darn meh.

Now there is something to be said about Ven's Stock Revamp. Personally, I do think it does a good job for the most part of keeping the Kerbal charm with many of the rocket parts whilst making them look considerably better and/or more realistic.

[mythbusters844]

And to me they don't look all that junky. Look at the LV-T45 or the LV-N.

He was (mostly) talking about the tanks

they're considerably more interesting than the totally flat model of procedural tanks.

Please tell me how this is "totally flat" and apparently less interesting than the stock parts:

Edited August 18, 2015 by mythbusters844
doot

[Alshain]

My only problem with Vens is some of the plane parts look really bad (like the control surfaces, with the ugly red stripes). Also the bottomless service bays are annoying (proving the collision meshes can't possibly be the same as stock). It's a bit of a pain to pick those out.

- - - Updated - - -

Just remove the "Part Bin" folder in the Ven's Stock Revamp folder in Gamedata and you're good to go.

That removes the parts but the textures still load into memory. Some of those textures are reused from the stock revamp parts but I don't think all of them are.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Alshain

[regex]

Kerbals do however seem to be content with using pre-developed componenets. Why manufacture special in-house built batteries when you can just hook up a car battery to do the same job? Why build your own fuel tanks when you can reuse perfectly sized industrial pipes? Why build a lander tank when you could just reuse a pool frame?

I realize that some people think this is part of the game's charm but I count it as one of the game's biggest failings. Jolly, overly-enthusiastic LGM going to space are pretty awesome in my book but after seeing the ultimate expression of their engineering skills I can't help but think they'd take their space endeavors a bit more seriously than scavenging industrial pipe. The humor just goes too far IMO, and I feel it has hurt the game.

And the further through the tech tree you go, the less and less junky things look.

Uhm, no. The ISRU parts are prime example of clunkiness. The Mainsail and Skipper are pretty bad too. And don't get me started on the NASA parts...

He was talking about the tanks

Actually I was talking about most of the parts. The new antenna are pretty atrocious. Porkjet does a pretty good job but the huge wings are kind of meh.

Please tell me how this is "totally flat" and apparently less interesting than the stock parts:

Yeah, I have no idea why the default texture for procedural tanks is what it is. Talk about giving people the wrong impression...

[mythbusters844]

That removes the parts but the textures still load into memory.

Mind you that the textures are ones shared by the stock revamped parts so removing the textures would break the revamped ones too. His texture management is incredibly efficient anyway and is more efficient than stock.

Actually I was talking about most of the parts. The new antenna are pretty atrocious. Porkjet does a pretty good job but the huge wings are kind of meh.

Oh, ok. I honestly wish that the new wings were more legoey instead of being the special purpose KSO-like parts they are now.

^{Procedural wings would still be better though}

Edited August 19, 2015 by mythbusters844
double post

[Columbia]

I was rather displeased with the new plane parts in 1.0.. Ugh. It seems fit for some (few) parts but looks horrid on others, and some don't even fit. Take a look at the landing gear, those.. pods that stick out the wing.. Eugh!

[klgraham1013]

I've always thought the term "stock-a-like" on mods was a bit odd, considering how all over the place the stock design is.

[problemecium]

Y'know, thinking about it, I'm with that first reply about reskinning the parts as the game progresses.

I've noticed a "hump" occurs near the end of the tech tree, when a bunch of 550 and 1000 nodes are left but most of the 300 and below are clear. Perhaps this hump could be set as roughly equivalent to current space technology; going back into earlier phases, things could get lower-tech until they look like 1950s stuff, and beyond that it can look like near-future sci-fi (Interstellar or perhaps Firefly).

[NovaSilisko]

They're supposed to look like cartoonish, clunky bits of scrap and junk. Which is all fine and good until you look at the beautiful KSC what bac9 made in contrast, at which point they just look bad. Don't get me wrong, the originals were well-textured, by hand it seems, but the pieces just don't look charming anymore. In fact, they make Kerbals look stupid, like the hilarity of the game was taken way too far. All the new parts share this terrible clunkiness, too. The stock game is just painful to look at anymore.

I hate my parts. Hate them. I never managed to really finalize in my head how I wanted the style to look until it was too late, really. The Tantares pack is, artistically, the closest thing I think. As mikegarrison says, you can witness the different geological layers of the game's art style as different artists made their mark. It's... messy.

[Alshain]

Y'know, thinking about it, I'm with that first reply about reskinning the parts as the game progresses.

Only if they get 64-bit working and they are willing to raise to minimum requirements to exclude about half their existing user base will this ever happen.

[regex]

I hate my parts. Hate them. I never managed to really finalize in my head how I wanted the style to look until it was too late, really. The Tantares pack is, artistically, the closest thing I think. As mikegarrison says, you can witness the different geological layers of the game's art style as different artists made their mark. It's... messy.

Tantares is clean, looks really good. I think the big thing you and ?Claira? got right was hand-painting the textures. That looks good and I would totally stand by it being a good decision for the art style. OTOH the 55 gallon drum parts really detract from the game, IMO.