My personal list of parts that could use model replacements that's entirely made out of opinon.

[Whirligig Girl]

I love making lists. I don;t know why. They're just fun. I've recently discovered that I'm disliking the junkiness of the stock artstyle a bit more than usual. Maybe its because of Porkjet's exceptional work. Maybe its because of the fact that I've been playing RSS (using stock parts) for the past few weeks. Anyway, here's my list of parts that Porkjet should totally remake. Of course, it may not be practical for Porkjet to start on a project as massive as a stock revamp. And how practical it would be for Squad to hire him full-time for this. At any rate, this list is here because I like making hypothetical lists more than it is because I am seriously proposing a stock part revamp. The list does not include parts that have already been revamped here.

Parts that Really need a revamp because their artstyle conflicts with the rest of stock.

- C7 Aerospace Toroidal Aerospike

- Small Hardpoint

- Small Gear Bay

- EAS-4 Strut Connector

- FTX-2 Fuel Lines

- 0-10 "Puff" Engine

--I think the role of monoprop engine could be better served by a larger OMS pod.

- RT-10 SFB

- RT-5 SFB

- Place-Anywhere Mk7 Linear RCS port

- Structural Pylon (I think.)

- AV-T1 Winglet

- AV-R8 Winglet

- Rockomax Poodle (It's probably the single worst part in the game. It's charming at first glance, sure, but makes no sense at all and I very much dislike it.)

- The Heatshields (Their fairings stick out too much and look too cartoony. This might actually belong on the second list.)

- All decouplers (The yellow/black striping looks kinda really bad. Replacing it with a corrugated white metal with black Saturn V striping would look much cooler. Keep the red arrows. For stack separators, make it a blue dual arrow or diamond.)

Parts that could use a revamp, but it would be okay if they didn't get one.

- Mk1-2 Command Pod

- Mk2 Lander Can

- Launch Escape System

- The Service Bays. (Would be cool if they slid open instead of opened like doors)

- Rockomax Mainsail

- Rockomax Skipper

- Rockomax Fuel Tanks (I think they could be split into two styles, Saturn V/SLS style and a shiny Titan/Atlas style. I mean, with 64-bit, why not have texture switchable parts for each type?)

- Kerbodyne Fuel Tanks (Not so much a revamp as a minor art/texture pass)

- Kerbodyne KR-2L "Rhino" Engine

- Jeb's Junkyard parts (Not too much to change here. Just make the rims more aerodynamic and replace the flat tops with something more resembling a slightly more rounded bulkhead.)

- LV-909 "Terrier"

- LV-T30 and T45 "Reliant" and "Swivel" engines (Engines gimbal on hydraulics, not on actual balls.)

- Docking ports

-- Probe/Drogue ports as a low-tech option?

- Hitchhiker Storage Container

- Mobile Science Laboratory

Little details to fix on other parts

- Give all windows the same color and also emmisive lights.

- The hatch-like bits on a lot of parts could be made to look a bit more... hatch-like.

- Mk1 Command Pod (Perhaps make it look a bit more Mercuryalike, such as corrugation on the hull.)

- More consistent naming for pods. (Mk1 pod and Mk1-2? How about Mk1 pod and Mk3 pod?)

- Smoother crossing between different parts (The Mk16XL parachute really breaks the possibly nice smooth line of the Mk1-2 pod. If it fit together almost seamlessly it would look so much cooler. There's a lot of parts like this)

- Kerbal space suit model overhaul to look more like the ones in the cinematic trailers.

- No more yellow/black stripes please.

Other parts to be added that fit in here

- Gemini like 2-crew command pod that fits in arty-wise with the Mk1 pod.

- 2.5m RAPIER-XL Engine

- A 2.5m Nuclear Engine. Like, oh I don't know, I Nuclear Lightbulb.

- A 0.625m Atomic Engine. Perhaps a RTG engine. Like a... Candle perhaps.

Edited August 22, 2015 by GregroxMun
Disliking the junkiness, not liking it.

[TMS]

Personally, I'd have ALL fuel tanks remodelled and retextured. They should be clean, aerodynamic-looking and be textured symmetrically on their rotational axis.

The mk1-2 cockpit is a smudgy mess and needs to be in category 1.

As does the mk2 lander can - that lip and taper is unforgivable.

The mk1 cockpit needs remodelling so that the tapered top end is a true 0.625.

The launch escape system needs re-doing so that it auto-shrouds when attached to a docking port. Better yet, make it possible to get a parachute under there somehow.

If emissives and window colours are to be rationalised, WindowShine should be added to the bag.

[Wjolcz]

I agree with pretty much everything, but this (and few other exceptions):

Other parts to be added that fit in here

- Gemini like 2-crew command pod that fits in arty-wise with the Mk1 pod.

- 2.5m RAPIER-XL Engine

- A 2.5m Nuclear Engine. Like, oh I don't know, I Nuclear Lightbulb.

- A 0.625m Atomic Engine. Perhaps a RTG engine. Like a... Candle perhaps.

Do we really need that Gemini-like pod? I don't feel like it would be very useful and the "It was done IRL that's why it should be implemented" is kind of a bad argument. Also one Nuke is enough (though I wouldn't mind if it got some magic touch, too).

The MK1-2 pod... Yuck! It's like the worst thing and needs a complete overhaul! That and the Mainsail need to be relocated to the "Parts that Really need a revamp because their artstyle conflicts with the rest of stock" list. Also the small chute. I think it's model and texture haven't changed since the time it got implemented (I remember it using on the old, white pod before there was EVA).

Apart from that I agree that the ARM and other rocket fuel tanks/engines should get some love.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Veeltch

[Red Iron Crown]

I am hopeful that someday the devs will turn Porkjet's considerable talents loose on the existing rocket parts. You know, when they're finished adding spaceplane parts. And updating the old spaceplane parts. Again.

Seriously, though, the difference in quality between the spaceplane parts and the older rocket parts is quite jarring, especially if you try to use them together on the same craft. A more consistent level of quality and art style would go a long, long way to making the game much prettier.

[Whirligig Girl]

Max did say on Squadcast that KSP will not generally look the way it does now in the future. I hope a part revamp is part of that revamp.

[Wjolcz]

I am hopeful that someday the devs will turn Porkjet's considerable talents loose on the existing rocket parts. You know, when they're finished adding spaceplane parts. And updating the old spaceplane parts. Again.

Seriously, though, the difference in quality between the spaceplane parts and the older rocket parts is quite jarring, especially if you try to use them together on the same craft. A more consistent level of quality and art style would go a long, long way to making the game much prettier.

THIS! This, this, this, this...

[tater]

Ven's mod is pretty much required unless you want to gouge your eyes out looking at rockets.

i agree with OP completely, except I'd bump many of the lesser requests up.

[Alshain]

ALLthe command pods and lander cans need to be redesigned with the offset hatch like the Mk 1-2 command pod. It's just so much easier with RCS and ladders not on top of one another.

[tater]

ALLthe command pods and lander cans need to be redesigned with the offset hatch like the Mk 1-2 command pod. It's just so much easier with RCS and ladders not on top of one another.

This is one issue I have with Ven's mod, actually. Of course 45 degree RCS solves the issue as well (which should really be stock given the mk1 lander can, anyway).

[Alshain]

If emissives and window colours are to be rationalised, WindowShine should be added to the bag.

No offense to WindowShine (I do use it) but I would rather see clear windows like Raster Prop Monitor with in-cabin back lighting. You can then add reflections like the TextureReplacer helmets if you like.

- - - Updated - - -

This is one issue I have with Ven's mod, actually. Of course 45 degree RCS solves the issue as well (which should really be stock given the mk1 lander can, anyway).

Yeah, I have no idea why Ven decided to move it, but he advertises it like its a good thing, when it is really a bad thing.

[Whirligig Girl]

The offset hatch on the Mk1-2 pod is pretty much universally hated by me. And I don't even care if that sentence make sense. The offset hatch sacks.

[tater]

The offset hatch on the Mk1-2 pod is pretty much universally hated by me. And I don't even care if that sentence make sense. The offset hatch sacks.

Why? Any non-command parts can simply be rotated accordingly (as-if those kind of EVAs even mattered with crew transfer any more).

You also need to reconcile the IVA with the hatch placement. How does the crew get out if it is UNDER the middle seat? Seems like it needs to be where all 3 crew can get at it.

[Wjolcz]

The offset hatch on the Mk1-2 pod is pretty much universally hated by me. And I don't even care if that sentence make sense. The offset hatch sacks.

Same. The hatch on the Mk1-2 is really annoying to build around. There's always a chute, or battery blocking the hatch. It would be better to have all the hatches symmetrically placed. Even if it doesn't make much sense.

I don't have any problems with other crew-holding parts because they are (shocker, i know! ) symmetrical. Anything placed on those looks good and works good, so I don't see the reason for hatches to be weridly-placed like on MK1-2.

Edit: is there such a thing as "build around"? Because I think I made it up.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Veeltch

[Rath]

add to top list: 2.5 meter rocket parts. All of them.

[kerbiloid]

From my pov, Mk 1-2 hatch would be over pilots' heads - as in any historical command pod with forward-looking viewports (Mercury, Gemini, Apollo).

Also, side vieports would be much smaller, also as historical craft have. There's nothing to look at - so, why to weaken the hull?

For example: as in FASA Apollo CM (it's almost perfect) or Super67 pods (except of its hatch placed aside).

Also, pencil+finger retouch texture better would be replaced either with "white bacground + black lines" as spaceplane parts, or with "solid aluminium" as FASA and Tantares parts.

Gemini-style 2-seat command pod looks very useful, btw.

Not as a Gemini-style spaceship (it's trivial), but as an ejectable crew cabin for, say, orbital tug or interceptor.

Being attached to an orbital station, carrying crew of a pilot and an operator, it usually returns to the station to refuel.

But in emergency case can just eject the cabin and land.

But a historical Gemini had a narrow nose filled with equipment.

So, that would be not a historical Gemini replica, but a Gemini-style pod with wide nose with a pass-through to the space station.

[tater]

KSP needs a stock, chute coaxial to a docking port. Then there are no chutes to hit the hatch.

[Whirligig Girl]

Why? Any non-command parts can simply be rotated accordingly (as-if those kind of EVAs even mattered with crew transfer any more).

You also need to reconcile the IVA with the hatch placement. How does the crew get out if it is UNDER the middle seat? Seems like it needs to be where all 3 crew can get at it.

Why? OCD. The hatch should line up with Pitch or Roll axis because dangit, they ought to! Ven's Stock Revamp test versions actually do handle the IVA hatch placement. It's not under the middle seat, it's below and in front of it.

[Laie]

- The Service Bays. (Would be cool if they slid open instead of opened like doors)

Especially as the hinged doors bash everything in their way.

[tater]

Why? OCD. The hatch should line up with Pitch or Roll axis because dangit, they ought to! Ven's Stock Revamp test versions actually do handle the IVA hatch placement. It's not under the middle seat, it's below and in front of it.

Below and under are the same thing.

That said, looking at the Ven IVA, it seems unlikely that the top 2 seats can get out at all. The center console between their armrests should go away, then you could imagine the seat fold or something.

[clivman]

Below and under are the same thing.

That said, looking at the Ven IVA, it seems unlikely that the top 2 seats can get out at all. The center console between their armrests should go away, then you could imagine the seat fold or something.

IVA is out of scale anyways.

[Alshain]

Why? OCD. The hatch should line up with Pitch or Roll axis because dangit, they ought to! Ven's Stock Revamp test versions actually do handle the IVA hatch placement. It's not under the middle seat, it's below and in front of it.

But then you can't use a ladder, because your RCS jets will be in the way. The RCS jets are the least forgiving placement object on the craft. The Mk 1-2 is the only one in stock that actually makes sense.

[passinglurker]

eh I'm not buying that I slap rcs where ever all the time and never had an issue

[Alshain]

eh I'm not buying that I slap rcs where ever all the time and never had an issue

Other than throwing away mono propellant. If your RCS isn't set up in a '+' shaped orientation with relation to the 'front' of the pod, but instead is in an 'x' formation, then translating up, down, left, and right will cause all 4 jets to fire instead of two. You have to have them set up in quad symmetry where the first one is under the hatch on all pods except Mk 1-2 or you waste twice as much monoprop. If the jet is under the hatch, putting a ladder there is clipped and hideous looking.

Because of this game mechanic, the only solution is to have an offset hatch or have an offset pod with a not offset docking port on top (which is a pain to do).

[passinglurker]

Other than throwing away mono propellant. If your RCS isn't set up in a '+' shaped orientation with relation to the 'front' of the pod, but instead is in an 'x' formation, then translating up, down, left, and right will cause all 4 jets to fire instead of two. You have to have them set up in quad symmetry where the first one is under the hatch on all pods except Mk 1-2 or you waste twice as much monoprop. If the jet is under the hatch, putting a ladder there is clipped and hideous looking.

Because of this game mechanic, the only solution is to have an offset hatch or have an offset pod with a not offset docking port on top (which is a pain to do).

if we want to be sticklers in real life we don't put rcs in perfect "+"s either because they have to point away from hatches, solar panels, equipment, and the craft you are docking with. throwing away monoprop due to sub optimal angles is the norm.

[Alshain]

if we want to be sticklers in real life we don't put rcs in perfect "+"s either because they have to point away from hatches, solar panels, equipment, and the craft you are docking with. throwing away monoprop due to sub optimal angles is the norm.

In real life they have contol over the angles of the jet nozzles. Ours are alwats parallel to the craft. Now if they gave us 45 degree 4 way rcs jets, problem solved. But, they haven't done that yet.