What makes mods "Stockalike?"

[LordOfMinecraft99]

In mods that are stockalike, like Porkjet mods or Kerbal Planetary Base System, do you notice any elements that appear in most stockalike mods or that make mods "Stockalike?" Whether it is color, or texture layout, or shape and detail types, please tell me! This would not only be helpful for modders, but also the community in picking what mods (No one has infinite RAM!) would fit in well. I also need this, as i am working on a two man capsule and want to know what is stockalike. 

[goldenpsp]

It seems pretty self explanatory.  A part that is "stockalike" looks pretty much like it could be in the stock game.  So if your two man capsule was "stockalike" people would look at the rocket with your capsule on top and have to guess is that a stock capsule or  a mod.

[LordOfMinecraft99]

No, i mean, what makes it look like it could be in the stock game, is it the color, the design, what?

[goldenpsp]

10 minutes ago, LordOfMinecraft99 said:

No, i mean, what makes it look like it could be in the stock game, is it the color, the design, what?

Well the problem is that whole concept of "stockalike"  is highly subjective.  Even stock parts in the game aren't 100% consistent.

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

13 minutes ago, LordOfMinecraft99 said:

No, i mean, what makes it look like it could be in the stock game, is it the color, the design, what?

Mainly the texturing and colors, a lot of KSP textures have a large amount of hand painting of detail such as scratches or scuffs. This is main the reason an awful lot of stock alike mods actually use the MODEL{} node to utilise the stock easy accessible textures. Why bust your nut trying to match the quality of something like a Porkjet hand painted texture when you can quite legitimately borrow squads

This of course means you have to map your model to make best use of Squads textures, just extract one from the game, load your uv'ng application and off you go

Edited August 17, 2016 by SpannerMonkey(smce)
how

[CobaltWolf]

It also involves how the parts go together. Stock parts are meant to be 'lego-y'. Some mods (such as Raidernick's launchers) only really go together one way.

[passinglurker]

1 hour ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

Mainly the texturing and colors, a lot of KSP textures have a large amount of hand painting of detail such as scratches or scuffs. This is main the reason an awful lot of stock alike mods actually use the MODEL{} node to utilise the stock easy accessible textures. Why bust your nut trying to match the quality of something like a Porkjet hand painted texture when you can quite legitimately borrow squads

This of course means you have to map your model to make best use of Squads textures, just extract one from the game, load your uv'ng application and off you go

Or you can do what I do and load the textures into gimp/photoshop and colorshift/copy-paste/edit as you see fit with less effort than working from scratch and more flexibility, and future proofness than referencing the stock sheets. Consider it a happy middle ground between the ven's revamp and lack STX approaches to stock alike

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

3 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

Or you can do what I do and load the textures into gimp/photoshop and colorshift/copy-paste/edit as you see fit with less effort than working from scratch and more flexibility, and future proofness than referencing the stock sheets. Consider it a happy middle ground between the ven's revamp and lack STX approaches to stock alike

That there is a nifty idea

[passinglurker]

style emulation strategies aside I would say since the OP is making a manned capsule that accounting for traverse space in the IVA is important. Look at any recent IVA (not the old mk1 pod or lander can) and you will see that there is space inside for the kerbals to reach any`1.25m or larger end cap to account for all the ways the the part could be attached or used.

as for balance you can probably get away with whatever stock parts are largely inconsistent but if you want/need a pattern to follow them the porkjet space plane parts are probably the most consistent of the crewed parts stats wise... or any wise really...

[tater]

Yeah, I'd say "lego-like" as well as not too historically specific. A 2 kerbal pod that looks exactly like Gemini is not stock alike to me, but one that nods to Gemini without being a replica might well be.

Grossly speaking, it seems like you could make any spaceplane part mode look awesome, and it's "stock alike," and make any rocket parts mod look absolutely awful, then IT would be "stock alike." Because $#@!#@ rockets, right?

[CobaltWolf]

19 minutes ago, tater said:

Yeah, I'd say "lego-like" as well as not too historically specific. A 2 kerbal pod that looks exactly like Gemini is not stock alike to me, but one that nods to Gemini without being a replica might well be.

Out of curiosity, how would you rate my content (and, by extension, @Beale and @passinglurker, since they made BDB's Gemini and Mercury, respectively) for that sort of thing?

[tater]

@CobaltWolf, I need to reinstall your mod, I haven't looked at it in a while. The parts look like they are on the "replica" side to me (and really nice), but it's not a sharp line, you can have replica parts, and replica but also "stock a like" in terms of assembly, too. I tend to "stock a like" in another sense---kerbal parts not being exact copies of human parts. That said, I love SSTU, even though the parts are pretty "replica," yet achieve a stock sensibility in the ease of making craft that don't look like replicas out of it. So you're in the same boat

I used to have Beale's mod installed for a long time, too. I also really like it, it's definitely "replica" as well. Passinglurker's Mercury is much more "stock alike," IMHO.  

For Soviet stuff, and Gemini, I liked HGR, actually, which was a little more generic feeling. I suppose for "stock alike" I'd rather see something that is not so very obviously a specific craft,if that makes sense.

So having the docking radars and the exact conformation of orbital module, descent module, and a very unique-looking SM makes all the Soviet parts "replicas" vs the stock Mk1 and Mk 1-2 which have as their only nod to Mercury and Apollo their crew capacity, and conical shape (and color, in the case of the Mk1). The KSP stock shuttle parts are themselves replica parts, though, so they break that rule about looking "kerbal."

Edited August 17, 2016 by tater

[CobaltWolf]

Just now, tater said:

@CobaltWolf, I need to reinstall your mod, I haven't looked at it in a while. The parts look like they are on the "replica" side to me, but it's not a sharp line, you can have replica parts, and replica by "stock a like" in terms of assembly, too. I tend to "stock a like" in another sense---kerbal parts not being exact copies of human parts. That said, I love SSTU, even though the parts are pretty "replica," yet achieve a stock sensibility in the ease of making craft that don't look like replicas out of it. So you're in the same boat

I uses to have Beale's mod installed for a long time, too. I also really like it, it's definitely "replica" as well. Passinglurker's Mercury is much more "stock alike," IMHO.  

For Soviet stuff, and Gemini, I liked HGR, actually, which was a little more generic feeling. I suppose for "stock alike" I'd rather see something that is not so very obviously a specific craft,if that makes sense.

So having the docking radars and the exact conformation of orbital module, descent module, and a very unique-looking SM makes all the Soviet parts "replicas" vs the stock Mk1 and Mk 1-2 which have as their only nod to Mercury and Apollo their crew capacity, and conical shape (and color, in the case of the Mk1). The KSP stock shuttle parts are themselves replica parts, though, so they break that rule about looking "kerbal."

I pretty much agree with your assessment. Perhaps another way to word it would be - stockalike would be parts for the sake of gameplay niches, rather than parts that attempt to mimick the artstyle while being primarily about recreation. The difference between, say, @hoojiwana's fantastic RLA Stockalike and my own work.

[tater]

It's funny, I was thinking about this a while ago. We all have biases, and I think my American bias is that I see the stock parts as nodding to NASA, but not replicas, whereas a Russian player might look at them and want some Soviet/Russian parts, and thinks that all the stock parts are very NASA-inspired.

To be a generic Sovietesque part set, it would still need to look like Soyuz when you squint, but not be so specific.

A spherical part, and a bell-shaped capsule. Have the capsule require a stock heat shield, maybe put the window in the sphere such that could be used on orbit, or for a lander. Do NOT make a soyuz SM part, use a stock tank. Perhaps add a new orbital motor so that it can look more flat on the back. Perhaps a variant decoupler---or, all the tanks and capsules, and decouplers (most parts, really) could have variant textures like SSTU has. So you slap the Soviet looking textures on the tanks and crew modules, place the solar panels like wings on the tank, and you've got a very stock looking ship that anyone would see and instantly say, "that's soyuz!" (just as you put a Mk1-2, fuel tank, engine, and RCS together and it looks like an Apollo CSM).

Edited August 18, 2016 by tater

[Van Disaster]

I see "stockalike" as following an art concept that was only ever meant to be temporary - stock parts were all once meant to be placeholders. Most of the original stock parts have been replaced at this point but because so many mod parts were made in the same style, so were the replacements. Grumble. Generally "stockalike" means "pass on this, let's check out the next mod" for me.

I don't see "modular" as "stockalike" - there are plenty of parts around which don't fit the stock aesthetic but will still attach properly ( ie, their connection dimensions are one of the standards ) and still function properly with stock parts, they just look different.

[tater]

I don't think modular is sufficient to be stock alike, but it is necessary.

I think it's like the Supreme Court talking about... (wording for this forum...) inappropriate, adult photography and movies... hard to define in words, but they know it when they see it  .

It's tough because after I talked about replica stuff I really thought about the mk3 cockpit and parts, which is a Shuttle replica. You could say that before that the style required a kind of clunky look, then Porkjet's spaceplane stuff got added, so clunky is no longer a requirement, clearly. In a certain sense, any mod that made both plane and rocket parts could be "stock alike" if the aircraft parts are pretty, and the rocket parts are ugly, sadly.

I can say a few things that are very "stock" in look that I would like to see go away. Ugly rocket parts, for example. A rib around the top and bottom of tanks---ugly. Spaceplanes don't have a clear "end of part" demarkation, why should rockets? In a career mode, when you have to stack small tanks, in stock they look like a stack of small tanks. If they were spaceplane tanks, it would just look like a long fuselage. That's a bad, stock look.

[passinglurker]

59 minutes ago, tater said:

In a certain sense, any mod that made both plane and rocket parts could be "stock alike" if the aircraft parts are pretty, and the rocket parts are ugly, sadly.

I don't think rockets need to be ugly to be stock-alike. Stock is multiple layers of different styles done by different artists at different times so I'd say as long as a modded part can blend in with a good handful of stock parts then the part itself is stock-alike in the aesthetic sense regardless of if it's an ugly plane or a sleek rocket.

Edited August 18, 2016 by passinglurker

[cxg2827]

I consider stockalike to be mostly driven by texturing, followed by having a somewhat low (read: reasonable) poly count, as well as sometimes having over-exaggerated features.

Not sure what direction the new rocket parts are going, but like @tater's example, the stock fuel tanks have external ribs at the top and bottom. Doesn't look very sleek, and is a bit of an over-exaggerated feature. Another example is the stock 2M decoupler, which is obscenely huge.

[tater]

@passinglurker, I was making a joke about how terrible the stock rocket parts look.

assuming that the spaceplanes are the Kerbal ideal aesthetic for such things, the rockets should be much nicer looking, and more consistent. For a true, stock aesthetic, they'd need to nail that down a bit better. The mk2 lander and the hitchhiker are 2 more examples of profoundly ugly parts.

[CobaltWolf]

5 hours ago, cxg2827 said:

I consider stockalike to be mostly driven by texturing, followed by having a somewhat low (read: reasonable) poly count, as well as sometimes having over-exaggerated features.

Not sure what direction the new rocket parts are going, but like @tater's example, the stock fuel tanks have external ribs at the top and bottom. Doesn't look very sleek, and is a bit of an over-exaggerated feature. Another example is the stock 2M decoupler, which is obscenely huge.

Or my Apollo CM and LEM, which have windows 2-3 times as bug as the real one.

[Randazzo]

I think stockalike is just a buzzword to make people click on your mod.

[Shadowmage]

I view stock-alike from three different perspectives.

1.) Stock-alike textures.  This is a combination of the colors used and how the detailing is done.  Zero or very subdued normal maps, blacks that are dark-gray, whites that are light-gray, and a lot of 'muddy' looking hand-painted wear/detaling.  Silly/comical warning decals and stripes, often brighter colors and high-contrast between areas.  Very little or zero AO, and no noise used in the texture (only the hand-painted detail/damage/mud/washout).  Lots of 'damage' painted into the texture (scratches, worn-off paint) (mostly only on rocket parts?).  Specular highlights are minimal or non-existent; it seems that most stock parts use a flat specular mask over the entire part.

2.) Stock-alike models.  As others have pointed out, stock models generally have over-exaggerated features, fairly simple models, and decently low poly count.  This is more about the modeling style than the poly-count (as even high-poly models could be made to look stock-like if the detailing was done in the stock manner).

3.) Stock-alike capable vessel composition.  Are the parts generically usable in the stock 'lego' manner?  If they must go together in a specific manner, then it is not stock-alike for this point.  This is perhaps the easiest of the three aspects to adhere to;  the majority of parts-mods can easily meet this criteria with most of the exceptions being found in real-world rocket recreation mods.

 

In order to be truly 'stock-alike' (without qualifiers) by my definitions it would need to meet all 3 criteria.  Those are the parts that if you saw them in a screenshot you would have to guess whether they were stock or mod parts; they 'fit' perfectly (or very nicely) with the rest of the stock parts.

Stock alike parts need not be 'ugly', but they do have a very specific aesthetic to them (whether you consider that aesthetic ugly or not is a personal opinion).

[passinglurker]

@Shadowmage I wouldn't say stock alike parts are flat specular or without specular at least not as a rule (I can't speak for the oldest stuff) what happens more often is that the specular map is used as a cheap and easy substitute for a normal map.

[razark]

10 hours ago, tater said:

Ugly rocket parts, for example. A rib around the top and bottom of tanks---ugly. Spaceplanes don't have a clear "end of part" demarkation, why should rockets? In a career mode, when you have to stack small tanks, in stock they look like a stack of small tanks.

Rocket parts need those.  How else are you going to get the idea that all the rockets are made out of reused barrels and other sorts of trash?

[passinglurker]

29 minutes ago, razark said:

Rocket parts need those.  How else are you going to get the idea that all the rockets are made out of reused barrels and other sorts of trash?

hope that's sarcasm squad can't expect us to make excuses for it in the post 1.0 world