Aesthetics: Important to you?

[GwynJHawke]

Just arrived into orbit on my first manned mission of Duna since updating from 1.0.5 to 1.1.3.  I also downloaded some near future tech mods, and so I'm getting to build some pretty impressive and nice looking ships. The thing is, I've started to notice that when I build stuff, be it stations, bases, or probes, I'm noticing that the aesthetics of the craft seems just as, if not even occasionally seem more important to me than the function/performance of the craft.  The feeling of this has only grown the longer I've been playing KSP. Because of that, it made me curious if the rest of the community made the aesthetics of their ships important as well.

[Alshain]

If it doesn't look good it doesn't leave the ground.  It may explode 10 seconds after launch but at least it looked good going into that massive fireball.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Alshain

[Mjp1050]

Did I really need to add a bridge? Nope. Did I anyways? Yep.

For bonus points, action group 5 toggles radiators that double as window blinds. 

[Francois424]

I've scrapped many designs for this exact reason.

And scrapped many beautiful design because KSP can't handle 300+ parts very well (that is, if you don't mind each 1 KSP second taking 4-10 RL seconds, then by all means, build that 1000 parts station =).
With modded parts, TweakScale, and procedural parts you can reduce parts count by 33-70% depending on the ship. So at least there's that to help.

[T-Bouw]

For me it goes both ways.

Because rockets are my workhorses, I don't care much for how they look, as long as their pointy end is up.

Now planes, those have to look stunning. At the very least like, you know, like a plane.
I'll go to great lengths to hide ugly stuff inside or cover it up with something else as long as it doesn't involve heavy clipping.
I dislike heavy clipping more than an "ugly" plane...

[Frozen_Heart]

I spend way too long making some of my ships look good, even if it does lower their effectiveness somewhat.

 

e.g. this is the current mothership i'm using for interplanetary missions:

[Sharpy]

Damn yes. It's not worth using if it's not looking good.

Note that "looking good" is a very loose term. Some things are beautiful in their ugliness.

Spoiler

But then, I rarely make something pretty *without* function.

Spoiler

The cargo bays (and their doors) serve as landing legs - it's actually very stable. The MK3 structural plate offers node mounts for four engines, but the slant causes Z-fighting when attached normally - such ugliness cannot stand. Thus the abuse: flipping the structural plate upside down, aligning the slanted adapters to its slant. Plenty of reaction wheels, because this being a biome hopper, it needs pretty good control authority.

It actially has a fully functional Vernor-based RCS. All the thrusters are either inside the cargo bays, or on the top tower (composed of three wing strakes) so they don't spoil the looks.

 

This miner exceeded all the expectations to secondary concerns. The landing legs look awesome both when deployed and when retracted, they provide extra storage space just fine, allowing me to stow three drills easily, and they are actually very efficient, very nice landing legs. It flies great, it has a very good delta-V, AND excellent TWR when it's needed... it's just a lousy miner, because the limited tank volume doesn't let it pick up any considerable amount of fuel to deliver it anywhere.

 

And this one is to be tested for real quite soon. Horizontal landing (with VTOL engines for lift and retro engines for braking), two Rhinos provide decent thrust at very pleasant ISp, and four Vectors are the 'turbo' mode, when one wants a lot of thrust.

The ports above are actually perfectly standard Sr. ports, just slightly clipped into the surface. Since it's a tanker, things will dock to it for fuel, so I made sure to provide a lot of docking space. And lighting up the ports.

Other lights are actually indicators, activated with action groups along with engines. Green for Rhinos, Blue for Vectors, Red for retro aerospikes, and the yellow broad ones for VTOL aerospikes, simultaneously lighting up the terrain below.

 

Edited September 8, 2016 by Sharpy

[worir4]

Some times something that looks kind of clunky any not streamline still looks good. Like if your going for that 'cheap as possible' look. So i don't mind what it looks like. I wont go and make something look better if it will degrade the craft but i will if i can.

[Curveball Anders]

I might spend max 1% on the aesthetics and then only if it looks too weird.

Otherwise it's all about function.

[eddiew]

I tend to be lax about aesthetics early in a career, when there aren't many parts to choose from and I just need to get missions done... which can result in this sort of thing:

But after a while, it doesn't fly if it doesn't make me smile   These are two that I enjoy the most, because they please me visually and flies really, really well:

[DunaRocketeer]

It has to look 'right' - something that I feel could conceivably fly in real life. That means I do not do multiple asparagus boosters, for example. Whenever I see someone slap together 10x Mammoth engines with 20x Kickbacks, it irks me. It's completely irrational, of course - the strength of the game is you can play however you damned well please, but it doesn't stop my inner voice shouting; NO! WRONG!

 

[Superfluous J]

Aesthetics is a strong second to efficiency. If it's efficient and ugly I'll happily fly it. If it's pretty and inefficient I'll redesign it.

Sometimes - rarely - I'll get both. Some other times - sadly less rarely - I'll get neither.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

Personally I'm a fan of function over form.

Not saying I've never spent a few minutes "prettying up" a design but...

I'm usually just as happy with "so ugly it looks good" versus "actually looks good."

[Sneaky Bstard Sword]

I'll try to make ships look better, but not at the cost of performance. I just never understood the form over function mentality. 

[Justicier]

5 hours ago, eddiew said:

That is very very cool... it looks like something a Romulan would be most proud of :-)

[septemberWaves]

Aesthetics is the most important thing for me. I'm quite happy to add 100 tonnes of unnecessary structure to what is otherwise a 120 tonne vessel, because if the vehicle is entirely composed of fuel tanks, engines, and a very minimalistic crew storage, it's going to look horrendous no matter what. The only time I haven't gone overboard with aesthetics was when designing Astarael (my Extended Kerbol Grand Tour mothership), and that's only because it needed to be able to land on Moho for refuelling (Moho was the standard because every other planetary system has at least one body with less gravity). And that being said, Astarael looks good enough to suit my standards.

[steuben]

I tend for the soviet approach. Aesthetics and elegance where it matters, design where it matters. But for two equal performance designs I will tend for the better aesthetics.

 

[Van Disaster]

Absolutely it matters - even if the ship looks somewhat brutal & is made of trusses it still has to look *right*.

[Stoney3K]

6 hours ago, Sharpy said:

Damn yes. It's not worth using if it's not looking good.

Note that "looking good" is a very loose term. Some things are beautiful in their ugliness.

  Reveal hidden contents

But then, I rarely make something pretty *without* function.

  Reveal hidden contents

The cargo bays (and their doors) serve as landing legs - it's actually very stable. The MK3 structural plate offers node mounts for four engines, but the slant causes Z-fighting when attached normally - such ugliness cannot stand. Thus the abuse: flipping the structural plate upside down, aligning the slanted adapters to its slant. Plenty of reaction wheels, because this being a biome hopper, it needs pretty good control authority.

It actially has a fully functional Vernor-based RCS. All the thrusters are either inside the cargo bays, or on the top tower (composed of three wing strakes) so they don't spoil the looks.

 

This miner exceeded all the expectations to secondary concerns. The landing legs look awesome both when deployed and when retracted, they provide extra storage space just fine, allowing me to stow three drills easily, and they are actually very efficient, very nice landing legs. It flies great, it has a very good delta-V, AND excellent TWR when it's needed... it's just a lousy miner, because the limited tank volume doesn't let it pick up any considerable amount of fuel to deliver it anywhere.

 

And this one is to be tested for real quite soon. Horizontal landing (with VTOL engines for lift and retro engines for braking), two Rhinos provide decent thrust at very pleasant ISp, and four Vectors are the 'turbo' mode, when one wants a lot of thrust.

The ports above are actually perfectly standard Sr. ports, just slightly clipped into the surface. Since it's a tanker, things will dock to it for fuel, so I made sure to provide a lot of docking space. And lighting up the ports.

Other lights are actually indicators, activated with action groups along with engines. Green for Rhinos, Blue for Vectors, Red for retro aerospikes, and the yellow broad ones for VTOL aerospikes, simultaneously lighting up the terrain below.

 

Please tell me how to get something like THAT into Kerbin orbit without having to use the 'Infinite Fuel' cheat.

I can usually build things that look pretty just fine, the only thing is, for them to look pretty, they have very limited tank volume so they will rarely make orbit. (At least, if you don't resort to nasty stuff like tank clipping.)

[Majorjim!]

Aside from efficiency being extremely boring and pointless in a sandbox save as I mostly make replicas aesthetics are of vital importance to getting that feel of flying a real rocket or craft. You cannot 'feel' effiency and playing is all about 'feel'.

  

[adsii1970]

To some extent, yes. I don't want to have too many vehicles that looks like they originated from Sanford and Son Salvage...

But then there are times that no matter how much you try to make it look nice, it's still ugly and all you've accomplished is add a few extra tons.

[XB-70A]

To me a famous French aircraft engineer and industrialist perfectly summarize my thinks in one of his quotes : 

For a plane to fly well, it must be beautiful. Marcel Bloch

 

I use to mix aesthetic and usefulness as most as it is possible. Like here on my old Comet design :

Now the problem is that beauty remains a personal and abstract perception for each. Personally my favorite military aircraft ever is in my account name even if I have not yet had the chance to see 62-0001 by my own.

The 757-200 and the Tu-154 for the civilians. The first one due to her lines, this old but thin 707 fuselage mixed with this nose and this stature on gears deployed who gives her this powerful and agressive looking, a feeling strengthened when you are onboard and fixed to your seat by the RR or PW screaming at full thrust.

And on the other hand I ever have find the Guppy family attracting and interesting, just like the Conroy Skymonster or Airbus A300ST. But really, how many peoples find these beautiful ?

 

We are not so many.

Edited September 8, 2016 by XB-70A

[volcanicshrimp]

If I thought I was any good at making pretty designs I might try to, but I'm better at my usual style of making things functional and usually not too unrealistic- or ugly- looking. I'm better at making functional things out of nice looking parts than deliberately aesthetically pleasing craft.

[Diche Bach]

I _DO_ like aesthetics. But sometimes, the aesthetic I strive for is "ugly/awkward/ridiculous/gangly."

Streamlined, Buck Rogers looking stuff can be fun, but gangly, draggy, top-heavy stuff that looks "So Kerbal" has a merit all it's own.

Main thing I try to avoid is stuff that just doesn't look remotely "realistic," meaning it looks like it is impossible.

[Andem]

For me personally, A E S T H E T I C S are equally important as function, but my A E S T H E T I C choices typically make very functional designs.