Aesthetics: Important to you?

[CaelumEtAstra]

For me, form usually follows function. I build something to achieve a goal, while still making it good. However, I will never sacrifice performance for looks.

Alternatively, If you're going to be doing something, why not look good while doing it? (Within reason, that is.)

[Rath]

I never use the 2.5m parts.  Not only are the engines kinda ugly, the tanks are the worst thing in KSP history besides the original .07 stuff.  The main 2.5m part I use is the big orange, cause it can be symmetrically clipped for cool 3.75m parts.

[Admiral Regulus]

When I first started playing KSP, I didn't care much for asthhetics. I had trouble building anything that could land on the Mun and come back, much less a craft that looked nicr while doing it. Back then, many of the spaceplane parts didn't look so nice, and there was a huge lack of niche parts that could be used to add coolness or tidy things up.

Now, many years later, I've discovered ways to complete just about any task in KSP (barring Eve ascent). I find now that the challenge in playing KSP comes from designing vessels that both look nice and have all thr functionality necessary to complete the mission. Sure, I can make something thaty can land on Duna and come back back home. That's easy. The challenge is building something to do that, while having it look nice as well.

[TopHeavy11]

This is my philosophy: If it doesn't look good: Screw it, it works. I'll deal with looks later. If it doesn't work: Back to the drawing board! If both: See previous.

[magnemoe]

On 8.9.2016 at 5:18 PM, Van Disaster said:

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

Yes, the ship im most proud of in 1.13 is the orion.

Yes its brutal and it has lots of grinders and struts as it must have then pushing many hundred ton payloads with up to 7 g in peak.
Forward is an bridge from planetary bases. an short MK3 fuel tank to make it longer, cargo bay hold science stuff and small stuff. An MK3 passenger module, on the sides I have an lab and greenhouse from planetary bases, notice the access tunnel to passenger module.

[Sharpy]

55 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Yes, the ship im most proud of in 1.13 is the orion.

 

When I see these solar panels, on a craft carrying enough high-grade radioisotopes to obliterate a small country, I'm reminded of this:

Spoiler

 

[Choctofliatrio2.0]

I care about aesthetics a lot. Though for the most part, that involves making sure every stage looks right in relation to the others. I can't have boosters be longer than about half of the core rocket (I rarely use kickbacks), I can't have the upper stage be too big, the fairing can't be too much wider than the core, etc. etc. etc.

[Curveball Anders]

I admit to make aesthetic re-designs in one case.

When a moving part (antenna, doors, etc) clips another part.

I've actually even de-orbited an entire station from HKO (in career mode) just because it's antenna clipped another module when extended.

Except for that it's 100% functionality.

 

[magnemoe]

27 minutes ago, Sharpy said:

When I see these solar panels, on a craft carrying enough high-grade radioisotopes to obliterate a small country, I'm reminded of this:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

They are also a bit redundant as it carries an reactor, without it they would be needed, the reactor was added late in the design process and it uses up the reactor fuel, however use rate is realistic as not an problem. 

[ModZero]

4 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Yes its brutal 

But brutal is not only an aesthetic, it's the best aesthetic!

[Slam_Jones]

Personally, I only forgo aesthetics when I'm testing something.

IMO, the true challenge is making something efficient AND aesthetically-pleasing.  (Easier said than done!)

[Corona688]

I started caring about this more when making spaceplanes.  Suddenly I'm not happy with ugly any more.  Arrrgh!