Rocket Part Revamp Discussion Thread

[Andem]

1 hour ago, passinglurker said:

Also it's a bad idea to not finalize and unify your aesthetic before release. failing that the aesthetic and balance overhaul's are still painful band-aid rips that need to happen. If you are unhappy about this take it out on those responsible for the console deal and not porkjet who's been working hard to fix this mess and do the games potential some justice.

Is that not my point? The point being, they have a finalized aesthetic, changing it now would be a bad idea. I'm unsure as to what you're getting at here.

[snip]

Edited September 9, 2016 by Vanamonde
Overly heated argument.

[passinglurker]

1 minute ago, Andem said:

Is that not my point? The point being, they have a finalized aesthetic, changing it now would be a bad idea. I'm unsure as to what you're getting at here.

That may be your point at this very moment before suddenly changing in the face of a counter point like a quantum particle under observation, but my point is that in a breach of unwritten protocol the aesthetic was not finalized before release. We are still using exceedingly old place holders from some of kerbal's earliest days and many generations of art leads deep (the 1.25m engines for example) so there is no way some one saying "this is our aesthetic now" has a leg to stand on unless they are pork jet.

This aesthetic unification it should have been done before release, but there just wasn't enough time between porkjet's hiring and some one elses short sighted rush to consoles. so now it's being done as soon as possible bug fixes permitting before they go much further which is the next best thing that can be done with this bad situation.

Also I don't care what you say those engines are close enough to space plane parts to be considered the same aesthetic, but if you want to take "Simple, aerodynamic, and looks like a space plane" to the extreme you could always install the Moar Mk1 mod and call it a day. (Seriously how can we be disagreeing so much when I'm basically making what you seem to be asking for?)

[Andem]

2 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

That may be your point at this very moment before suddenly changing in the face of a counter point like a quantum particle under observation

What.

3 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

but my point is that in a breach of unwritten protocol the aesthetic was not finalized before release. We are still using exceedingly old place holders from some of kerbal's earliest days and many generations of art leads deep (the 1.25m engines for example) so there is no way some one saying "this is our aesthetic now" has a leg to stand on unless they are pork jet.

Well that isn't my idea.

4 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

Also I don't care what you say those engines are close enough to space plane parts to be considered the same aesthetic, but if you want to take "Simple, aerodynamic, and looks like a space plane" to the extreme you could always install the Moar Mk1 mod and call it a day. (Seriously how can we be disagreeing so much when I'm basically making what you seem to be asking for?)

Incedentally, I use MoarMk1 instead of the current stock rocket parts. I really don't know why we're arguing here either, it's quite confusing. 

[legoclone09]

6 minutes ago, Andem said:

Icedentally, I use MoarMk1 instead of the current stock rocket parts.

Me too, that's the art style I expected for rockets. I love my sleek rockets. I love simple, greeble-less things.

[Vanamonde]

It's really puzzling that this subject is igniting so much anger on the forum today, but please take it down a few notches. 

Some posts here have been removed or edited to move the discussion toward a calmer and less personal level. 

[passinglurker]

13 minutes ago, Andem said:

Incedentally, I use MoarMk1 instead of the current stock rocket parts. I really don't know why we're arguing here either, it's quite confusing. 

11 minutes ago, legoclone09 said:

Me too, that's the art style I expected for rockets. I love my sleek rockets. I love simple, greeble-less things.

I think the difference is while porkjet's engines weren't exactly what I expected, hoped for, or tried to visualize with my modding they are still of respectable quality and compatible aesthetic

(not to mention so frigg'n beautiful on a level I can never hope to match on my lazy and unreliable hobbyist's schedule  (ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧ )

so needless to say they are more than satisfactory to me especially cause a revamp in any form means I don't have to rebuild all of stock to finally get unified look and feel I crave (even with easy corner cutting short cuts it's not easy to replace almost everything by yourself. I don't envy porkjets job).

 

25 minutes ago, Andem said:

What.

What?

[legoclone09]

4 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

I think the difference is while porkjet's engines weren't exactly what I expected, hoped for, or tried to visualize with my modding they are still of respectable quality and compatible aesthetic

Same with me, they weren't what I expected either. They are of great quality, all I disagree with is the aesthetic, but that's personal opinion.

[Andem]

Fine, I won't use any more of "Facepalm Picard"

 

But seriously, I would like to sincerely apologize to @Alshain, even if this never reaches you, what I said to you was needlessly condescending. Not to justify my actions, But I have a notably short fuse and can get quite angry very easily. So, I'm sorry.

[passinglurker]

Ok I've been meaning to adress this from the start but needed my PC to do it (multi quoting on mobile is terrible)

4 hours ago, GregroxMun said:

And now the bad stuff:

• ...but we didn't really need an improvement for these engines.

uh... too late they've already been made?... really this point sounds spoiled almost... what do you want him to do take'm back and bury them? Also they are the oldest engines still in use I'd argue by any objective metric they were the most in need of replacement.

4 hours ago, GregroxMun said:

The LV-series for the most part fits in well with the current Porkalike style.

First this is false or at the very least subjective. Second even if it were true a 51% match is still pretty terrible  

4 hours ago, GregroxMun said:

The Rockomax parts do not fit in, and they look pretty awful. In my opinion the Rockomax parts should definitely have been prioritized.

You have no more idea what's going on behind the scenes than I do. This is just an old leaked pic of a pbr test and presumably according to rumor there was a lot more in the original leak so rockomax parts could already be done for all we know, but that's not the issue here I have with your criticism. My issue is that this point here is completely and utterly baseless you just have no basis to declare priorities or to accuse porkjet of not having good priorities please stick to the facts if you are going to be critical. 

4 hours ago, GregroxMun said:

The numbers look wrong somehow. I'm not quite sure what it is, but the super prestine paint coat doesn't look right. Maybe if they looked like they were stenciled on or put on a plaque (like the original models)

I simply disagree I'd gladly take the parts as is. Thankfully if they are giving us raw texture layers the people who don't like the numbers can remove them easily.

4 hours ago, GregroxMun said:

The 909 looks weird, and I'm not sure why. It might look OK when put on a 1.25m rocket tank, but not a 2.5m rocket tank (like many landers do)

The terrier looks great so flat out disagreeing with you on looks as for usage cases you have no more idea of what else they have planned to dump on us than i do, but if they are willing to add engines like the lvt-15 and lv-303 there could be scaled down 2.5m engines as well that would eliminate the need to pair the terrier to a 2.5m tank ever again. we just don't know enough yet to let this point of criticism slide.

4 hours ago, GregroxMun said:

The LV-T45 was meant to be a modified version of the LV-T30, not a completely new engine. I would have made the combustion chambers of the two engines the same, and changed the nozzles. (As well as putting the T45 on thrust vectoring hydraulics)

Don't try to mix your baseless "kerbal lore" headcanon into this stick to the facts.

4 hours ago, GregroxMun said:

I'm really not sure at all what the purpose of the spheres on the LV-303 is.

This isn't a point of criticism it is an admission of ignorance

4 hours ago, GregroxMun said:

One of the things that in the past made Porkjet revamps so great is that the contained some little details that the original part had. Compare the original and new swept wings for example, as well as the detail on the top of the Mk2 fuselages. This is missing from the LV-T engine revamp.

first this is yet again a subjective point and second if you don't see the hints and allusions to the old parts details then you must be blind they are quite plain to me  please don't make things up to pad your criticism list.

[benjee10]

I'm willing to bet that if they were using the old shading system currently used by the stock parts in-game instead of PBR shaders they would fit right in with the space plane parts and no one would have a problem with them. It's the PBR reflectivity that's throwing people off because we don't have anything like that at the moment, but when every part in the game has PBR shading implemented they'll fit in fine. It would be ridiculous to upgrade to unity 5 and then not make use of the PBR shaders (which shouldn't have a huge performance hit at all, and for those with lower-end PCs you can always just turn the settings down) 

A great looking set of parts IMO. Can't wait to see the rest of them.

[klgraham1013]

8 hours ago, Andem said:

they have a finalized aesthetic

Really?  I think think the variety of artists over 5 years is quiet clear, creating a very uneven, undefined aesthetic.

[Temeter]

To further the point with the PBR materials and lighting changing the parts looks:

Basically, currently KSP's shader cannot display believable, unpainted metal surfaces, which very much rely on reflection. Currently, those always look like greyish plastic.

 

Please take at the LV-T30:

What parts of the LVT-30 don't fit the general style of KSP? It's grey, has dents, washed of colors, big, simple parts slightly exaggerating 60s rocketry. IMO the yellow is a bit to clear (could be more faded, especially on exhaust), and I don't like the yellow ring at the mounting plate, but that's about it. Everything else is really quite normal KSP business, isn't it? Please tell what you find different.

I think the only large difference is really the PBR with it's lighting making the material look like actual metal - which is a quite big change in itself. Of course aside from being beautiful models, but they don't feel that different in style to me. More like another artists representation of the same idea, with better technology.

Btw, wouldn't it be awesome if the engines get dirtier during use or landing on planets? Just dreaming here ~

Edited September 9, 2016 by Temeter

[Diche Bach]

I have absolutely no problem with the new graphics. Looks fine to me. Doesn't look just like anything previous (and actually looks pretty similar), but then it wouldn't be new if it did look exactly like the older stuff, now would it?

Picasso tended to make different looking stuff each time and he was really famous. Granted, the Venus figurines all do sort of look a lot a like but we've come a long way baby!

I really like those ancient Greek "Cycladic" carved head things too. Look kinda like Kerbals to be honest.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Diche Bach
image

[GoSlash27]

16 hours ago, Alshain said:

I'm not sure what the spheres are either, but I don't know all these things.

Alshain,
 If I had to guess (and clearly at this point I do), I'd say it's a revamp of the round-8 toroidal tank.

*edit* I just had an unhappy thought: What if the LVT-15 and LV-303 aren't actually new engines, but rather simply revamps of the 48-7S and LV-1 "Ant"?

Not complainin' about the looks, mind you. Just looking forward to having more engine choices.

Best,
-Slashy

Edited September 9, 2016 by GoSlash27

[regex]

16 hours ago, GregroxMun said:

...but we didn't really need an improvement for these engines.

Yes we did, if for no other reason than to remove the tankbutts, which are terrible.

16 hours ago, GregroxMun said:

• The reflective shader is a bit disorienting, considering that we don't have it in stock. I want to see what these parts look like with the stock part shader.

From what I've read KSP will eventually move over to PBR for parts rendering, so this will end up being the new style.

16 hours ago, GregroxMun said:

• One of the things that in the past made Porkjet revamps so great is that the contained some little details that the original part had. Compare the original and new swept wings for example, as well as the detail on the top of the Mk2 fuselages. This is missing from the LV-T engine revamp.

The engines in KSP were made with no real eye towards how actual rocket engines work, aside from generally being identifiable as a "rocket engine", so this is an improvement on that.

[tater]

Spaceplanes have the same style because they should really all appear at the same, late time in the tech tree as they are in effect fantasy parts.

Overall, I think there should be more parts, starting with fixing the rockets, then filling in places in the tech tree such that there is an evolution, and ideally even choices/trade-offs in parts.

Spaceplane parts will not be redone to look ugly, so that means that rocket parts need to be redone to NOT be ugly... but the parts can implicitly acknowledge a timeline in the kerbal universe and an evolution in a design sense. We know one endpoint is the sleek, spaceplane parts, just as we have seen SF looking NASA concept art that looks nothing like corrugated Mercury and Gemini capsules.

One, I think that Squad should really add texture swapping (like SSTU, as an example). Tank parts can have maybe 4 textures. Black and white stripes (early, visual roll detection), bare metal, all white, and orange. Capsules could have white added for the mk1, perhaps. Lander parts need to be seriously worked on, particularly the truly awful mk2 LC (some 45 degree RCS would be nice). Engines can vary a lot, honestly, but the guide should be real engines. 

For "late" part additions, that;s where perhaps you add in some more high concept parts. "Pure" spacecraft tanks, for example (spheres or something). Station and hab parts that can go from very simple (a better looking version of hitchhiker), to more spaceplane like in appearance. Perhaps a very sleek 3.75m crew part that takes cues from the porkjet spaceplane stuff.

[Mikki]

I like the new look, way better than now for sure!

[cxg2827]

13 minutes ago, regex said:

From what I've read KSP will eventually move over to PBR for parts rendering, so this will end up being the new style.

Another thing to note is that parts in the Unity Scene are usually a lot more shiny than in KSP, so the shininess in-game will most likely be toned downed a fair bit.

This has happened with some of my parts I've created. super shiny in the Unity scene, but when I export into KSP, it looks much better.

 

[Streetwind]

@GregroxMun - Regex just said what I wanted to say, yeah. For my part, I'm of the opinion that these new redesigned models are a vast improvement, and that the existing models sorely needed love - especially the oldest, the 1.25m ones. Of course, I accept the possibility that we might disagree on that.

As for the reflective PBR shader: the thing is, we do have that in stock. It came with the Unity engine bump of 1.1. It just wasn't used until now, because it requires entirely new textures to be made. Which you would do during a revamp of the parts. Like Porkjet did here. These shiny engines are not outliers; they are merely the first parts you ever see in KSP that use PBR. Squad has stated in the past that they want all parts to have PBR.

Perhaps it will look weird at the start, but it will be because the other parts aren't updated yet, not because the new parts break the aesthetic. Of course, whenever something changes, the instinctive human reaction is to cling to the status quo; but give new graphics a chance. Porkjet proved he can pick a consistent theme and unify a multifaceted selection of parts under a common aesthetic when he did spaceplane parts - why should he have suddenly lost that ability and produce a disparate heap of stuff? Give the man some credit

Edited September 9, 2016 by Streetwind

[Temeter]

7 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

As for the reflective PBR shader: the thing is, we do have that in stock. It came with the Unity engine bump of 1.1. It just wasn't used until now, because it requires entirely new textures to be made. Which you would do during a revamp of the parts. Like Porkjet did. These shiny engines are not outliers; they are merely the first parts you ever see in KSP that use PBR. Squad has stated in the past that they want all parts to have PBR.

Perhaps it will look weird at the start, but it will be because the other parts aren't updated yet, not because the new parts break the aesthetic. 

I've read a nice theory on reddit about that:

It might be that Squad is holding the new engine models back, because they want to have PBR for anything when they switch. They could of course easily convert existing parts to use some simple PBR, but most of the rocket parts are supposed to be redone anyway, so why waste time with parts that will become redundant?

So the pretty much finished rocket engines are held back until everything is done as to not to break style even more, and instead Squad is releasing them for modders so people already can enjoy PorkJets awesome work, which is a cool move!

See, that way we could explain what's up with these parts, without assuming any pointless drama.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Temeter

[SmashingKirby148]

HOLD ON A MOMENT, WHAT ARE THESE GORGEOUS BABIES!?

That... is by FAR. THE WERIDEST THING I HAVE EVER SAID...

[Andem]

6 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

Really?  I think think the variety of artists over 5 years is quiet clear, creating a very uneven, undefined aesthetic.

We're talking about two different things and using the same word. You mean the graphics,  only the surface assets, when I'm talking about the entire game-- Stylized, Simplified, and "Comical." The engines shown do not match that, they aren't "Kerbal" at all, while the previous parts were most certainly "Kerbal." Doesn't mean they were good, but you also wouldn't do a double take when you saw them.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Andem

[Alshain]

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

*edit* I just had an unhappy thought: What if the LVT-15 and LV-303 aren't actually new engines, but rather simply revamps of the 48-7S and LV-1 "Ant"?

I doubt they would turn a 0.625m part into a 1.25m part.  I suspect it was an attempt at adding more options for an upper stage, which your only real choice is the 909 in that size, and that can be overpowered and expensive on some payloads.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Alshain

[tater]

28 minutes ago, Andem said:

We're talking about two different things and using the same word. You mean the graphics,  only the surface assets, when I'm talking about the entire game-- Stylized, Simplified, and "Comical." The engines shown do not match that, they aren't "Kerbal" at all, while the previous parts were most certainly "Kerbal." Doesn't mean they were good, but you also wouldn't do a double take when you saw them.

So "kerbal" WRT aircraft parts means "looks nice," and "kerbal" WRT rocket parts means "ugly?"

When/if the whole game gets the new shaders, all the parts will look different, so take the PBR off the table for now. The parts shown look fine to me. The engines in particular are fine, though I think the tank bodies and the boat tail are on the "modern" side for early parts (I'd honestly like to see a choice of textures for parts such that late in the tech tree, you can make your rocket parts every bit as mod looking as the spaceplanes).

I, for one, think that the stock rocket parts are profoundly ugly to the extent I no longer use them. For me, the "double take" moment would be to look at a rocket next to a spaceplane, they have no aesthetic similarities whatsoever.

[Temeter]

43 minutes ago, Andem said:

We're talking about two different things and using the same word. You mean the graphics,  only the surface assets, when I'm talking about the entire game-- Stylized, Simplified, and "Comical." The engines shown do not match that, they aren't "Kerbal" at all, while the previous parts were most certainly "Kerbal." Doesn't mean they were good, but you also wouldn't do a double take when you saw them.

I think you are misinterpreting his idea, maybe also the nature of early rocket engines. The engines in KSP aren't all that stylized and comical  as much as they are slightly exaggerated engines from the sixties.

This is the LR-87, a very important US rocket engine. Also, it looks like taken from a cartoon:

Spoiler

This is the viking, one of the most reliable engines of all time - also quite the athletic build:

Spoiler

 

This is the famous redstone rocket engine, which looks stupid:

Spoiler

You see, KSP isn't actually that cartoony when it comes to their rockets. Most engines actually looked that way, and the game only slightly exaggerates them. Which IMO is exactly what Porkjet has done.

You might of course feel different, but I think that's a better explanation why others aren't seeing the big change.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Temeter