Rocket Part Revamp Discussion Thread

[ZooNamedGames]

1 minute ago, passinglurker said:

If "keep the old parts" is the bone "old" players want then they can keep ageing and rot away until they are just bones themselves for all I care. I hate how every time porkjet makes this game better these forum users with an irrational fear of change and progress come out of the woodwork.

being here for 4 years entitles you to zilch you have no place in saying what is kerbal and what is not that belongs to squad and perhaps more specifically porkjet who can define the look of "kerbal" however he pleases so isn't he nice for opting to continue the cartoonishly exaggerated style but with much better production quality?

The fear was justified when I got one of the first releases by him and it was nothing more than a gloried addition of his mod. 

Just now, MaxL_1023 said:

Guys, you KNOW within 2 hours of these parts being released there will be a mod which reverts them to the original design - a mod which will take about 30 seconds to install and will change nothing else. It is really not worth fighting over - let squad do their best and focus on the really important issues (Kraken hunting for example). 

I don't want a mod to do that- as eventually the mod will be undeveloped and that's all that's left of the classic KSP. 

1 minute ago, Crocket said:

But being here for four years means they've played the game since it came out, so after watching the entire public development cycle they most definitely have a say in what's kerbal and what's not.

^^^^^

[passinglurker]

8 minutes ago, Crocket said:

But being here for four years means they've played the game since it came out, so after watching the entire public development cycle they most definitely have a say in what's kerbal and what's not.

Gonna be blunt here Squad already has the easily entertained users money they need to step up their game to attract new more scrutinizing buyers and they can't let the old tasteless ones hold them back

7 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

^^^^^

Way to be entitled buddy if you are owed so much influence why aren't you on the pay roll? Get off your "veteran" high horse you are no better than the rest of us. Aside from wanting to keep the old parts stock we'll have to dock you points for that

Edited September 15, 2016 by passinglurker

[ZooNamedGames]

Just now, passinglurker said:

Gonna be blunt here Squad already has the easily entertained users money they need to step up their game to attract new more scrutinizing buyers and they can't let the old tasteless ones hold them back

How is a few parts going to impact buyers? You've can have new and old.

Besides, if all squad can do is toss more parts for money, the part list is gonna fatten until that gimmick no longer works.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

mindless

Mindless beings do not create rocket engines.

7 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

destructive

Hardly. I rarely crash, and certainly not deliberately.

7 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

insane

Kerbals rarely do the same thing over and over expecting different results. The wealth of craft constructed by the players and available as stock in the game are testament to this.

7 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

tinkering

They most certainly do, it's how they've been able to create such wonderful things.

7 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

tottering

Hardly disqualifies their intelligence or dexterity.

7 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

running in parts of extreme realism?

I don't get where you're seeing "EXTREME REALISM" in this redesign, it has all the hallmarks of KSP itself and follows the art paradigm set earlier: hand-drawn textures and clean, simple parts.

[ZooNamedGames]

2 minutes ago, regex said:

Mindless beings do not create rocket engines.

Hardly. I rarely crash, and certainly not deliberately.

Kerbals rarely do the same thing over and over expecting different results. The wealth of craft constructed by the players and available as stock in the game are testament to this.

They most certainly do, it's how they've been able to create such wonderful things.

Hardly disqualifies their intelligence or dexterity.

I don't get where you're seeing "EXTREME REALISM" in this redesign, it has all the hallmarks of KSP itself and follows the art paradigm set earlier: hand-drawn textures and clean, simple parts.

When I think KSP- I don't see my play style or anyone else's. I see closer to the trailer happening, or any first time player. Where their rocket explodes into a huge ball of fire. 

[septemberWaves]

2 hours ago, Thraken said:

I also do not see a 3.75m option in the "booster" section.

Presumably the idea of the "booster" engines is either as second stage engines on a large rocket, or as the engine on a radial LRB (Liquid Rocket Booster). Whilst people surely find some very kerbal uses for 3.75m radial LRBs, it seems more realistic for LRBs to have a smaller diameter. In reality, most booster rockets have a smaller diameter than the core stage, with some exceptions being vehicles such as the Delta IV Heavy and the Falcon Heavy, wherein the radial boosters are essentially identical to the core stage and use the same engines (engines which would probably fall under the "sustainer" classification in the diagram above).

Additionally, there's no reason why you couldn't mix and match from different categories of atmospheric engines. The Boar, for example, is classed as a booster engine, but the thrust displayed in the diagram means that it will finally allow me to properly update my Tano series of rockets to function with stock parts, because that series of lifters requires either a mid-range engine with a thrust level between the Skipper and the Mainsail, or an unpleasant-looking assembly of a Skipper and two Swivels.

[ZooNamedGames]

Look at the videos made officially by squad. They typically go boom whether it be gameplay or animated video.

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

When I think KSP- I don't see my play style or anyone else's. I see closer to the trailer happening, or any first time player. Where their rocket explodes into a huge ball of fire. 

So what you're saying is KSP should look like a garbage dump and the end goal should be flaming balls of wreckage? Is that how you actually play, with no ambition or desire to complete goals, just disaster simulation? Do you think everyone who plays this game thinks like that, all those people making intricate mechanical objects or carefully crafted spaceplanes or margin-optimized missions to other planets are just playing the game completely wrong?

Man, what a sad vision of the game and the little beings that populate it.

[Red Iron Crown]

Fairly sure these parts will blow up just as readily as the current ones.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Fairly sure these parts will blow up just as readily as the current ones.

Wait, I thought we were arguing about whether they look like they'd blow up?

[passinglurker]

21 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Look at the videos made officially by squad. They typically go boom whether it be gameplay or animated video.

 

Looks like some one needs to read the bac9 quote again or do you just hate everyone who's done something to make this game better?

"It’s not Kerbal? *shrug* For some reason some people like to think Kerbals are sloppy engineers only capable of producing inherently broken designs held together by duct tape. To them, proposing something prim and proper like a NASA VAB could be built by Kerbals is ridiculous. Well, I disagree. Take a good look at the parts: at the LV-N engine, at the 3-man pod, at the landing legs, at the ion engine. Those are cleanly executed pieces of impressive technology. Kerbals are indifferent to safety precautions and are very excited about explosions, yes, but they make an impression of extremely capable and very competent engineers. Sure, we know they probably turned a construction crane into a vomit carousel or raced on bulldozers in the process, but I don't doubt for one second they can build buildings similar to real ones, and I don't think it would be out of character for them. Plenty of other stuff like engines is fairly close to how our human rockets look. It's unfair to mistake Kerbals for orks from a “Certain Universe With 40k In The Name,” or to expect them to build sloppy duct-taped huts.

Overall, I'm convinced the obsession with disasters and perception of Kerbals as worthless engineers only caring about explosions is destructive for the game. KSP deserves much more than being a glorified disaster simulator where rockets falling apart and crews being killed is the prime entertainment and the only expected result. The achievements of players who strive to be successful, who create beautiful, well-engineered, reliable designs, should never be devalued, and the opinion that going to space is impossibly hard deserves to be crushed and disproved over and over again. Kerbals are capable engineers and it's up to the player to utilize their technology well.

This same mindset is harming the game in many other areas as well. The bugs of the physics system aren't there because we thought they would be fun and don't deserve to be defended as some players surprisingly do. The achievements of reaching orbit, landing on another body or even establishing a permanent base somewhere should not be perceived as something impossibly hard and unreachable for anyone but hardcore players. Everything is possible if you are willing to learn and there is no reason to restrict yourself to playing a disaster simulator with rocket cars or insta-exploding space planes. Justifying that to yourself by creating a certain mental image of Kerbal engineers competency might make the game better for you but I’m striving for a greater Kerbal good.

Now, I'm not opposed to having fun at all. For instance, I have nothing against the KSP trailers made by our Pixar-tier magician Daniel Rosas which often depict Kerbals ignoring safety and having good fun. Part of the charm of KSP is the opportunity to take enormous risks, ignore established paradigms and experiment freely, which can often lead to great successes and interesting stories to tell. That is not clashing in the slightest with the fact that you have nice, cleanly made, technologically impressive spacecraft parts available to you, or well-built buildings to assemble your creations in - all without any sign of duct tape, rust or sloppy welding. So, basically, I feel objects in the game should continue to be clean and well-built to be consistent with the existing art style, and I'm convinced reinforcing the widespread opinion of Kerbals being incompetent is very harmful for the game. So there you have it." -bac9

[Pthigrivi]

I feel like this horse is fossilized at this point, right?

Wait so is there a mod yet that packages these new parts? Im sorry work's been busy and Im way out of the loop.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I feel like this horse is fossilized at this point, right?

Good lord no, what would make you think that?

4 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Wait so is there a mod yet that packages these new parts? Im sorry work's been busy and Im way out of the loop.

Click here.

[Pthigrivi]

1 minute ago, regex said:

Click here.

Oh sweet, I can just drop them in. Thanks!

[passinglurker]

3 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I feel like this horse is fossilized at this point, right?

Wait so is there a mod yet that packages these new parts? Im sorry work's been busy and Im way out of the loop.

The official asset zip comes with two folders "game data" and "source" I bet you can guess what the first one does

 

(Yes it is the compiled assets in functional mod form ready to go and play with)

[Tweeker]

1 hour ago, passinglurker said:

well if you feel that way why are you still here? don't you have an overwatch or dota match or something to get to?

For the literally billionth time those damn nozzles are scientifically accurate!   optimal nozzle length is proportional to the engine throat diameter and guess what most of those high efficiency upper stage engines have tiny throats it turns out  

that isn't really an excuse that spares your opinion from analysis and scrutiny if you want to wax nostalgically that's fine, but I can't let actually wanting to keep that old mess of place holder parts slide so easily.

 can't let it slide saying these new engines are accurate, the vector in particular, is nothing more that a magic nozzle,

It omits the bulk of the turbo machinery that makes the engine actually work.

 

Edited September 15, 2016 by Tweeker

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

It omits the bulk of the turbo machinery that makes the engine actually work.

It actually doesn't, it just hides it. Plus, that's the compact version whereas the "bare" version includes more machinery. Of course, if you're here for exquisite detail in machinery you're looking at the wrong game. Or maybe you should be installing RO and some of the more detailed parts packs; I personally enjoy BobCat's old Soviet Pack and the newer SSTU.

E: I mean, by your reasoning the STS has "magic nozzles" because you can't see the machinery:

Edited September 15, 2016 by regex

[passinglurker]

2 hours ago, Tweeker said:

 can't let it slide saying these new engines are accurate, the vector in particular, is nothing more that a magic nozzle,

It omits the bulk of the turbo machinery that makes the engine actually work.

 

Wow if that level of detail is your expectation then you personally really are wasting your time with this game.

[Tweeker]

Just now, passinglurker said:

Wow if that level of detail is your expectation then you personally really are wasting your time with this game.

 The most basic level, I expect that the engines represent both the nozzle and the powerhead. Not cut every engine off at the throat, or slightly above. Reference the picture above. The outline at the center represents the area  that the game should  try to convey as being physically present. Is this hard to do? NO! every engine currently in the game, except the vector does this. The vector functions as a magic nozzle, the is no indication that any of pumps ect are present above the nozzle.  Just stick it on, and thrust come out. Now with these new engines, especially the compact versions we are getting more in this mold.   

[passinglurker]

7 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

 The most basic level, I expect that the engines represent both the nozzle and the powerhead. Not cut every engine off at the throat, or slightly above. Reference the picture above. The outline at the center represents the area  that the game should  try to convey as being physically present. Is this hard to do? NO! every engine currently in the game, except the vector does this. The vector functions as a magic nozzle, the is no indication that any of pumps ect are present above the nozzle.  Just stick it on, and thrust come out. Now with these new engines, especially the compact versions we are getting more in this mold.   

What you are asking for is impossible in some usage cases because it's the SSME equivalent and you don't see the shuttle dangling its turbo pumps out of the back. 

What you want actually is rather hard to do because in kerbal you can't define the internal displacement of components carried in fuselage so for the sake of sanity it skims over it and just let's things clip. You don't like it? then Don't use the compact versions that's what standard and boat tail meshes are for.

Also the jet engines are all magic nozzels too the trend is already rooted to deep. 

 

[Tweeker]

1 minute ago, passinglurker said:

What you are asking for is impossible in some usage cases because it's the SSME equivalent and you don't see the shuttle dangling its turbo pumps out of the back. 

What you want actually is rather hard to do because in kerbal you can't define the internal displacement of components carried in fuselage so for the sake of sanity it skims over it and just let's things clip. You don't like it? then Don't use the compact versions that's what standard and boat tail meshes are for.

Also the jet engines are all magic nozzels too the trend is already rooted to deep. 

 

 That's not what I want at all, that is infact my complaint,   The vector assumes the machinery is tucked away inside the fuel tank, but the rest of the engines represent this machinery by having a structure above the throat of the nozzle.

Changing the rear-plate of the shuttle in KSP to have recessed mounts would solve any problems, But instead they are doubling down, and adding the compact engines  

[Binho]

25 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

 The most basic level, I expect that the engines represent both the nozzle and the powerhead. Not cut every engine off at the throat, or slightly above. Reference the picture above. The outline at the center represents the area  that the game should  try to convey as being physically present. Is this hard to do? NO! every engine currently in the game, except the vector does this. The vector functions as a magic nozzle, the is no indication that any of pumps ect are present above the nozzle.  Just stick it on, and thrust come out. Now with these new engines, especially the compact versions we are getting more in this mold.   

Umm, @Tweeker it sounds like you aren't quite understanding how the compact versions will work. Take a closer look at the design sheet, especially at the explanations of the part versions on the top right. None of the compact engines are getting cut at the throat, and even the Vector is now getting machinery above the nozzle. Look again. On the compact versions vs the standard versions, the only difference is the size and position of the attachment rings/plates. The rest of the engine model is staying the same. Even in the drawing of the Vector you can still see all the engine machinery above the throat for the compact version, all it is losing is the hydraulic pistons linking to the attachment ring/base plate the standard version has. The attachment ring/plate has just been moved further down. The machinery is simplified, but the basics (pumps, chambers, etc.) are all there!

[legoclone09]

8 hours ago, Codraroll said:

At this point, surely Porkjet must be the most tagged user of these forums?

Anyway, great work! It also delights me seeing the KR-1B "Boar" become its own engine.

It's actually the KR-1, and it's meant to replicate the F-1, but the engines on the Twin-Boar are F-1Bs, which are newer and different.

[passinglurker]

Just now, Tweeker said:

 That's not what I want at all, that is infact my complaint,   The vector assumes the machinery is tucked away inside the fuel tank, but the rest of the engines represent this machinery by having a structure above the throat of the nozzle.

Changing the rear-plate of the shuttle in KSP to have recessed mounts would solve any problems, But instead they are doubling down, and adding the compact engines  

Boohoo people can build craft in ways you don't like. Take it from the guy who obsessively hates having to stack tanks to make full use of an engine (if only they'd just make engines balanced to be paired up with every tank things would be perfect!). Let it go no one else cares. No one is making you use the compact engines.

Also Recessed shuttle mounts won't solve it the colliders would be to complex, people need to be able to rotate their parts at the throat for shuttle builds and that means attaching at the throat the best you'll get is that they will model some machinery for accuracy before clipping it into the bottom of your fuel tank which are abstract engineering inaccurate beasts themselves but that's a can of worms I couldn't care less about.

[Pthigrivi]

2 hours in 10/10 would bang. Man I really hope all this gets finished for stock. And definitely to whomever suggested the different versions in the tweakables menu.