Rocket Part Revamp Discussion Thread

[Francois424]

303 looks like a new favorite of mine as far as lander engines go.  I just love rotund designs in general. 
It's looking rather promising.

As for the looks, it changed once before.  It used to be white/yellow before 0.22 or something.  Then changed to the orange / white & black looks.
At any rate the old files are on my computer... if I really hate the new look (but I doubt it) then I can always expend my custom parts mod.

IMHO there should really be a way to change the texture's colors like some mod allow to do.  That way you just pick what you like your parts to look like.

[Wjolcz]

I think the colour scheme is spot on. As long as other parts get the same. Minimalism is the key. Dark grey+light grey/white+orange is a good choice. Just keep it consistent and it will all look great.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

Anyone notice some texture issues in certain lighting? I'm using Planetshine so perhaps that's affecting things

[omelaw]

Can I use this mod and not break savefiles when it become stock?

[AndroidSub]

Allrighty , Here's my Opinion (please don't kill me..) ...

I LIKE THE NEW PARTS !! AND I LIKE THE OLD ONES AS WELL!!

I mean , both of them are awesome... The old part's mashup AND the new part's realistic aesthetic.

So... What do we do ? 

Well , I have the answer

MAKE THEM BOTH STOCK !!!!

Seriously , the old parts could be a part of the early tech tree ... and as you progress... you get the newly textured parts with at least slightly improved characteristics.

As for SpacePlanes... Rockets are different. Spaceplanes are different . That's it. Period.

So.... Who Likes This Idea?

[problemecium]

If I might use this thread as a place for subjective opinions and requests regarding the ongoing parts overhaul:

Please don't make the Poodle into a double-nozzle engine! I admit I'm being a bit selfish, but I have many times taken advantage of the empty space around the base of the engine bell to stuff a few extra fuel tanks. This trick wouldn't work with a double-nozzle design and consequently would ruin my existing designs for things like my single-stage Tylo lander:

(Yes this one is a bit clippy, but it'd be a lot worse with two nozzles sticking out.)
If you feel you must make the Poodle as shown in the concept art, I'm in no place to demand otherwise, but I'd really like if it could remain a single-nozzle engine.

[IronCretin]

It looks like the Terrier is getting a buff, so it might be able take over that role.

[ReconXPanzer]

I know I'm being incredibly selfish and subjective here, but personally, I don't like the new parts, I feel that they're taking away some of the style associated with KSP (that sort of slightly cartoonish look about things). Any completely new engines I welcome, and performance changes I also welcome, but personally and I know it's selfish and I know I'm being hugely subjective here, but I'd be much happier with the old model parts.

If however, they do get changed, I'll probably get accustomed to it, even if it does mean a loss of aesthetic... 

[Andem]

11 minutes ago, ReconXPanzer said:

I know I'm being incredibly selfish and subjective here, but personally, I don't like the new parts, I feel that they're taking away some of the style associated with KSP (that sort of slightly cartoonish look about things). Any completely new engines I welcome, and performance changes I also welcome, but personally and I know it's selfish and I know I'm being hugely subjective here, but I'd be much happier with the old model parts.

If however, they do get changed, I'll probably get accustomed to it, even if it does mean a loss of aesthetic... 

I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE! THANK THE LORD!

[Temeter]

You got used to the old parts, you'll get used to the new parts. It's not really not much of a difference, with the exception that the new parts look good.

If you really want to keep the ugly engines for whatever reason, there'll be a mod for sure.

On 18.9.2016 at 9:25 PM, Waxing_Kibbous said:

Anyone notice some texture issues in certain lighting? I'm using Planetshine so perhaps that's affecting things

No, that's normal. The parts are designed to use a much more sophisticated lighting system (the PBR we're constantly talking about), so the parts we actually got for 1.2 are downgraded versions. What you're seeing is most likely just a side effect of the downgrade.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Temeter

[Rath]

Reading through this thread, I have to get a 'It's the End Times' sign.  I agree with regex!  Oh the Horror!

[Rath]

Seriously though, I think that regexs account must have been hijacked or something cause he's so much better now.  I like him.

[Dfthu]

I cant seem these parts to work, do I use the download in the 1.2 modding prerelease? How did you guys get it to work?

Edited September 23, 2016 by Dfthu

[Jarin]

On 9/21/2016 at 9:38 AM, ReconXPanzer said:

I know I'm being incredibly selfish and subjective here, but personally, I don't like the new parts, I feel that they're taking away some of the style associated with KSP (that sort of slightly cartoonish look about things). Any completely new engines I welcome, and performance changes I also welcome, but personally and I know it's selfish and I know I'm being hugely subjective here, but I'd be much happier with the old model parts.

If however, they do get changed, I'll probably get accustomed to it, even if it does mean a loss of aesthetic... 

I mostly like the designs myself, but I give you kudos for a very reasonable critique and response.

[passinglurker]

8 minutes ago, Dfthu said:

I cant seem these parts to work, do I use the download in the 1.2 modding prerelease? How did you guys get it to work?

Inside the zip file there are two folders "gamedata" and "source" treat the contents of the game data folder as you would a mod (but without ckan) simply copy the porkjet folder found immediately within into you ksp install's gamedata folder where all the other mods go.

[Dfthu]

16 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

Inside the zip file there are two folders "gamedata" and "source" treat the contents of the game data folder as you would a mod (but without ckan) simply copy the porkjet folder found immediately within into you ksp install's gamedata folder where all the other mods go.

so the gamedata and the source file into the gamedata folder?

[passinglurker]

2 minutes ago, Dfthu said:

so the gamedata and the source file into the gamedata folder?

No no no. Look copy the contents of your zip's gamedata into your ksp's gamedata as if you were installing a mod manually. Leave the source folder where it is.

[Dfthu]

Thank you! it's working now

[Tweeker]

  By special request, I am commenting here  on the vector,

I say the vector needs to have its mounting point raised to the top of the power head, so it mounts in the same way as all he other engines, right now it is a special case engine,  the only rocket engine in KSP that mounts at the throat of the nozzle. If rocket engine are getting a revamp it is the perfect time to fix this problem.

[passinglurker]

2 hours ago, Tweeker said:

  By special request, I am commenting here  on the vector,

I say the vector needs to have its mounting point raised to the top of the power head, so it mounts in the same way as all he other engines, right now it is a special case engine,  the only rocket engine in KSP that mounts at the throat of the nozzle. If rocket engine are getting a revamp it is the perfect time to fix this problem.

if by "special request" you mean me calling you out for going off topic talking smack about the vector and expecting to get away with it unchallenged then yes a "special request"

anyway I say the mounting plate can't be moved from the throat on the compact version because such a change will break craft files *drops mic*

[Vegemeister]

3 hours ago, passinglurker said:

anyway I say the mounting plate can't be moved from the throat on the compact version because such a change will break craft files *drops mic*

I'm not sure tweaker is right about their proposed changes, 'cause recessed mounting points in the MK3 bulkhead would mean it could only be used for 3-engine designs.

But that said, breaking craft files/saves is not as big a problem as you lot think it is.  If realism or aesthetics dictates that the overall length of an engine must be changed, just make the new engine design a separate part with the same title, and remove the old one from the parts bin and the part testing contract list.  Old ships with deprecated parts will still load and function as designed, but newly-built ships will use the new, prettier engine design.

[Frozen_Heart]

16 minutes ago, Vegemeister said:

I'm not sure tweaker is right about their proposed changes, 'cause recessed mounting points in the MK3 bulkhead would mean it could only be used for 3-engine designs.

But that said, breaking craft files/saves is not as big a problem as you lot think it is.  If realism or aesthetics dictates that the overall length of an engine must be changed, just make the new engine design a separate part with the same title, and remove the old one from the parts bin and the part testing contract list.  Old ships with deprecated parts will still load and function as designed, but newly-built ships will use the new, prettier engine design.

Wish they had done this with the old Mk-3 parts. I had quite a few craft I liked using them, and would have liked a chance to convert them over use newer parts. Now they just plain don't load. :/

[Tweeker]

4 hours ago, passinglurker said:

if by "special request" you mean me calling you out for going off topic talking smack about the vector and expecting to get away with it unchallenged then yes a "special request"

anyway I say the mounting plate can't be moved from the throat on the compact version because such a change will break craft files *drops mic*

 If you where so concerned about staying on topic you wouldn't keep comenting on it in the other topic. 

And why is that any worse than the other changes? Or do you just general oppose the engine revamp?

[Tweeker]

49 minutes ago, Vegemeister said:

I'm not sure tweaker is right about their proposed changes, 'cause recessed mounting points in the MK3 bulkhead would mean it could only be used for 3-engine designs.

But that said, breaking craft files/saves is not as big a problem as you lot think it is.  If realism or aesthetics dictates that the overall length of an engine must be changed, just make the new engine design a separate part with the same title, and remove the old one from the parts bin and the part testing contract list.  Old ships with deprecated parts will still load and function as designed, but newly-built ships will use the new, prettier engine design.

Recessed mounting points would be a bad approach, recessing the mounting plane however  would be better, or you could use the offset tool.

33 minutes ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Wish they had done this with the old Mk-3 parts. I had quite a few craft I liked using them, and would have liked a chance to convert them over use newer parts. Now they just plain don't load. :/

it is not only physical changes that would have this effect, but also thrust/ISP changes. You will find that suddenly you rocket doesn't make orbit, or runs out od fuel coming back from Duna, or you probe need rebuilt because it doesn't function the same with Kerbnet, or that your rocket now flips out because of changes in how fuel transfers, Best just to shrug your shoulders and go on.

[Vanamonde]

As I read this thread I can't tell if you guys are joking around, or actually angry with each other about the shape of the fictional engines in a space game. If the latter, please take a deep breath and reconsider whether this is worth the trouble.