Rocket Part Revamp Discussion Thread

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

I really liked these new parts, since the current rocket parts look so bad compared to the spaceplane parts.

[MerlinsMaster]

Does anyone know what the font for the numbers on the textures is?

[Magzimum]

On 28-10-2016 at 3:51 PM, Veeltch said:

UGH! [snip]

Funny thing. People who just started playing the game typically go "Whoa", while people who played it a long time go "Ugh".

I agree with GeneCash:

On 9-9-2016 at 3:06 AM, GeneCash said:

My "problem" (if any) is that they're TOO realistic. KSP is supposed to be just a bit cartoony and these don't fit.

I like my engines a little cartoony too. And I am a huge fan of the Rockomax barrels with pickled herring tanks with LFO.

 

[Wjolcz]

2 hours ago, Magzimum said:

 

I like my engines a little cartoony too. And I am a huge fan of the Rockomax barrels with pickled herring tanks with LFO.

 

Why

[Pds314]

2 hours ago, Magzimum said:

Funny thing. People who just started playing the game typically go "Whoa", while people who played it a long time go "Ugh".

I agree with GeneCash:

I like my engines a little cartoony too. And I am a huge fan of the Rockomax barrels with pickled herring tanks with LFO.

 

I've been playing since naught point twenty. They should've redone the rocket parts ages ago. Probably in whatever update SP+ was made stock or the next one.

[Wjolcz]

I feel like the problem of part revamps is the fact that each revamp looks way better than the previous one. Maybe it's because the style of the artist evolves. Maybe it's because different people made different set of parts. Anyway, it's a problem because what happens when a new part revamp is done then some previously implemented parts don't look as good anymore.

Or maybe it's just me who thinks that. Would be nice if SQUAD finally had one big update about the parts only. No new stuff, no new mechanics. Just the parts and their looks. Hire as many artists as possible, give them the time to unify the style and release everything at once +save some 3D assets for possible future use (greenhouses, things that are animated but need more coding and things like that).

At least that's what I would do. I know it's probably not how game-making companies work, but IMO that would make the most sense.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Veeltch

[Magzimum]

2 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Why

Executive summary

The game takes the physics-engine of launching rockets into space very serious. But it's joking about the engineering side, and everything else, including the looks and descriptions of the parts. The jokes are all over the place. And frankly, that is one of the reasons this game is so popular! 

Longer version

Answering the question why I love the looks of the Rockomax tanks, and in general the cartoonish looks of the game? Because it's comical. 

Because this is an alternative universe, where planets are 10x smaller, where intelligent life has huge green heads and cannot blink. Kerbals love snacks. They explore other moons, and their first question is what kind of candy it is made of (you can still vote). They fly in ships that are held together by space tape and that solve the limitations imposed by physics by adding Moar Boosters or Moar Struts, usually both. Mission control speaks gibberish, and as you probably guessed, this is where you come in. Of course such creatures have 2.5 m wide tanks that are held together with large rivets! These are your engineers: Not exactly the guys in dust-free rooms you see in the real world space industry.

Have you read any of the descriptions of the parts?

• Rockomax X200-8: A compact fuel tank, designed for small upper stages and landers. Rockomax takes no responsibility for the Dawton Kerman Aboveground Pool Company stickers on the inside because it totally is not a swimming pool frame we stole from their back lot.
• Cubic Octagonal Strut: Now, with advances in technology, StrutCo brings you the Cubic Octagonal Strut - it's like a regular Octagonal Strut, but in the shape of a cube!

Some say that there is no coherent part design? I think that's true. Some parts are still far too serious.

[Wjolcz]

23 hours ago, Magzimum said:

The jokes are all over the place. And frankly, that is one of the reasons this game is so popular!

We can argue over what made the game popular and all, but I will tell you one thing: the reason you provided is not the one I bought the game for.

23 hours ago, Magzimum said:

They fly in ships that are held together by space tape and that solve the limitations imposed by physics by adding Moar Boosters or Moar Struts, usually both. Mission control speaks gibberish, and as you probably guessed, this is where you come in. Of course such creatures have 2.5 m wide tanks that are held together with large rivets! These are your engineers: Not exactly the guys in dust-free rooms you see in the real world space industry.

-snip-

Some say that there is no coherent part design? I think that's true. Some parts are still far too serious.

And this is where the real tragedy of this game lays. People think it's all about "MOAR BOOSTERS". That is why the career is so badly put together and why the parts still look like trash.

@NovaSilisko, the creator of rocket parts, have said he hated them. It was his early years and his style was probably still evolving. I'm not saying he's an amateur (his artwork is really nice), but many people who have tried to continue developing their artistic talents will tell you that the style evolves. You learn new things, see more stuff, develop your taste and start thinking you would do the things of the past differently now.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Veeltch

[KSK]

19 hours ago, Magzimum said:

Some say that there is no coherent part design? I think that's true. Some parts are still far too serious.

I see what you're saying and I respect it but I think that the comedy descriptions stray into the downright bizarre on occasions. Fuel tanks that explode when teased or sensors powered by black magic for example. Huh? The examples you gave on the other hand, I like. Also the description for the Rockomax X200-32 still makes me chuckle.

Personally, I don't think there ever will be a coherent part design whilst planes are in the game - and I don't see them being removed any time soon. The amount of internet rage that would be wasted if the plane parts were altered to a more cartoony, 'parts-found-by-the-side-of-the-road' aesthetic - it makes my head hurt to think about it.

My ideal solution (and I fully appreciate that it would be a load of work to implement so not terribly likely for that reason) would be to have three texture sets for the rocket parts, corresponding to each upgrade level of the R&D building. Level 1 is the 'oil drums and rivets' aesthetic that you like, level 3 is the smooth and shiny Kerbodyne style currently in the game. Level 2 is somewhere in between. That way the visual look of your rockets is an indicator of progress through the tech tree.

Heck, you could even update the part descriptions at the same time - no shortage of potential for jokes there.

"After an engineering review of the X200-8 tank concluded that it was in fact 52% duct tape, 11% rivets and 42% old swimming pool frame, we reluctantly decided that a new model was probably required."

[Wjolcz]

3 hours ago, KSK said:

Personally, I don't think there ever will be a coherent part design whilst planes are in the game - and I don't see them being removed any time soon. The amount of internet rage that would be wasted if the plane parts were altered to a more cartoony, 'parts-found-by-the-side-of-the-road' aesthetic - it makes my head hurt to think about it.

I disagree. There can be plane parts and rocket parts and both can look nice and consistent even when put together.

I know that the black and white stripes and squares on the rockets (Saturn V) would be the preferable style for the rockets parts, but I remember one of the devs describing the game and its looks as "near future-ish". The stripes and squares pattern was used to measure the velocity and altitude of the vessel. Nowadays the rockets don't look like that anymore and since the "near future-ish" style of the game implies that it's "near future" then the rockets (and planes) can have any pattern on them. And that's my justification of why plane and rocket parts can and should look consistent.

[klgraham1013]

23 hours ago, Magzimum said:

And frankly, that is one of the reasons this game is so popular! 

[citation needed]

12 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

There can be plane parts and rocket parts and both can look nice and consistent even when put together.

This should have been the focus a long time ago.

[KSK]

2 hours ago, Veeltch said:

I disagree. There can be plane parts and rocket parts and both can look nice and consistent even when put together.

I know that the black and white stripes and squares on the rockets (Saturn V) would be the preferable style for the rockets parts, but I remember one of the devs describing the game and its looks as "near future-ish". The stripes and squares pattern was used to measure the velocity and altitude of the vessel. Nowadays the rockets don't look like that anymore and since the "near future-ish" style of the game implies that it's "near future" then the rockets (and planes) can have any pattern on them. And that's my justification of why plane and rocket parts can and should look consistent.

Ahh, OK, I get where you're coming from - I think. Sure, the rocket parts could be spruced up and made to be consistent with the plane parts. I'm just not convinced that the more light-hearted 'boosters and struts' approach that @Magzimum likes will ever fit very well with the much more polished plane parts. I use polish here as a descriptor of style rather than quality - a good comparison  would be considering the Star Wars aesthetic vs the Star Trek aesthetic.

For the record, I like the 'boosters and struts' junkyard aesthetic to begin with. Heck, I wrote a novel about it - and you're looking at a firm supporter of The Barn! I'd just also like to see an in-game visual progression from 'amateur rocketry cobbled together in Jeb's backyard' to 'more-or-less-professional space program.'

Like I said - it would be a lot of work and may well not fit in with Squad's vision for the game anyway. But *shrug* that's what discussion forums are for right? To have fun discussing what might be.

Edited December 7, 2016 by KSK

[Wjolcz]

1 hour ago, KSK said:

For the record, I like the 'boosters and struts' junkyard aesthetic to begin with. Heck, I wrote a novel about it - and you're looking at a firm supporter of The Barn! I'd just also like to see an in-game visual progression from 'amateur rocketry cobbled together in Jeb's backyard' to 'more-or-less-professional space program.'

I see. Maybe a good way of introducing it would be some sort of texture unlocking mechanic. You would for example start with bare, shiny metal looks, then the early V-2/Saturn V black and white schemes, and after that some sort of clean-looking white/gray/black texture and so on. The parts would stay the same, but their look would change and you could go back the previous skin if you wanted to.

I'm obviously spitballing here, but I don't disagree with the parts' looks progression as long as it's not all trashy-looking with silly patches hastily applied to the side or an inner wall and things like that. Kerbals aren't dumb.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Veeltch

[KSK]

Nope - proper redone textures is what I had in mind. Remodelled parts would be even better but if I'm wishing for three complete sets of parts for (more or less) aesthetic reasons - well I may as well throw in a wish for peace in our time, a chicken in every pot and a pony as well.  

And yes - absolutely let the player revert to a previous set of skins if they want - and make them all available in Sandbox of course. 

[Tyko]

If I got a vote, I'd want to steer away from so many of the parts looking like they are worn and torn. So many of the parts are purpose built for a single launch and only have an expected lifespan of minutes. They wouldn't look battered. I know that some of the backstory involves finding things from the junkyard, but i'd love to see the game separate itself from that storyline - at least when you get past the lowest tech tiers.

[Wjolcz]

On 07/12/2016 at 7:08 PM, Tyko said:

If I got a vote, I'd want to steer away from so many of the parts looking like they are worn and torn. So many of the parts are purpose built for a single launch and only have an expected lifespan of minutes. They wouldn't look battered. I know that some of the backstory involves finding things from the junkyard, but i'd love to see the game separate itself from that storyline - at least when you get past the lowest tech tiers.

Exactly. If we assume the rocket parts are expendeble and then found in a junkyard, then it makes no sense. An engine or a fuel tank that hit the ground at several hundred km/h is not going to fly again no matter what you do to refurbish and make it flyable again.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Veeltch

[Adelaar]

After twelve pages of discussion, one must inevitably reach the conclusion that a poll would come in handy.

[Andem]

I don't know why you all bought the game, but I bought the game because it looked interesting and different. It didn't look like the generic shiny, lensflare-y shoddily made space games that were flooding the market. It actually had something to offer and wasn't hard boiled and knew that it didn't need to be a generic simulator either.

[klgraham1013]

1 hour ago, Andem said:

I don't know why you all bought the game, but I bought the game because it looked interesting and different. It didn't look like the generic shiny, lensflare-y shoddily made space games that were flooding the market. It actually had something to offer and wasn't hard boiled and knew that it didn't need to be a generic simulator either.

 

So...we can't have a game with something to offer and a consistent art style?  I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

[Andem]

2 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

So...we can't have a game with something to offer and a consistent art style?  I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

The feeling of not knowing what you're getting at is mutual.

[klgraham1013]

6 minutes ago, Andem said:

The feeling of not knowing what you're getting at is mutual.

Well, we appear to have bought the game for the same reason.  I gather that.  I suppose I'm confused about what you're saying about the rocket part revamp.

[Andem]

6 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

Well, we appear to have bought the game for the same reason.  I gather that.  I suppose I'm confused about what you're saying about the rocket part revamp.

Ah. It was meant to be addressing the complaints with the "Art Style" ( it's actually the aesthetic but if I call it that people will just flay me alive) earlier up the page.

[cfds]

I cannot speak for everyone, but I bought the game nor for but despite its aesthetics. These days I still harboured the hope that the placeholder graphics might be one day replaced by something sensible...

[KSK]

On ‎09‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 0:10 PM, Veeltch said:

Exactly. If we assume the rocket parts are expendeble and then found in a junkyard, then it makes no sense. An engine or a fuel tank that hit the ground at several hundred km/h is not going to fly again no matter what you do to refurbish and make it flyable again.

For what it's worth, my headcanon has the parts come from a junkyard and not a complete system like an engine. Bill might be raking around in Bin 32 for example and find a bit of spare metal (Kerm knows where it came from - doesn't matter) that looks perfect for repurposing into a tank baffle. Sure it's not exactly the same shape as the other baffles - but we can cut it to size if need be. Or Bob might find an old vacuum cleaner hose that would work more-or-less OK as part of the life-support system.

Agree that finding entire functional rocket stages by the side of the road is rather unlikely. For that matter, my headcanon isn't that more likely but I find it fun.

12 hours ago, Andem said:

I don't know why you all bought the game, but I bought the game because it looked interesting and different. It didn't look like the generic shiny, lensflare-y shoddily made space games that were flooding the market. It actually had something to offer and wasn't hard boiled and knew that it didn't need to be a generic simulator either.

Especially since 'space simulator' is most often an oxymoron anyway in my opinion. Off the top of my head I can only think of a handful of space games that I would consider to be anything like a simulator. Sticking a stars-and-planets backdrop on a game does not make it a space simulator.

[Tyko]

19 hours ago, Andem said:

Ah. It was meant to be addressing the complaints with the "Art Style" ( it's actually the aesthetic but if I call it that people will just flay me alive) earlier up the page.

Style (IMHO) means that there's a some cohesive plan driving design. I'm not sure it really can be called a "style" when it's really a pile of parts made over several years by many different artists each with their own "style".