Rocket Part Revamp Discussion Thread

[Andem]

7 minutes ago, Temeter said:

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:

  Hide contents

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

  Hide contents

 

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

  Hide contents

You see, KSP isn't actually that cartoony or stylized 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.

I wouldn't care at all if the textures were slightly redone and the models were simplified slightly more. They look a tad too much like a realism mod instead of the rest of the game.

[tater]

1 minute ago, Andem said:

I wouldn't care at all if the textures were slightly redone and the models were simplified slightly more. They look a tad too much like a realism mod instead of the rest of the game.

They look like they have shaders that the current game doesn't have. The rest of the parts will pop with those as well, and read very differently than they do now. 

How is it that a rocket engine that looks like and actual rocket engine looks too much like a realism mod, yet the mk3 parts are basically a Space Shuttle copy, and that's OK?

[Andem]

24 minutes ago, tater said:

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

Not sure where you pulled that from, as I never said that.

24 minutes ago, tater said:

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).

It really all depends on what shaders they choose. It might go well with the aesthetic, and it might not. Hard to say without seeing the entire game with the new shaders. So, shaders weren't on the table to begin with.

24 minutes ago, tater said:

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.

Oh yeah, they were certainly ugly, but they fit the entire game more than the new engines do.

7 minutes ago, tater said:

They look like they have shaders that the current game doesn't have. The rest of the parts will pop with those as well, and read very differently than they do now. 

Can we stop talking about the damn shaders? I'm not talking about shaders until they're actually on the table for discussion, which they aren't.

7 minutes ago, tater said:

How is it that a rocket engine that looks like and actual rocket engine looks too much like a realism mod, yet the mk3 parts are basically a Space Shuttle copy, and that's OK?

 

The stock Mk3 system is STYLIZED! The new rocket engines aren't, at least not enough to the point where they match up well.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Andem
Removed moderator bait.

[Temeter]

Eh, the shuttle itself looks fairly close. Reminds me more of Buran tho:

Edited September 9, 2016 by Temeter

[tater]

Just now, Andem said:

Not sure where you pulled that from, as I never said that.

You didn't say it, but it's implicit. The spaceplane parts ARE nice looking, and the rocket parts are objectively ugly.

Unless you are advocating for the spaceplane parts to be dragged down tot he level of the rocket parts, there is no kerbal aesthetic to point at as I see it, the 2 are not even close right now (planes vs rockets).

Just now, Andem said:

It really all depends on what shaders they choose. It might go well with the aesthetic, and it might not. Hard to say without seeing the entire game with the new shaders. So, shaders weren't on the table to begin with.

They have to start someplace. Since the PJ plane parts, the rocket people have been living with exactly the same issue as if all the rocket parts got PBR, then the plane parts waited a year to get redone to that standard. The rockets would look utterly different and more real/3d, and the planes would look toonish. Just like the planes look sleek now, and the rockets look awful.

Just now, Andem said:

Oh yeah, they were certainly ugly, but they fit the entire game more than the new engines do.

I think the new engines fit just fine, but I understand that they might not match the plane parts. I'll admit bias, because all the rocket parts could be with new shaders, and the plane parts could never get them, and I'd never notice, as I don't ever use plane parts, ever. I had to snap a few together last night just to remember what they looked like in game (literally the first time I did that since they were first added).

Above I pointed out something... that the parts realistically would show an evolution, where spaceplane parts are at an endpoint (currently, until /ifwe get end of tree rocket capsules, etc). Right now, there is literally no connection I see between the 2. The story of rocket parts as a timeline as described by the tech tree is:

1. Sort of 1960s looking manned spaceflight for largest 1.25 liquid parts and the engines, albeit with godawful looking, never should have been modeled as more than a flat ring, decouplers, and the awful small tanks that need to go away. (except any 1.25m part related to spaceplanes, which look nice, because spaceplanes).

2. Apparently after coming up with a largish 1.25m tank that doesn't look awful, kerbals decided to make every single 2.5m tank aside from the jumbo from a rubbish pile. Even the jumbo makes no sense, as there is no cap for it to build the otherwise sort of complete shuttle replica they added. Yuck to that entire part of the timeline, including every engine.

3. They then decided that the largest parts would go back to being OK looking, aside from the stripes not lining up.

For spaceplane parts the timeline is:

1. Awesome, space-aged stuff right out of the box.

2. Even more awesome stuff, that perfectly matches the earlier parts such that both sizes ate 100% mix and match.

3. A space shuttle "reality mod" part set, but the smaller parts were designed for mix and match with this as well).

There is no evolution, they are all sic-fi.

The mk3 parts are copies. Same number of windows, same hatch shape, etc, ad nauseum. 

If they were meant to be "kerbal" the mk3 would have been made to follow the mk1 and mk2 cockpit lines to the point of being able to use those parts as the nose (as there is a mk2 part that the 1 fits in front of. The difference between the "early" space plane parts and the mk3 is that the mk3 is LESS advanced looking.

[regex]

Let's face it, KSP never really had a coherent style up until recently. This is not to say the art wasn't good or endearing, it just wasn't really coherent. I mean, seriously, we have three "55 gallon drums" and a shuttle orange tank for 2.5m parts. The greys aren't uniform in color, some engines have orange butts, others black, and others grey. Then we had the whole NASA parts fiasco where an offset paint job was apparently thought of as a good thing. What we're moving towards right now is an actual "style" for the game, which is good.

Edited September 9, 2016 by regex

[Andem]

Oh m god I'm a compete idiot! The best example has been sitting in front of me this whole time! Dammit, here:

I would love it if the engine's style was similar to the LOD in BDB. God, I'm a moron. 

7 minutes ago, tater said:

You didn't say it, but it's implicit. The spaceplane parts ARE nice looking, and the rocket parts are objectively ugly.

Unless you are advocating for the spaceplane parts to be dragged down tot he level of the rocket parts, there is no kerbal aesthetic to point at as I see it, the 2 are not even close right now (planes vs rockets).

You just twisted my words until they meant nothing. I did not imply anyhting of the sort.

8 minutes ago, tater said:

They have to start someplace. Since the PJ plane parts, the rocket people have been living with exactly the same issue as if all the rocket parts got PBR, then the plane parts waited a year to get redone to that standard. The rockets would look utterly different and more real/3d, and the planes would look toonish. Just like the planes look sleek now, and the rockets look awful.

Yet again, not something I ever said or implied.

10 minutes ago, tater said:

Above I pointed out something... that the parts realistically would show an evolution, where spaceplane parts are at an endpoint (currently, until /ifwe get end of tree rocket capsules, etc). Right now, there is literally no connection I see between the 2. The story of rocket parts as a timeline as described by the tech tree is:

1. Sort of 1960s looking manned spaceflight for largest 1.25 liquid parts and the engines, albeit with godawful looking, never should have been modeled as more than a flat ring, decouplers, and the awful small tanks that need to go away. (except any 1.25m part related to spaceplanes, which look nice, because spaceplanes).

2. Apparently after coming up with a largish 1.25m tank that doesn't look awful, kerbals decided to make every single 2.5m tank aside from the jumbo from a rubbish pile. Even the jumbo makes no sense, as there is no cap for it to build the otherwise sort of complete shuttle replica they added. Yuck to that entire part of the timeline, including every engine.

3. They then decided that the largest parts would go back to being OK looking, aside from the stripes not lining up.

For spaceplane parts the timeline is:

1. Awesome, space-aged stuff right out of the box.

2. Even more awesome stuff, that perfectly matches the earlier parts such that both sizes ate 100% mix and match.

3. A space shuttle "reality mod" part set, but the smaller parts were designed for mix and match with this as well).

There is no evolution, they are all sic-fi.

Well, the problem is, you shouldn't discourage players from using older looking parts because they don't blend well with the newer looking parts. I really hope that isn't what you are suggesting.

12 minutes ago, tater said:

The mk3 parts are copies. Same number of windows, same hatch shape, etc, ad nauseum. 

If they were meant to be "kerbal" the mk3 would have been made to follow the mk1 and mk2 cockpit lines to the point of being able to use those parts as the nose (as there is a mk2 part that the 1 fits in front of. The difference between the "early" space plane parts and the mk3 is that the mk3 is LESS advanced looking.

Now you're just putting words into my mouth. Yes, the Mk3 system is obviously based on the Shuttle/Buran, but that doesn't mean they don't fit with the rest of the parts. Yes, there are differences that needed to be made as far as matching other parts go, but it's still STYLIZED WITH THE OTHER PARTS.

9 minutes ago, regex said:

Let's face it, KSP never really had a coherent style up until recently. This is not to say the art wasn't good or endearing, it just wasn't really coherent. I mean, seriously, we have three "55 gallon drums" and a shuttle orange tank for 2.5m parts. The greys aren't uniform in color, some engines have orange butts, others black, and others grey. Then we had the whole NASA parts fiasco where an offset paint job was apparently thought of as a good thing. What we're moving towards right now is an actual "style" for the game, which is good.

Once you have a style, it's a good idea to stick to it and refine it instead of shifting it.

[regex]

13 minutes ago, Andem said:

Once you have a style, it's a good idea to stick to it and refine it instead of shifting it.

Sure, but it's also important to have a style in the first place.

[tater]

10 minutes ago, Andem said:

You just twisted my words until they meant nothing. I did not imply anyhting of the sort.

You absolutely implied that. You have stated that the new parts show are not "kerbal." Kerbal is what we have now, and that means ugly rocket parts, and sleek spaceplane parts. As I said numerous ways, there is no kerbal aesthetic anyone can point at, because the difference between spaceplanes and rockets is so incredibly stark.

10 minutes ago, Andem said:

Yet again, not something I ever said or implied.

You certainly implied it. You don't like the "realistic" look of the PJ parts shown above. The mk3 parts are "realistic" in the sense that they copy a real craft, 

10 minutes ago, Andem said:

Well, the problem is, you shouldn't discourage players from using older looking parts because they don't blend well with the newer looking parts. I really hope that isn't what you are suggesting.

Then every part needs to look sleek, and modern, no exceptions.  They should probably ditch the fixed landing gear with the spats, they look "old fashioned" and we don't have prop planes.

 

10 minutes ago, Andem said:

Now you're just putting words into my mouth. Yes, the Mk3 system is obviously based on the Shuttle/Buran, but that doesn't mean they don't fit with the rest of the parts. Yes, there are differences that needed to be made as far as matching other parts go, but it's still STYLIZED WITH THE OTHER PARTS.

The mk3 is a copy of shuttle. If it followed the rest of the spaceplane aesthetic, it would merely look like a bigger part sent for the mk1-2 series. That it doesn't underlines the lack of a kerbal aesthetic. Having the same color texture doesn't make the aesthetic the same.

3 minutes ago, regex said:

Sure, but it's also important to have a style in the first place.

This is my point in a nutshell.

[Andem]

1 minute ago, regex said:

Sure, but it's also important to have a style in the first place.

Here's what you said earlier:

16 minutes ago, regex said:

Let's face it, KSP never really had a coherent style up until recently.

So which is it? Does KSP have a style or not? Because if it does, they should stick with it and refine it, and if they don't, then I'm amazed the game has gotten this far.

Just now, tater said:

You absolutely implied that. You have stated that the new parts show are not "kerbal." Kerbal is what we have now, and that means ugly rocket parts, and sleek spaceplane parts. As I said numerous ways, there is no kerbal aesthetic anyone can point at, because the difference between spaceplanes and rockets is so incredibly stark.

You certainly implied it. You don't like the "realistic" look of the PJ parts shown above. The mk3 parts are "realistic" in the sense that they copy a real craft, 

You just twisted my words until they were made meaningless again. You took what I said, and projected implications that were not there.

I never said nor implied that only ugly rocket arts were Kerbal. I said that the current rocket parts are more Kerbal than the new ones. There is a huge difference. I never said the old parts were good, but they matched up better. The new parts certainly look great, but they don't match. Why is that so hard to get across?

4 minutes ago, tater said:

Then every part needs to look sleek, and modern, no exceptions.  They should probably ditch the fixed landing gear with the spats, they look "old fashioned" and we don't have prop planes.

Look, can you please stop putting words into my mouth? The old parts were (somewhat) mixable with both the beginning and end of the tech tree, they fit both well enough.

6 minutes ago, tater said:

The mk3 is a copy of shuttle. If it followed the rest of the spaceplane aesthetic, it would merely look like a bigger part sent for the mk1-2 series. That it doesn't underlines the lack of a kerbal aesthetic. Having the same color texture doesn't make the aesthetic the same.

*Sigh* You are still just talking about the assets as if they are independant from the rest of the game. This is false. The Mk3 parts, while a copy of the shuttle, still fit the aesthetic overall. Just because the Roman upper class spoke Greek didn't make them any less Roman.

[Temeter]

13 minutes ago, Andem said:

The Mk3 parts, while a copy of the shuttle, still fit the aesthetic overall. Just because the Roman upper class spoke Greek didn't make them any less Roman.

So what's the logical connection between a high tech space shuttle and 55 gallon drum being repurposed as a fuel tank?

You know, compared to a high tech space shuttle and a low tech, slightly exaggerated rocket engine.

[tater]

20 minutes ago, Andem said:

Here's what you said earlier:

So which is it? Does KSP have a style or not? Because if it does, they should stick with it and refine it, and if they don't, then I'm amazed the game has gotten this far.

It never had a coherent style anywhere until the spaceplane parts, all the parts seemed independent from each other. Then the PJ spaceplane parts came. The spaceplane parts are coherent, nothing else.

Quote

You just twisted my words until they were made meaningless again. You took what I said, and projected implications that were not there.

I never said nor implied that only ugly rocket arts were Kerbal. I said that the current rocket parts are more Kerbal than the new ones. There is a huge difference. I never said the old parts were good, but they matched up better. The new parts certainly look great, but they don't match. Why is that so hard to get across?

You keep saying I twisted your words, when I have not twisted them at all (nor even really used them). I am taking the implication of your words, explicitly.

You claim there is a kerbal look/style/aesthetic. I claim there is not, with the exception of spaceplanes, which look awesome. If you think there is a kerbal style that includes both, then that style is by definition awesome looking planes, and terrible looking rockets.

If you want to abandon the notion of a kerbal style, that's great, we agree! Then we can talk about what the nonexistent kerbal style should be. I argued above that I think it should evolve from a "first rockets" look, to the spaceplane parts as an endpoint. 

Yes, that means I don't care at all if the lv-30 looks wrong stuck on a spaceplane. If everything needs to look spaceplane like... might as well add warp nacelles. (sorry, but I'm not a spaceplane fan until something like skylon actually flies). On the plus side, my "evolution" idea would have early plane parts added at some point that don't look like sci-fi, and those would work just fine with older looking 1.25m parts.

Quote

Look, can you please stop putting words into my mouth? The old parts were (somewhat) mixable with both the beginning and end of the tech tree, they fit both well enough.

How's the 2.5m oil barrel look on a spaceplane? I get what you are saying, but I suppose I don't care what rocket parts look like on spaceplanes. What has happened is that the PJ spaceplane parts are now basically defining "kerbal." Any part that would look wrong on a spaceplane won't work? Of the engines, is it only the redstone looking one that you dislike because of the bell shape? That's the only one that looks "old" to me (because I can see the V-2 and Redstone in it).

Myself, I'm only concerned with rockets (a bias I freely admit). That's why adding some new parts, along with a revamp is good. Have the starter 1.25m parts, then throw in some newer looking engines that work with both kinds of craft better, and some old looking plane parts (Bell X-1 type things).

Quote

*Sigh* You are still just talking about the assets as if they are independant from the rest of the game. This is false. The Mk3 parts, while a copy of the shuttle, still fit the aesthetic overall. Just because the Roman upper class spoke Greek didn't make them any less Roman.

They fit because they are the same color, that's about it. mk2 is the same form factor as mk1, but bigger. If there was a non-replica mindset for the mk3, it would have continued that trend. As it is, kerbals go in time from super streamlined, sci-fi looking plane parts that are 100 years in the future to 40 year old looking shuttle parts.

Edited September 9, 2016 by tater

[regex]

17 minutes ago, Andem said:

So which is it? Does KSP have a style or not? Because if it does, they should stick with it and refine it, and

KSP doesn't have a coherent style. You can call that a "style", but I don't. Porkjet is/was bringing a coherent style to KSP, giving it an actual style.

17 minutes ago, Andem said:

if they don't, then I'm amazed the game has gotten this far.

How many indie games have you played? Placeholders are common and KSP is famous for them, both in code and in art.

[juanml82]

I like them. KSP is in dire need of a graphics overhaul

[Andem]

23 minutes ago, Temeter said:

So what's the logical connection between a high tech space shuttle and 55 gallon drum being repurposed as a fuel tank?

You know, compared to a high tech space shuttle and a low tech, slightly exaggerated rocket engine.

Why is this so hard for people to get? I'm not trying to defend the old parts, quite frankly, they're excrement. Fuel tanks and all. But what the new parts make up for in quality, they lack in fitting the rest of the game.

20 minutes ago, tater said:

You claim there is a kerbal look/style/aesthetic. I claim there is not, with the exception of spaceplanes, which look awesome. If you think there is a kerbal style that includes both, then that style is by definition awesome looking planes, and terrible looking rockets.

If you want to abandon the notion of a kerbal style, that;s great, we agree! Then we can talk about what the nonexistent kerbal style should be. I argued above that I think it should evolve from a "first rockets" look, to the spaceplane parts as an endpoint. 

I never said that nor suggested it. The entire game has a style that is evident in it's mechanics, it's parts, out of game promo material, and it's writing (flavor text, etc.) I'm talking about the whole game not just the rocket part assets. The rocket part assets need to be brought up to snuff with the rest, but shouldn't go so far as to make the entire game look poor in comparison.

20 minutes ago, tater said:

They fit because they are the same color, that's about it. mk2 is the same form factor as mk1, but bigger. If there was a non-replica mindset for the mk3, it would have continued that trend. As it is, kerbals go in time from super streamlined, sci-fi looking plane parts that are 100 years in the future to 40 year old looking shuttle parts.

Yes, I agree that there was too much of a focus on replicas in the Mk3. But it still "fits." I'm just going to assume you don't get it, so I'm going to shut up about the Mk3 parts now.

18 minutes ago, regex said:

KSP doesn't have a coherent style. You can call that a "style", but I don't. Porkjet is/was bringing a coherent style to KSP, giving it an actual style.

Are you talking about asset style or the entire style?

 

18 minutes ago, regex said:

How many indie games have you played? Placeholders are common and KSP is famous for them, both in code and in art.

See above video. The style goes beyond the graphics and assets.

--EDIT--

Some examples: Undertale, terrible graphics, excellent aesthetic. GoW, great graphics good aesthetic. Aesthetic is not 100% attatched to the graphics. 

Edited September 9, 2016 by Andem

[regex]

4 minutes ago, Andem said:

See above video. The style goes beyond the graphics and assets.

Oh, that old argument. vOv. I prefer bac9's take on it, not the "disaster simulator" view:

Quote

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 3-man pod, at the landing legs, at 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 leads 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.

I think Porkjet is doing a fantastic job sticking with the older aesthetics of hand-drawn textures and clean, simple parts. He's keeping it "Kerbal", and the style is progressing as the game progresses (and thankfully drops out-moded paradigms like "information starvation").

[Temeter]

19 minutes ago, Andem said:

Why is this so hard for people to get? I'm not trying to defend the old parts, quite frankly, they're excrement. Fuel tanks and all. But what the new parts make up for in quality, they lack in fitting the rest of the game.

That's not my question, not suprised you're confused. I'm asking how the excrementsty old parts fit an artstyle in common with high tech parts, while the newer ones don't?

 

Here is the thing: In my game, kerbals are conquering space building crazy rockets and constructions. They are pretty advanced I'd say.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Temeter

[tater]

@Andem Could I not complain that spaceplane parts don't look good stuck to my oil barrel looking rockets, then ask for those parts to be changed to match, so that when I use a plane part stuck to the oil barrel, it doesn't look jarring?

That's the problem, spaceplanes are taken as THE style, and rockets must conform so that planes look OK with rocket parts, but the converse is not true (you said the parts should fit with the others, so shouldn't the (new) spaceplane parts ft with the old, crappy parts). What if I think the spaceplane parts are in fact too futuristic? I actually think this, but then again, spaceplanes are magic anyway (I don't see any spaceplane launch dates on the schedule right now).

Edited September 9, 2016 by tater

[Andem]

4 minutes ago, regex said:

Oh, that old argument. vOv. I prefer bac9's take on it, not the "disaster simulator" view:

You msinterpret... KSP is not a disaster simulator, it's a spaceflight simulator that happens to allow disasters to occur. There's a difference. I don't play KSP for the disasters, I play around them unless they provide something interesting to deal with.

5 minutes ago, regex said:

I think Porkjet is doing a fantastic job sticking with the older aesthetics of hand-drawn textures and clean, simple parts. He's keeping it "Kerbal", and the style is progressing as the game progresses (and thankfully drops out-moded paradigms like "information starvation").

I think that the spaceplane parts are excellent right now, they fit the rest of the game quite nicely. I don't see why the rocket parts shouldn't look so much like the spaceplane parts.

6 minutes ago, Temeter said:

That's not my question, not suprised you're confused. I'm asking how the excrementsty old parts fit an artstyle in common with high tech parts, while the newer ones don't?

Some of the parts don't blend well with each other at all, I admit that. The fuel tanks have especially been needing a rework. The engines in particular blended better though. Basically, you could look past the engine's shortcomings because they seemed good enough. The fuel tanks, on the other hand, did not. My BDB example is what I think the best middle ground is.

8 minutes ago, tater said:

@Andem Could I not complain that spaceplane parts don't look good stuck to my oil barrel looking rockets, then ask for those parts to be changed to match, so that when I use a plane part stuck to the oil barrel, it doesn't look jarring?

That's the problem, spaceplanes are taken as THE style, and rockets must conform so that planes look OK with rocket parts, but the converse is not true (you said the parts should fit with the others, so shouldn't the (new) spaceplane parts ft with the old, crappy parts). What if I think the spaceplane parts are in fact too futuristic? I actually think this, but then again, spaceplanes are magic anyway (I don't see any spaceplane launch dates on the schedule right now).

No disagreement. I'm saying the engines should match the spaceplane style, and shouldn't have an independant style either. The game will do better if the style is more wholistic, which is what I thought the point of the rocket revamp was supposed to be. I never said what you said I said.

[Temeter]

1 minute ago, Andem said:

Some of the parts don't blend well with each other at all, I admit that. The fuel tanks have especially been needing a rework. The engines in particular blended better though. Basically, you could look past the engine's shortcomings because they seemed good enough. The fuel tanks, on the other hand, did not. My BDB example is what I think the best middle ground is.

The fuel tanks are 80% of a rockets look tho.

Also no, the old rocket engines don't look good either and I'm happy for them to get replaced. The new ones look a lot better, while following a similar style with more modern graphics.

[Alshain]

@taterThe NASA Shuttle was a space plane.  So is the DreamChaser, which is still in development despite losing the NASA grant.  Perhaps you meant SSTO? But plane parts can be used to make shuttles, not just SSTO, so how are they magic?   I agree the plane parts are the only real aesthetic in the game, and the rocket parts are a conglomeration of random aesthetic points that don't fit together.  If KSP has an aesthetic, it's the plane parts, not the rocket parts.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Alshain

[Andem]

2 minutes ago, Temeter said:

The fuel tanks are 80% of a rockets look tho.

Also no, the old rocket engines don't look good either and I'm happy for them to get replaced. The new ones look a lot better, while following a similar style with more modern graphics.

I'm not saying that they fit perfectly, that would be silly, but I'm saying that they matched well enough. I'm seriously not saying that the old rocket parts were good, and I'm not defending them. I said earlier in the thread that I would have no issue if it was more akin to @passinglurker's MoarMk1. I would have no issue if the Engines had a LOD on par with BDB and the fuel tanks were like MoarMk1. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.

[tater]

7 minutes ago, Alshain said:

@taterThe NASA Shuttle was a space plane.  So is the DreamChaser, which is still in development despite losing the NASA grant.  Perhaps you meant SSTO? But plane parts can be used to make shuttles, not just SSTO, so how are they magic?   I agree the plane parts are the only real aesthetic in the game, and the rocket parts are a conglomeration of random aesthetic points that don't fit together.  If KSP has an aesthetic, it's the plane parts, not the rocket parts.

Yeah, I know they generally consider gliders spaceplanes, but I don't. By that definition Gemini with the parasail would have been a spaceplane. I don;t require SSTO for it to be a spaceplane, I think I require HTHL, or at the least VTHL under it's own power. I would consider early Shuttle concepts where the orbiter was on the back of another aircraft a spaceplane, for example. There's another thread about this issue. In the KSP world, spaceplanes are magic, however.

I agree that to the extent there is any aesthetic that is coherent in KSP it's planes now.

[Temeter]

3 minutes ago, Andem said:

I'm not saying that they fit perfectly, that would be silly, but I'm saying that they matched well enough. I'm seriously not saying that the old rocket parts were good, and I'm not defending them. I said earlier in the thread that I would have no issue if it was more akin to @passinglurker's MoarMk1. I would have no issue if the Engines had a LOD on par with BDB and the fuel tanks were like MoarMk1. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.

You only see the engine nozzle with BDB, and they are relatively realistic. Only difference is that the engine mechanics are basically hidden inside the rocket.

So what exactly do are you asking for?

[tater]

9 minutes ago, Andem said:

I'm not saying that they fit perfectly, that would be silly, but I'm saying that they matched well enough. I'm seriously not saying that the old rocket parts were good, and I'm not defending them. I said earlier in the thread that I would have no issue if it was more akin to @passinglurker's MoarMk1. I would have no issue if the Engines had a LOD on par with BDB and the fuel tanks were like MoarMk1. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case.

So rocket parts should look like a spaceplane mod's take on rocket parts? How about rocket parts look like rocket parts... Unlike spaceplanes (with my definition caveat above!), we have actual rocket parts to look at.

My ideal aesthetic would be a sort of retro-future look, but making sure that every single part fit kerbals, including all hatches. (with helmets, otherwise the hatches should not be allowed to open in space, ever).

Of the engines, I actually like the 1.25m ones the best... before I stopped using all of them altogether (I have), I never used the poodle, for example, even when there was not another choice... it was simply too ugly.