Can we talk about simplicity?

[Wjolcz]

Now, I don't want to start another parts revamp thread. We already have a few of these. What I want to talk about is the simplicity of the parts. Let's take take the HH as an example.

Does this thing really have to look like this? The handle bars around the top and bottom dark rings are not usable anyway. And the gold foil needs to be covered to not look as if it was the only thing between the interior and the vacuum of space.

Just keep in mind I'm not trying to make a rant of some sort. What I want to say is all the parts, including rocket, MK2 and MK3, should have as simplistic style as possible just so they can be put together and always look good. Right now it's not really possible. If you want to make a plane with hitchhikers as crew modules they will look out of place.

To sum up: simplicity would be a nice way of solving the issue with all the parts not looking nice when put together. Simple cylinders with the white+grey+black (+orange accents from time to time) pattern would work best and the textures could be reused in many cases, thus making any part revamp easier to deal with.

Edited December 26, 2016 by Veeltch

[tseitsei89]

2 hours ago, Veeltch said:

If you want to make a plane with hitchhikers as crew modules they will look out of place.

That might be because hitchhikers are not meant to be used as plane parts but rather as habitation modules in spacestations or planetary bases. That is also why they are really quite draggy. They are not designed to be used in atmospheric flight

[Wjolcz]

9 hours ago, tseitsei89 said:

That might be because hitchhikers are not meant to be used as plane parts but rather as habitation modules in spacestations or planetary bases. That is also why they are really quite draggy. They are not designed to be used in atmospheric flight

That's true. But I think the game should allow for as many design choices as possible. The hitchhiker could look good on stations and planes.

[tseitsei89]

53 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

That's true. But I think the game should allow for as many design choices as possible. The hitchhiker could look good on stations and planes.

I kind of disagree here. Some parts are (and IMO should be) designed to be used in vacuum and some parts in the vacuum.

IMO there should be even more of that in game. I mean like having some parts that are designed to vacuum use only (like hitchhiker) and they would break up by heat/aerodynamic forces if used in atmospheric flight. You would need to protect them with fairings/cargobays on the way up through the atmosphere.

And make reentry hotter and make it so that only parts that are designed for reentry can survive it. Now you can just pretty much throw any parts (well there are few exceptions but mostly true) in to the atmosphere from LKO and they will be fine. If you want to reenter something more delicate you need to put it in a cargobay/servicebay and protect it with heatshield.

But yeah we all have our own opinions about what this game should be like so I understand that you might want something totally different and it's ok

[Wjolcz]

3 hours ago, tseitsei89 said:

I kind of disagree here. Some parts are (and IMO should be) designed to be used in vacuum and some parts in the vacuum.

IMO there should be even more of that in game. I mean like having some parts that are designed to vacuum use only (like hitchhiker) and they would break up by heat/aerodynamic forces if used in atmospheric flight. You would need to protect them with fairings/cargobays on the way up through the atmosphere.

And make reentry hotter and make it so that only parts that are designed for reentry can survive it. Now you can just pretty much throw any parts (well there are few exceptions but mostly true) in to the atmosphere from LKO and they will be fine. If you want to reenter something more delicate you need to put it in a cargobay/servicebay and protect it with heatshield.

But yeah we all have our own opinions about what this game should be like so I understand that you might want something totally different and it's ok

Yeah, fair enough. Still, I'm talking about the style not other properties.

Back to the parts revamp thread I go then!

Edited December 27, 2016 by Veeltch

[GoSlash27]

8 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Yeah, fair enough. Still, I'm talking about the style not other properties.

Back to the parts revamp thread I go then!

 Veeltch,

 I think your suggestion is one that has been raised before and Squad is aware of. The "clunkiness" of the rocket parts was intentional. They were supposed to give the feel of a junkyard space program where everything is jury- rigged and highly suspect. The sleek and shiny NASA and PorkJet parts were added afterwards and the two styles don't work together.

 I think this is why PorkJet is busy revamping the rocket parts so that everything will share the "simple and modern" aesthetic you're talking about.

Best,
-Slashy

[Wjolcz]

6 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

 Veeltch,

 I think your suggestion is one that has been raised before and Squad is aware of. The "clunkiness" of the rocket parts was intentional. They were supposed to give the feel of a junkyard space program where everything is jury- rigged and highly suspect. The sleek and shiny NASA and PorkJet parts were added afterwards and the two styles don't work together.

 I think this is why PorkJet is busy revamping the rocket parts so that everything will share the "simple and modern" aesthetic you're talking about.

Best,
-Slashy

Firstl of all, the style was never meant to be clunky. It's just that the creators of the parts never fully made up their minds about how the parts should look like.

Second of all, as far as I know PorkJet doesn't work for SQUAD anymore. He made the plane parts, revamped a few rocket parts and left for some other project.

That is why, IMO, the style should be as simple as possible (but still look nice) just so it's easy to follow whenever a new artist is hired and the previous ones are no longer there to continue their work.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Veeltch

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

While I do see where you're coming from on some of the parts (it really is unnecessary for rocket tanks to have barrel rims), I think the Hitchhiker is alright as is. I think the foil is just supposed to be part of a structure that surrounds the pressure vessel (as evidenced by the IVA showing "ceilings" and "floors" that are flat and definitely not foil. The handles contribute to the spacey look. As forusing on a plane, well, doesn't that mean you'd have to rework the IVA too? Otherwise the Kerbals are hanging/lying on the walls with a giant empty space in a very odd configuration for an aircraft. Perhaps simply a different part would be good for planes?

Edited December 28, 2016 by EpicSpaceTroll139

[Wjolcz]

7 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

While I do see where you're coming from on some of the parts (it really is unnecessary for rocket tanks to have barrel rims), I think the Hitchhiker is alright as is. I think the foil is just supposed to be part of a structure that surrounds the pressure vessel (as evidenced by the IVA showing "ceilings" and "floors" that are flat and definitely not foil. The handles contribute to the spacey look. As forusing on a plane, well, doesn't that mean you'd have to rework the IVA too? Otherwise the Kerbals are hanging/lying on the walls with a giant empty space in a very odd configuration for an aircraft. Perhaps simply a different part would be good for planes?

I would have nothing against that actually. HH's IVA doesn't make much sense anyway. The crew sits in a way any significant acceleration would break their spines. The best apporach to do this would be either to relocate them to a "laying" position (a'la any spacecraft designed by a sane person) or like it is in planes that are meant to do something else than just transport passangers. There's no up and down in space anyway. Assuming the seats could rotate to adjust for the acceleration we give one part two new purposes. Not only it is now a station part, but can also be used with planes and bases. The only thing to do would be to change the outside looks to make one of these functions dominating others less apparent.

[tseitsei89]

3 hours ago, Veeltch said:

I would have nothing against that actually. HH's IVA doesn't make much sense anyway. The crew sits in a way any significant acceleration would break their spines. The best apporach to do this would be either to relocate them to a "laying" position (a'la any spacecraft designed by a sane person).

But once again you miss the point of HH part completely!

Kerbals are not meant to be there during the launch so their spine breaking is not a problem here. It is a habitation moduke where kerbals can live during the long spaceflight. There should be seperate cockpit/crew pod for kerbals to sit during launch and landing...

[Wjolcz]

2 hours ago, tseitsei89 said:

But once again you miss the point of HH part completely!

I'm not talking about HH only.

2 hours ago, tseitsei89 said:

Kerbals are not meant to be there during the launch so their spine breaking is not a problem here. It is a habitation moduke where kerbals can live during the long spaceflight. There should be seperate cockpit/crew pod for kerbals to sit during launch and landing...

Who said so?

[Kerbart]

32 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Who said so?

The in-game description clearly states without any provision for return and while that does not explicitly excludes launching, the how do we store 4 kerbals on orbit part suggests operation in a stable environment (orbit/surface) and not transport to/from. Of course it's fine to use it for that anyway, but from a role-playing perspective I wouldn't treat it as a launch/landing vehicle per sé  (and neither does the interior). Of course, people were also screaming at 1.0 for making the Mk I lander can unfit for re-entry (when it clearly says it's not intended for that) which puts the whole value of the in-game descriptions into question, but that's for a different thread.

I'm on board with giving it a porkjet-style overhaul. And either the handles become functional or they should be ditched, absolutely!

[tseitsei89]

1 hour ago, Veeltch said:

I'm not talking about HH only.

Who said so?

Are you actually serious right now?

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/PPD-10_Hitchhiker_Storage_Container

1. It is missing a command module so actually HAVE TO have a seperate crew pod for launch. --> it is not designed to be used in launch --> it is a habitation module.

2.Part description says its purpose is to "store 4 kerbals in orbit" --> it is a habitation module

3. Wiki refers to it as habitation module. --> it probably is a habitation module

4. It is too draggy to be efficiently used in airplanes --> it was designed to be used in vacuum --> it is a habitation module.

5. As you yourseld said kerbals couldnt really sit there during launch without dying. --> They are not supposed to sit there during launch --> it is a habitation module.

For godness sake it is quite obvious ro see that it is a habitation module just by looking at it.

If you really think it was not meant to be a habitation module rather than launch pod, I'm done with this discussion.

P.S. It probably is a habitation module

[nascarlaser1]

1 hour ago, tseitsei89 said:

Are you actually serious right now?

I think he is, and I use em for the same purposes as he does . It doesn't matter what it was meant to be used for, it just matters what our imagination allows us to use it for!

Edited December 28, 2016 by nascarlaser1

[klgraham1013]

I agree that a consistent art style would be beneficial to the lego-style ethos KSP seems to have.

Edited December 28, 2016 by klgraham1013

[tseitsei89]

1 hour ago, nascarlaser1 said:

I think he is, and I use em for the same purposes as he does . It doesn't matter what it was meant to be used for, it just matters what our imagination allows us to use it for!

Yes definitely you can use it to whatever you want BUT if you use a part for something it wasnt designed for you shouldnt be surprised and complain if it "looks out of place" or doesnt work properly...

[nascarlaser1]

1 hour ago, tseitsei89 said:

Yes definitely you can use it to whatever you want BUT if you use a part for something it wasnt designed for you shouldnt be surprised and complain if it "looks out of place" or doesnt work properly...

good point .

Edited December 28, 2016 by nascarlaser1

[Magzimum]

I agree with the things @tseitsei89 said.

If you want to change the hitchhikers storage container, so that it has more realistic looks that match its purpose, which is exclusively in vacuum, it should be covered in gold foil on ALL sides. All structural panels on the outside should be removed. Its drag should be increased by a lot. It should be carried into the vacuum of space inside a fairing. Impact tolerance should be lowered. It should be designed so that it breaks up upon atmospheric re-entry outside a cargo bay. No Kerbals should be allowed inside it during launch (or re-entry). 

It is a storage device for Kerbals in space. The orientation, description, internal seating arrangement all point towards application of this part in space, not airplanes. We don't have enough 2.5m plane parts (I'd like one or two extra LF tanks), but revamping the HH container is not the solution.

There are however a few good reasons to make it look and act like it does:

1. Most of us are not nearly good enough with EVA-jetpacks to not crash into the sides of a HH container when we approach it. If it was as flimsy as I proposed, our clumsy Kerbals should then realistically destroy their rescue pods when they approach it (and inevitably miss the handles).
2. The current looks allows it to be used as a space station module as well, with a longer lifespan than a one-time-use container to store Kerbals. In other words, it looks like stuff on the ISS, even though the description does not suggest such application. So, the devs already simplified things.
3. The learning curve is steep enough already. There is no need to make it even harder by adding all the restrictions that I proposed above.

You just cannot have a lightweight storage for Kerbals in space, a space station habitat and an airplane passenger module in one part, and make it look like it's right in all three such applications.

And again, personally, I like the current rugged looks of many of the parts. 

[Harry Rhodan]

13 hours ago, tseitsei89 said:

For godness sake it is quite obvious ro see that it is a habitation module just by looking at it.

P.S. It probably is a habitation module

I have to strongly disagree with you here. To me it looks more like a habitation module.

[The_Rocketeer]

If it's a habitation module, where are the bunks?

But to get off the HH debate...

I actually like the stylised approach to KSP's parts - parts made by the same manufacturer (e.g. Rockomax) should look like sets, sure, but each manufacturer should have a different style so a craft built using only those parts will have a totally different aesthetic from crafts built using the parts of another manufacturer. Mixing and matching manufacturers could produce some really ugly beasts, sure, but equally it gives the freedom to discover some really elegant design solutions. Personally I think adapter parts qualify for a manufacturer niche of their own.

Back in the day, basically all the parts had terrible textures and looked pretty awful next to each other, especially to eyes used to contemporary games (Battlefield 2 etc). Did that affect the popularity or success of the game? Not in the least - KSP has never met such critical acclaim as in those pre-release days.

[monstah]

14 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I actually like the stylised approach to KSP's parts - parts made by the same manufacturer (e.g. Rockomax) should look like sets, sure, but each manufacturer should have a different style so a craft built using only those parts will have a totally different aesthetic from crafts built using the parts of another manufacturer.

I agree. My only dislike about stock looks is the "junkyard philosophy" behind many parts (even in the description text)

[Matuchkin]

This is a great idea. If we can get all parts to be a similar shade, not put so many trinkets on their exteriors, remove edges, rails and borders, we can make a great set of parts that look good in any configuration. I'm all for that.

If only we had porkjet.

[monstah]

To be honest, I like the greebles and trinkets. What I mean by "junkyard philosophy" is the pervasive idea that Kerbals are DUMB LOL and just throw stuff they found lying around toward space.

I don't even know what makes it so pervasive; sure, the game has some descriptions that emphasize it ("found lying by the road", etc.), but are those (and the existence of  "Stupidity" stat) enough to give off such an impression that #lolsokerbal?

[KSK]

50 minutes ago, monstah said:

To be honest, I like the greebles and trinkets. What I mean by "junkyard philosophy" is the pervasive idea that Kerbals are DUMB LOL and just throw stuff they found lying around toward space.

I don't even know what makes it so pervasive; sure, the game has some descriptions that emphasize it ("found lying by the road", etc.), but are those (and the existence of  "Stupidity" stat) enough to give off such an impression that #lolsokerbal?

This comic (drawn by one Capt'n Skunky) might have something to do with it too. Also back in the early days (as in back before I bought the full game), the lack of parts did give everything that cobbled together look - because they were. Tottering stacks of barely held together boosters were the order of the day because that's what you needed to get to orbit, let alone anywhere else.

I don't mind the 'parts found by the side of the road' meme in moderation - it has a certain British Interplanetary Society or Copenhagen Suborbitals charm to it. But, like you, I strongly dislike its 'kerbals are dumb - lol' popular connotations.

 

[monstah]

32 minutes ago, KSK said:

Tottering stacks of barely held together boosters were the order of the day because that's what you needed to get to orbit, let alone anywhere else.

Yeah, I jumped in the boat on 0.17, and you're right. Things had a definite junkyard feel mainly because things were junkyard builds. But, even when I learned nosecones only held you down, I figured it was so marginal I could afford to keep my rockets looking the at least slightest like rockets.

Am I making @Veeltch's point here or am I arguing against it? I don't even know anymore