Making History preview - critique and discussion

[CobaltWolf]

11 minutes ago, PocketBrotector said:

Pretty sure that was me (via Reddit); and I have to say that the detailed discussion, and relatively respectful disagreement, in this thread is way more useful in helping me understand what the objections/critiques of the new parts are.

Louis-something? I think?

 

11 minutes ago, PocketBrotector said:

If it's really as simple as showing wear-and-tear on the textures at high zoom, and a few other fairly fine details... well, I'm not assuming that the previewed versions of the parts are completely final. They were presented with minimal commentary and so it's an open question whether or not Squad still intends to do finishing touches on the textures, or the models for that matter. I personally am more interested in the other information conveyed by the post (i.e. we are getting official 5m and 1.875m parts) than I am concerned about the question of whether those parts as they exist at this point in time are perfect, especially given that we have no idea when all this is going to be released. That's not to say that it's wrong to critique the work as it stands right now, but rather that we should at least be mindful of the possibility that the critiques may become moot as they may have been planning on changing or refining the textures anyway.

Since the inspiration for this was Bac9's critique of the Tier-0 space center buildings, we wanted to jump on this as fast as possible while there was as much time left to correct things. If they wanted to show something WIP, that's fine (though I doubt it) but then why not add that disclaimer? No, from my POV better to voice criticism now since once they're released it will be even more difficult to fix this.

 

11 minutes ago, PocketBrotector said:

It also occurs to me that the DLC, which is explicitly a historical-replica pack, may not be following the exact same style intentions as the base game, which is much more focused on mix-and-match Lego-style modularity. (Certain stock parts are fairly explicit in their influence, such as the Mk3 shuttle or 3.75m SLS parts, but many others are pretty generic). We've seen a hint of that already, with indications that the LEM is going to have built-in RCS and some internal LFO storage; to some, that's heresy, but personally I'm okay with the notion that some content is going to be slightly more purpose-driven in the DLC. It's entirely possible that the textures of the Saturn tanks are going to be influenced in the same way: if they're explicitly intended for use in an expendable launcher, perhaps it makes sense that they have a clean paint job with no wear-and-tear. (That's not to say that this hypothetical approach won't have it's drawbacks - perhaps the new parts won't fit in seamlessly with base-game parts, which would be a bummer.)

Yes but the game's artstyle should be consistent, even if the individual functions of the parts isn't. For what its worth, the LEM design in particular is almost impossible to create without integrating RCS because otherwise you're left with just a variant of the Mk1 lander can - the shape is defined by those arms.

In computer graphics, you almost always add wear and weathering to things. That gives them 'life' and the aesthetic appeal of feeling like they're a real object in an environment. The parts will be subject to scuff marks while assembly, environmental weathering during transport (say, to the pad) etc. The existing rocket parts in the stock game certainly have evidence of that, but they are lower quality and thus don't present them in such a detailed way. I don't think that the weathering on the spaceplane parts are a result of them being reusable, its just aesthetic to make them more visually appealing.

 

11 minutes ago, PocketBrotector said:

Lastly I understand that it's painful that Squad has been in a state of radio silence about whether the rocket part overhaul will ever be resumed. But that was the case for months before these DLC parts were previewed, and there's no reason to believe it's going to change anytime soon. We can rake Squad over the coals for having an inconsistent art style if we want (and the criticism would be warranted in my opinion) but the scope and stakes of the hypothetical overhaul would be a lot larger than just fuel tank textures - among other things, it would replace the existing engine balance entirely by adding new engines and adjusting the roles of several existing engines, not to mention move from a tankbutt-based system to a clusterable surface-attached paradigm. That would be welcomed if it happened, but we've been given zero indication that Squad still intends to move forward with these enormous, fundamental changes to the way rockets would be constructed in KSP. We don't even know if we going to have to live with the godawful 2.5m oil drums forever. So given that I'm resigned to the wildly inconsistent existing stock art for the foreseeable future, I'm okay with evaluating these parts on their own rather than comparing them to an unimplemented style standard.

If they don't plan on completely it (even though, to my understanding, Chris left material intended to guide subsequent artists to completely his effort) they should say so, because then this entire discussion is somewhat moot. Frankly, even just a general update to the textures to homogenize their styles would GREATLY improve the game's visuals, even without the new engine systems, or PBR shaders, etc. The redone size 1 fuel tanks, pod, etc are drop in replacements as is. Why were they released seperately and not simply integrated into the stock game? It wouldn't have caused further harm with the inconsistent art styles, since it would be effectively replacing on without adding another one into the mix.

You shouldn't be resigned to accepting the current inconsistent textures, because its something that is completely doable. The style standard was implemented in the spaceplane parts, which are some of the only decent looking parts in the stock game. Why should newly created parts take a step backward in quality?

I want answers from Squad. Even if I don't like them.

 

[tater]

I have to agree that PorkJet's spaceplane style is now a sort of benchmark since there are so many parts, it's the single most consistent style.

That doesn't mean that all parts have to match the plane parts exactly, but they should play nice, since mix and match is a thing. It's tough, because rockets should tend to predate magical spaceplanes, and hence could look "lower tech," but unless texture switching was a thing, it's not really fair to "later" designs, as they then have to combine early looking parts, with purpose-build, "high tech" parts.

The 3 different versions of each engine in the PJ update that was orphaned (or whatever) makes sense in the same way, because you can then use the same part in different ways on different crafts. SSTU switching is awesome in this regard (clustering support, many alternate mounts available, etc). For the stock "lego" feel, this might be best accomplished via a mount part with a single interstage node (for the decoupler), and variable numbers of 1.25m nodes for engines---and have all the 2.5m engines dropped to a 1.25m base size. The single 3.75m engine can be 2.5m (base) for clustering.

[passinglurker]

17 minutes ago, PocketBrotector said:

In the interest of keeping the conversation respectful and productive, I suggest that you avoid dismissing others' comments as "kneejerk reactions" and instead respond to them on their merits. Particularly as you admit that your own arguments were incomplete - it's on each of us to explain and defend our positions clearly to each other.

In an ideal world yes but unfortunately it's become commonplace on the public internet for people to follow thier gut and not look back and as a result it's necessary to attempt to compensate which is why I used the overhaul parts as references instead of leaning solely on the space plane parts

[Stone Blue]

1 hour ago, klesh said:

I prefer to look at it as what is actually in the game and what isn't.  

Lol, yes thats exactly what I said.  C'mon man.

SO, then by that reasoning, Squad should have just stuck with the "look" of parts from version 0.17, or even earlier, and not bothered to tweak/improve/change them, because the new changes werent already in the game?

Thats pretty much what "I" meant...

[tater]

I would think that from the standpoint of the DLC, and whatever game version it is minimally compatible with (1.3+?), any parts in the DLC should look nice with stock parts in the mix.

If an otherwise cool looking "apollo" like craft would look like junk if you used, say, any of the stock 2.5m tanks at all, then those stock tanks need to be redone in a consistent stye. I suppose the same should be true of space planes. If you can throw an R7 side booster not some spaceplane (I don't do planes, but I could see that having appeal to those that do, because they are pointy and cool looking), then they would presumably match.

[Vanamonde]

Please stop @-pinging RoverDude in post after post. He's trying to work. 

[Bonus Eventus]

Overall it's pretty good. I think it's a hard job that Roverdude was given, considering how many styles were already in play. Also, it's asking a lot to expect Roverdude copy Pork Jet's style. 

Here's my feedback:

• Less is more. Take out the large bolts on the orange and gray endcap panels. Too noisy. Also, messes up scale.
• Remove the conduit cables and box. Leave it up to the imagination. 
• Add more dirt and scratches to increase visual interest and increase the experience of scale.
• The quad adapter cones have too much distortion with the vertical striping. I think just go for a solid color, at least at the top where the distortion is worse.

Like I said, it's good already. These changes are minor but I think it would really tighten up the texturing to add that final 5% of finish.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Bonus Eventus

[passinglurker]

10 minutes ago, Bonus Eventus said:

Less is more. Take out the large bolts on the orange and gray endcap panels. Too noisy. Also, messes up scale.

Its a amazing how much difference those bolts make and its not even a laborious thing we are asking in haveing them removed. Just flick thier layer's hide button in photoshop, re-export the texture, and done.

Edited April 3, 2017 by passinglurker

[Foxster]

They could be pink with dots all over for all I care. I'm just grateful there will new parts. 

[passinglurker]

27 minutes ago, Foxster said:

They could be pink with dots all over for all I care. I'm just grateful there will new parts. 

Well if you are apathetic about it you wouldn't mind the changes I am encouraging right? It's not really asking for much.

[Foxster]

Just now, passinglurker said:

Well if you are apathetic about it you wouldn't mind the changes I am encouraging right? It's not really asking for much.

Actually, yes, I do mind. It is only a personal preference but if a dev was to either spend time tweaking a texture or squeezing another part into the next build then I'd infinitely rather have the extra part. 

If you are bothered about the some appearance details then I'd encourage you to make a mod. 

[CobaltWolf]

Just now, Foxster said:

Actually, yes, I do mind. It is only a personal preference but if a dev was to either spend time tweaking a texture or squeezing another part into the next build then I'd infinitely rather have the extra part. 

If you are bothered about the some appearance details then I'd encourage you to make a mod. 

The list of parts for the DLC has likely been set for months.

Except, the appearance of the stock parts dictates what mods have to look like.

[Stone Blue]

43 minutes ago, Foxster said:

They could be pink with dots all over for all I care. I'm just grateful there will new parts. 

Hmmm... well, then you could replace every texture file in the Squad Parts folder, with a plain white, 4x4 pixel texture, and probably increase your game performance BIGGLY...

[tater]

A modder can use any texture look he wants.

Squad is supposed to make the game have an overall designed feel to it. 

Different part manufacturers can have different looks, as can the nominal KSC parts, vs any Soviet-inspired parts in the DLC, up to a point.

The problem is that since they all have to mix and match, they might be more alike than not for the sake of mix and match, and regardless, they should all have an identical template in terms of detail, weathering, etc.

In addition, they need to all play nice with the stock game. For planes, this is not a problem, planes look nice. Rockets in KSP look awful, however. So the choice is to make new rocket parts look awful to match, or sacrifice mix and match and make them not look awful, or some bizarre combination (say, better models, with nicer textures, but the textures don't play well with stock rockets, and are not identical to stock spaceplanes).

[minepagan]

8 minutes ago, tater said:

A modder can use any texture look he wants.

But he isn't a modder. This isn't a mod. This is a DLC, and he is a squad employee working on it. He can use "any texture look he wants." Not if he wants to keep getting paid, anyway.

[tater]

17 minutes ago, minepagan said:

But he isn't a modder. This isn't a mod. This is a DLC, and he is a squad employee working on it. He can use "any texture look he wants." Not if he wants to keep getting paid, anyway.

That was the entire point of my making a distinction between modder who can make parts look like "whatever," and Squad, who should make parts to identical standards (including the DLC, and the base game).

Edited April 3, 2017 by tater

[Stone Blue]

14 minutes ago, minepagan said:

But he isn't a modder. This isn't a mod. This is a DLC, and he is a squad employee working on it. He can use "any texture look he wants." Not if he wants to keep getting paid, anyway.

Yup... Squad devs/artists should be allowed some artistic "license" to add their own touches, but if we can expect mismatched, looks from every new dev, as they come and go, thats a pretty sad business model...

[Foxster]

1 minute ago, Stone Blue said:

Yup... Squad devs/artists should be allowed some artistic "license" to add their own touches, but if we can expect mismatched, looks from every new dev, as they come and go, thats a pretty sad business model...

You think the re-used SpaceX boosters will exactly match the payloads they launch?

I think part of the KSP "charm" is the slight mismatch between parts. 

[HebaruSan]

3 minutes ago, Foxster said:

You think the re-used SpaceX boosters will exactly match the payloads they launch?

On the launch pad, with the fairings on? Yes.

[Foxster]

11 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

On the launch pad, with the fairings on? Yes.

I don't think so. Here's a reused booster ready to go. 

...but we digress. 

[tater]

55 minutes ago, Foxster said:

You think the re-used SpaceX boosters will exactly match the payloads they launch?

I think part of the KSP "charm" is the slight mismatch between parts. 

I'm entirely fine with a designed mismatch between different manufacturers. The underlaying texture quality, weathering style, etc, has to be identical. The mismatch is material differences, and color schemes, nothing more. Weathering is weathering, and if boosters all get sooty, then all spaceplanes should be sooty, even the first launch (for reasons).

39 minutes ago, Foxster said:

I don't think so. Here's a reused booster ready to go. 

...but we digress. 

No, here's a flown booster, ready to go:

 

Edited April 3, 2017 by tater

[Foxster]

We really need something like those little airbrakes in the stock game. 

[tater]

5 minutes ago, Foxster said:

We really need something like those little airbrakes in the stock game. 

If there is a LES for the Soviet style parts in the DLC, then there will be grid fins, though they might be part of the LES, and not separate parts.

 

[PocketBrotector]

On 4/2/2017 at 2:45 PM, CobaltWolf said:

You shouldn't be resigned to accepting the current inconsistent textures, because its something that is completely doable. The style standard was implemented in the spaceplane parts, which are some of the only decent looking parts in the stock game. Why should newly created parts take a step backward in quality?

I want answers from Squad. Even if I don't like them.

You make a lot of good points, but I'd like to clarify one thing in particular: when I referred to an "unimplemented style standard", I was referring to the standard that was unimplemented, not the style. I don't disagree that they are certain art style(s) in the base game that new parts should ideally adhere to, but the very fact that we're still complaining about the 2.5m oil drums, and all the other remaining archeological layers, means that there's no implemented unifying standard.

There was one planned via the rocket part overhaul, yes, which would have brought the rocket parts in line with Porkjet's style... but we've received zero indication from Squad as to whether they're still pursuing that in any fashion. We simply have no idea what their priorities are here - that's why I personally have hopes for better and more consistent art, but no particular expectations.

[tater]

Yeah, I think the PJ parts get the nod as "the" style simply because they are the largest single batch of parts that have any consistency at all---I don't mean the color, etc, but the "feel" of the parts (sleek, space age look, albeit cartoony). They look like quality aerospace parts, not junk from a scrapyard.

Any attempt to make new parts (the DLC in this case) mimic any of the style elements of the extant rocket parts (notably anything that is 2.5m) is a mistake, IMHO. First fix those parts, then make the DLC match. Really, the worst parts by far are the 2.5m parts, tanks and engines. And the lander. Yuck.

Edited April 3, 2017 by tater