Making History preview - critique and discussion

[Ten Key]

4 hours ago, passinglurker said:

Its a amazing how much difference those bolts make and its not even a laborious thing we are asking in haveing them removed.

Those aren't bolts. They're rivets.  

[basic.syntax]

While thinking about repurposed oil drums and mis-aligned bolts, I remembered this glossy article about the nuts, bolts, and imperfections of the Apollo-era F-1 engine. 
 

Quote

 

"Their ability to withstand imperfection, too," said Betts. "There were a few things on the engine that we disassembled, where today you may throw that part away because of the imperfections, but it goes to show that they fully understood what the big drivers were in their design. That's one thing we were trying to get knowledge on: what imperfections were OK to live with versus what imperfections are going to give us problems?"

"Like with the injector," said Case, speaking of the 44-inch (1.1 meter) metal plate that spewed the propellent into the engine's nozzle. "There are hundreds of holes drilled into the main injector—all drilled by hand, too. And one of the holes you can actually see where the drill bit came down at the wrong spot, and the guy just stopped—you can see where he moved over to where the hole was supposed to be and finished drilling the hole. They kept that and would have flown with that engine. Those kinds of things were pretty neat."

 

[passinglurker]

4 hours ago, Ten Key said:

Those aren't bolts. They're rivets.  

not bad but a fuel tank's pressure vessel would use welds, and if I'm wrong about that then I assume from the pics of the saturn tanks I looked up and subsequently used in my critique that the insulation would cover and conceal any fasteners anyway.

[Enceos]

In the end some people will buy the DLC for the added functionality, some for the new parts. The more appealing and stockalike the parts are the more people will be willing to spend their money on the DLC.

I hope the new parts have proper Specular Maps.

[Bonus Eventus]

6 hours ago, Ten Key said:

Those aren't bolts. They're rivets.  

remove those too

[tater]

15 minutes ago, Enceos said:

In the end some people will buy the DLC for the added functionality, some for the new parts. The more appealing and stockalike the parts are the more people will be willing to spend their money on the DLC.

I hope the new parts have proper Specular Maps.

Stockalike is appealing? I can see that for spaceplanes, if I made those, but rockets?

[Wahgineer]

Y'all need to get over yourselves. I think the parts look fine. So what if it's not Porkjet? That doesn't instantaneuosly mean their horrible; and while I didn't use to 100% agree with the style of most of Roverdude's mods, I will say he has improved his style considerably to the point that, while they aren't exactly Porkjet standards, they'll make a good substitute.

[Enceos]

8 hours ago, tater said:

Stockalike is appealing? I can see that for spaceplanes, if I made those, but rockets?

Stockalike means:

• applied AO
• scratches, dirt, weathering
• proper color palette (no vivid colors, consistency with current parts)
• carefully designed specular map
• everything is hand-painted

[Red Shirt]

I don't enjoy flying spaceplanes. I stink at building them. Spaceplane parts are difficult to use on rockets - try radially attaching at 4x symmetry and see what I mean. The stock Porkjet parts are pretty much wasted on me. I accept a large part of the community has a different opinion.

With the discussion over the DLC parts, I've tried to educate myself a bit. First I had to learn what a tank butt was and why I should care. Then I had to search out and download the Porkjet rocket parts released by Squad so I could compare to old stock and new DLC. 

My impression of the PRP (Porkjet rocket parts) - they are brighter and more contrasty than the old stock parts. When you zoom in the bumps and bruises are there, if that is important to you. I like the engines come two ways - with and without shrouds - though I would have liked if they were one part with a right click option. 

While I arguably like the PRP better than old stock, there are a couple things - it feels like there is a lot of corrugated surfaces on those tanks. My main issue was with the included pod. My flag doesn't appear and toggling doesn't help. The pod also felt flat and unfinished.

Now looking at the DLC parts - we only have a preliminary picture, so maybe this is how they look in game and maybe it isn't. They appear, to me, to fit nicely somewhere in between the NASA parts and the PRP. The edges on the black paint do seem a little clean compared to the other parts. 

I do agree that on a pressure vessel the rivets should not be present (sorry Rover Dude), however, I cannot fathom why this is such an issue. This is something you will only see in the few seconds needed to snap two parts together, completely hiding them. If they get removed from the parts I'm fine. If they stay, I'm fine.

I personally find this to be the wrong argument. I like the DLC parts. I like the PRP. I think they appear to fit nicely together. Grab them both. Be happy.

What I think will be the real tragedy is if the Rockomax parts do not get a makeover. I use them possibly more than any other tanks/engines. They may match the pods and lander cans, but on the launchpad they look pretty conspicuous and dated. Decide what is important. Let the rest of it go. 
 

[tater]

2 hours ago, Enceos said:

Stockalike means:

• applied AO
• scratches, dirt, weathering
• proper color palette (no vivid colors, consistency with current parts)
• carefully designed specular map
• everything is hand-painted

Ah, this I can agree with, except "consistency with current parts." 

That is the rub, the current rocket parts are awful. Consistency with oil can tanks? Consistency with the 2.5m tanks? The Poodle? The mk2 lander can (the mk1 is only better by comparison, and the octagonal design begs for 45 degree RCS parts to go with it). All the separator/decoupler parts? The 2 capsules are about the only stock rocket parts worth keeping (and just barely).

Edited April 4, 2017 by tater

[Stone Blue]

41 minutes ago, tater said:

The 2 capsules are about the only stock rocket parts with keeping (and just barely).

Though, the HitchHiker and Labs arent "bad", and I like how Nertea's StationParts pretty much match them...

[tater]

I forgot about those, honestly. I've used neither since sstu got so many (better) station alternatives. So yeah, those are good.

[Wjolcz]

On 03/04/2017 at 8:48 PM, 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. 

This is a descritpion of what's been happening with the parts since around 0.15. Too many parts added by too many different artists. Now they aren't there and someone has to fix the mess.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Veeltch

[steve_v]

2 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Too many parts added by too many different artists.

Indeed, quality/quantity.

[BadMunky]

On 4/2/2017 at 3:29 AM, RoverDude said:

Thanks for the valuable insight and constructive input, @VenomousRequiem.

Speaking of insightful and constructive....

[LoSBoL]

"Kerbals don't make Junk"

Well, they actually do make use of junk, I think more then 10% of the stock parts were even found 'lying on the side of the road'. It's the Kerbal feeling to me, snap some weird parts together en try and get it in space. Even the drum feels perfectly Kerbal to me.  And what I mean with feeling Kerbal is that it should be trail and error on everything and goofy without it being serious.

As for the spaceplane parts looking used and not as 'brand new' as the rocketparts, makes sense to me with the reusability of planes in mind.
In a way the spaceplaneparts are looking a bit to futureristic to me, I've seen the Porkjet Rocketvamp parts and have to say, they look great! But a bit to sleek and sophisticated to be Kerbal stock. So I'm not disappointed at all that they didn't make it to stock. As for a vamp from Squad, it might come, but it won't be Porkjet or his style. That Squad gave Porkjet's work to the (mod) community to play with is a pretty big sign on the wall that you're not going to see it in stock.

As for the critiques, "Why so serious?" comes to my mind, if you want ecstaticly beautifull rockets there is nothing holding anyone back, In my opinion Squad delivered a beautifull base KSP, which to great extent Squad made sure KSP is a placeholder on its own, for everyone to mod the way one wants to play KSP.

Roverdude's parts look great to me, they look Kerbal, and a misaligned rivet here and there might even be considered a good match.

[tater]

@LoSBoL, then the spaceplane parts need to be scrapped. Pick one style.

Your "reusability' argument is completely backwards. A reused spaceplane should be dirty, not an expendable rocket that has never flow before.

[Wjolcz]

5 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

"Kerbals don't make Junk"

"Kerbals are dumb and fly in trash cans"

The game is meant to look near future. It was stated before by the ex-lead dev @HarvesteR himself. The way the game looks isn't even intended. It looks the way it looks because completing each part overhaul project never was a priority.

People should seriously stop talking about how trashy style is intended because it really isn't. You don't know the whole story behind the parts and the fact that "it says it so in the descriprition" doesn't mean the plan to change it never happened. It did. And it's pretty obvious that more than once.

[PocketBrotector]

From the 2013 article about overhauling the space center way back in .21:

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

Whole article is worth a re-read to remind ourselves that these things have been under discussion for years. Lots of good notes on the art style in there.

Edit: and the rest of that section...

Quote

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 lead 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.

 

Edited April 9, 2017 by PocketBrotector

[tater]

Need I say more? Pod, then probe core on both. Fuel, then adaptor on plane, heat shield (needed unlike spaceplane), then coupler, then awful tank.

I can accept the command module as the style. Every other 2.5m part pictured needs to go away, everything about them is awful. The two styles are mutually exclusive, pick ONE, and fix the rockets, or crappify the spaceplanes.

 

[Stone Blue]

Out of all the stock parts, I literally cringe if I have to use the decouplers... To me, they are about the worst looking stock parts...
And the orange tank... I guess that was supposed to emulate the Shuttle ET?... that would be fine: IF there were at least nosecones/end caps to match...
Or at least texture switch the large nosecones to match it, instead of seperate, new parts...

[passinglurker]

26 minutes ago, PocketBrotector said:

From the 2013 article about overhauling the space center way back in .21:

  Reveal hidden contents

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

Whole article is worth a re-read to remind ourselves that these things have been under discussion for years. Lots of good notes on the art style in there.

This gets harder to find every year I wonder if any of the recent hires @SQUAD have read it?

[tater]

13 minutes ago, Stone Blue said:

Out of all the stock parts, I literally cringe if I have to use the decouplers... To me, they are about the worst looking stock parts...
And the orange tank... I guess that was supposed to emulate the Shuttle ET?... that would be fine: IF there were at least nosecones/end caps to match...
Or at least texture switch the large nosecones to match it, instead of seperate, new parts...

It's funny to look at Shuttle replicas posted on the forum. They look great---except for the non-spaceplane parts they are forced to use.

The orange tank is the best of the 2.5m tanks, lol. It's got a Delta IV look to it as well as shuttle main tank.

To the extent "career" matters in terms of a storyline for KSP, the rocket parts also suffer greatly. There is a sense of the look of Titan in some respects, and Mercury (corrugated metal), but nothing at all like modern rocketry. Spaceplane parts are not even modern, they are SciFi modern. The part upgrade system recently added could  perhaps be added to tanks as texture switching. 1950s and early 60s as the default, then with upgrades new textures are unlocked which come to be more like modern LVs (shiny colors (white and Russian colors like gray as obvious examples). The tank rims that make 2+ tanks clearly look lego need to disappear in favor of a seamless cylinder, like the spaceplane parts, and the "early" look can be achieved via texture, not greeble.

Edited April 9, 2017 by tater

[KSK]

32 minutes ago, PocketBrotector said:

From the 2013 article about overhauling the space center way back in .21:

  Reveal hidden contents

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

Whole article is worth a re-read to remind ourselves that these things have been under discussion for years. Lots of good notes on the art style in there.

Thanks for digging that out. The whole of that section you quoted is an excellent response to @LoSBoL's 'why so serious?' question in my opinion. And I've long been an advocate of @tater's idea there of starting with "early style" parts and upgrading them via texture replacements as the player progresses through the tech tree. 

[tater]

Spaceplanes are apparently really popular (from reading this forum). I never make them for a number of reasons.

Could it be that they are popular because the parts are not ugly?