To be honest, I don't really like the redesigned Terrier and Poodle.*NOW with a poll!

[steve_v]

1 hour ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

little green alien Kerbal ships shouldn't look carbon copies of real life human ships

I like my rockets to look like rockets, regardless of the occupants skin colour.

Rocket engines look like rocket engines because that's how the physics works, if little green aliens were to design some with the same materials humans use, I am sure they would look very similar.
Rocket nozzles are a particularly good example of this - the geometry isn't "artistic style", it's physics.

Likewise tanks, one doesn't use an old oil drum for a rocket fuel tank (jumbo 32 anyone?), because it would be unsuitable on a practical engineering level.

One doesn't make stage decouplers a random mismatched size either, because aerodynamics and structural engineering both say that would be a dumb idea.

 

1 hour ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

keep the games visual identity

The original KSP parts look like a collection of unrelated amateur art projects from a number of different artists, created with no unifying design guidelines at all.
Several parts might as well have been from a different game entirely, as they don't remotely match up with anything else.

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by steve_v

[Snark]

7 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

The new Poodle is certainly an improvement, but I think that it should have a couple variants, for example a 1.875m ‘bare’ one.

Well, that's kinda what the Cheetah is, in effect.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

7 minutes ago, steve_v said:

I like my rockets to look like rockets, regardless of the occupants skin colour.

Rocket engines look like rocket engines because that's how the physics works, if little green aliens were to design some with the same materials humans use, I am sure they would look very similar.
Rocket nozzles are a particularly good example of this - the geometry isn't "artistic style", it's physics.

Likewise tanks, one doesn't use an old oil drum for a rocket fuel tank (jumbo 32 anyone?), because it would be unsuitable on a practical engineering level.

One doesn't make stage decouplers a random mismatched size either, because aerodynamics and structural engineering both say that would be a dumb idea.

 

The original KSP parts look like a collection of unrelated amateur art projects from a number of different artists, created with no unifying design guidelines at all.
Several parts might as well have been from a different game entirely, as they don't remotely match up with anything else.

 

What's the unifying design guideline of the new parts? "Boring-snooze-fest?"

KSP is a game, it's a fantasy representation of the concept. It doesn't have to adhere to anything it doesn't want to, including real world influences. How boring would gaming in general be if no one ever designed anything in an exaggerated or stylized way?

What we have now is very nice 1:1 technical representations of parts, what we used to have is someones "idea" of how the part should look. A stylized, personalized, characterful design with quirks. KSP rockets may have been mismatched, but they were eye-catching, they looked great in screenshots, bursting as they were with creativity, fantasy, and imagination. All I see now is a bog standard NASA CGI reel. Anyways; it's fine that we don't agree; different people like different things. I suppose I can always hope for some future texture options that harken back to the glory days.

Spoiler

To summarize:

 

[Curveball Anders]

1 hour ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Everyone is going to have their own opinion about what "looks good", but little green alien Kerbal ships shouldn't look carbon copies of real life human ships.

I just want to declare my support for this side of the argument

I like the idea of putting stuff together to perform a certain objective, regardless of how it looks.

(I have the same approach to Lego, but not to coding ...)

Sadly there was no (at least not yet) "Mulle Meck Bygger Raketer"/"Gary Gadget Builds Rockets", but KSP is that plus orbital mechanics

Edit:

I was wrong!
There was a Mulle Meck Uptäcker Rymden (Discovers Space).
My kids must have been to old when it was released ...

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by Curveball Anders
Factual Correction

[steve_v]

2 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

What's the unifying design guideline of the new parts?

What it is is largely irrelevant, the point is that it has one. There are texture options for many of them if you want to stylize or personalize.
 

4 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

KSP rockets may have been mismatched, but they were eye-catching, they looked great in screenshots, bursting as they were with creativity, fantasy, and imagination.

KSP parts were mismatched low-fidelity eyesores, they looked terrible in screenshots, and all they were bursting with is gigantic rivets.
Let's just disagree then.
 

*Cringe*

[Espatie]

Frankly I like the Junkyard aesthetic and I don't see any need to try and make KSP into a 100% accurate space simulator. There are bigger things in the way of that anyway. Get back to me when you can accurately simulate the n-body problem on a home PC, maybe?

[Rocket In My Pocket]

11 minutes ago, steve_v said:

*Cringe*

Lol, where's your sense of humor?

Spoiler

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by Rocket In My Pocket

[steve_v]

2 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

where's your sense of humor?

Not anywhere near that image, that's for sure.

[Daveroski]

1 hour ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I miss my junkyard rockets, ..... (snip)  I just can't even get motivated to screen shot my newer rockets, I find the authentic looking parts to just be very boring on a visual level.

ahhh you must love this then.

D.

 

 

[Rocket In My Pocket]

2 minutes ago, Daveroski said:

ahhh you must love this then.

D.

Might be a touch too far in the other direction lol, but yes; it is very clever!

Edited January 18, 2019 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Superfluous J]

3 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I'm incredibly disappointed by the entirety of the new part line up to be honest.

Why exactly did we throw KSP's entire unique look out the window in favor of boring, lack luster (Unity's fault more-so but still) attempts at photo realism? Why don't they retexture the Kerbals to a nice shade of "human tan" while they're at it?

Funny answer: because of this:

Serious answer:

I do not share your opinion but I do truly sympathize in an almost visceral way. This is how I felt after the barn (and seemingly all ksc upgrades thereafter) was cut due to fan backlash, when I realized that I just lost something I would enjoy and never once stood up and said it when there was time.

From that moment on I decided that no matter how angry those I didn't agree with were at Squad, I'd voice my opinion so there was at least one person speaking for me before anybody makes any decision.

Also: I have found sorting but mass to be a godsend. I may look into making it the default.

[EchoLima]

Porkjet did it best. His fuel tanks still had the unique style from before, but at the same time were much higher in quality.

[steve_v]

21 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

the barn

Again, good riddance to the trashtastic aesthetic and amateur-hour art.

21 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

seemingly all ksc upgrades thereafter

This was indeed an unfortunate, and I expect unintended, side effect.
Perhaps if Squad had presented that barn in a halfway presentable state it might have been better received.

[cineboxandrew]

14 hours ago, steve_v said:

Waiting impatiently for the "restock" terrier. 

It’s the one from Porkjet’s revamp before he left 

[Snark]

Folks, a gentle reminder to play nice.  This thread started out well, but there have been a fair number of posts in which people are actually arguing about opinions, as ridiculous as that may be.

Please don't.  Express and explain your own opinions, by all means, but don't argue with (or attack) others'.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with having an opinion about things, or being passionate about it.  There's also nothing wrong with having an opinion that's different from other people's.  And of course it's fine to explain why you differ, and why you feel as you do... as long as you always remember that there's nothing "special" about your opinion, and comport yourself accordingly.

@Johnny Wishbone said it best, right there at the start of the thread (if you'll pardon my slight paraphrasing):

On 1/17/2019 at 5:48 AM, Johnny Wishbone said:

I'm sure there are <people who disagree with me> and thats fine. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong for what they like. Just expressing my opinion

^ I do hope that everyone can hold that in mind when posting here (or, indeed, anywhere).

Please don't argue with people about their opinions.  There's no point.  People feel what they feel, and you're not going to persuade anyone to feel differently.  If you argue with a person's opinion, they're just going to take it (rightly) as a personal attack, and they're going to lash back, and everyone loses.

You can respond to a statement of fact with another statement of fact.  You can respond to an opinion by expressing your own opinion.  But don't criticize someone else's opinion, or try to tell them they're wrong, because they're not-- it's just their opinion, nothing more, and everyone knows this.  (Right?)

(And yes, some people tend to state their opinions as if they're universal truths-- e.g. "X is garbage" rather than "I don't like X".  Which can, of course, be aggravating to others-- whether intentionally or not-- since that comes across like they're saying "anyone whose opinion is different from mine is just wrong."  But please don't rise to that bait-- it simply invites arguing about opinions, which of course is silly.)

Different people want different things, and that includes KSP, and nothing's going to change that.  And there's nothing wrong with it, either, and no reason why we can't get along like friendly, civil adults.

So... if anyone ever finds themselves getting angry at someone for having a different opinion than themselves (which is, of course, pointless), perhaps running the phrase "nobody's right or wrong for what they like" through one's head before posting might help take things down a notch?

Thanks. 

 

[EchoLima]

54 minutes ago, cineboxandrew said:

It’s the one from Porkjet’s revamp before he left 

So will all the Porkjet engines be included in Restock, or just the Terrier in particular? 

[Superfluous J]

25 minutes ago, EchoLima said:

So will all the Porkjet engines be included in Restock, or just the Terrier in particular? 

I assume they'll pick and choose, especially considering they've already done the FL-T* tanks and they don't look like that.

[Nertea]

We're mostly using cleaned up versions of the Porkjet engines. They needed some tuning in some areas. 

[theonegalen]

4 hours ago, steve_v said:

his was indeed an unfortunate, and I expect unintended, side effect.
Perhaps if Squad had presented that barn in a halfway presentable state it might have been better received.

The art was unpolished and poorly made, but the huge backlash against the barn/trailer aesthetic made no distinction between the concept (which was good) and the art (which was not).

Like @5thHorseman, I wish I had been more vocal about loving the concept at the time.

[steve_v]

1 hour ago, theonegalen said:

the huge backlash against the barn/trailer aesthetic made no distinction between the concept (which was good) and the art (which was not).

True, though in my case I really didn't like either. A more primitive launch facility would be great, but less rusting car bodies and less redneck / "kerbals are dumb lol 'splosions" feel please.

[Cavscout74]

I like the new Terrier - I basically already had it with Missing History mod.  I did like that Missing History added a small bit of LFO storage since it looks like it has a doughnut tank built in. 

The new Poodle, well, I like the design, but not as the Poodle.  I mostly used the odl Poodle for a large lander engine, and the twin nozzle design doesn't thrill me for that.  The actual model is nice, I just wish it was used for something else.  The old Poodle was ugly, but worked for where I used it.

[Pthigrivi]

11 hours ago, Snark said:

A well reasoned explation of reasonableness.

Sherlock says your primary source of income is academia, t/f?

[Xurkitree]

I'm just waiting for ReStock to release

My biggest gripe with the terrier is that horrible looking boat tail. Its hard to look at it, i just switch the variants.

I'm not really using them, so I don't notice them much. The poodle's twin nozzle looks great with the 3.75-2.5 Adapter, which was my last use of it.Plus, I'm using Nuclear Engines for landers because they look far better - pair it up with the NCS Adapter and clip it in the tank - instant nuclear pod!

[Geonovast]

I like the terrier, especially it's switching ability so stuff like this looks nice.

 

But I do not like the new poodle.  Not because it's no longer single engine bell, but because it looks horrible with 2.  I like the 4 bell one from restock, so I'm watching that closely.

 

However now that I'm finally playing 1.6.1, I'm seeing several addons that I'm really liking, so I'll get over it.

Although the Mk16 graphic bug is still there, so that's hilarious.  At least it's just visual.

[putnamto]

I  miss  the  gold  foil  on  the  old  terrier.

Would  be  nice  if  we  had  stock  options, add  the  old  styles  of  everything  to  the  game  as  variants, then  we  can  all  be  happy