How do you design your craft to look?

[septemberWaves]

I am 18. My spacecraft take on a variety of forms, but the general idea is that they should:

• Look good individually
• Fit in well with the overall aesthetic of my space program

Edited December 24, 2016 by eloquentJane

[TheEpicSquared]

I'm 13, and these my design priorities are (highest to lowest) are:

1: Functionality 

2: Redundancy (will still work if something goes wrong)

3: Aesthetics (I usually design my ships to look like current technology, or a bit futuristic. Not futuristic like Star Wars or Interstellar, but futuristic like The Martian.

 

Edited December 24, 2016 by TheEpicSquared

[septemberWaves]

@TheEpicSquared That's a pretty well thought-out order of priorities. I find it interesting that you include redundancy; not many players consider that because of the option to quicksave and revert.

[Kerbal Fried Chicken]

i'm ...uh...   old but that's my list as well. 1. function.  can I get there? can I get back? can I fix it something goes wrong? my creations aren't always visually pleasing. but they work. After they work I prettify them. :-)

[TheEpicSquared]

41 minutes ago, eloquentJane said:

@TheEpicSquared That's a pretty well thought-out order of priorities. I find it interesting that you include redundancy; not many players consider that because of the option to quicksave and revert.

I include redundancy because I play with DangIt Revived. It's pretty much necessary for any operations outside of LKO. Sure, you could revert, but then you might have to redo a mission all the way to a Duna transfer. However, I do make avid use of the quicksave option. I think I have over 500 quicksaves in the Alt+F9 menu  

I also include redundancies for realism.  

[GoSlash27]

55 minutes ago, eloquentJane said:

@TheEpicSquared That's a pretty well thought-out order of priorities. I find it interesting that you include redundancy; not many players consider that because of the option to quicksave and revert.

Well... that and the fact that all parts are 100% reliable in stock KSP. Redundancy is just added mass and cost when it's impossible for parts to fail. @TheEpicSquared has a reason to do this. The rest of us don't. *shrug*

Merry Christmas,
-Slashy

[Sharpy]

39yo

If it doesn't look good, it's not worth using.

Although what is meant by "looking good" varies. The look should be consistent, but I employ various styles.

Examples:

Spoiler

Monumental

"so ugly it's cute", messy

Colorful

 

Clean

 

 

Badass

 

 

 

[Freds]

32 to
1 - Functionality
2 - Efficiency
3 - If Kerbaled, capacity to return to Kerbin (no Kerbal left behind)

I only mind about Aesthetics if the craft are meant to fly into the atmosphere.

[septemberWaves]

1 hour ago, TheEpicSquared said:

I include redundancy because I play with DangIt Revived ...
...

I also include redundancies for realism.

Mods like that always worry me because I spend too long planning out a mission to be willing to let something go wrong - although I suppose that is the entire purpose of redundancy. The latter is why I usually try to include redundancy and always a launch escape system, but also I refuse to revert unless the problem is a bug; my own failures are permanent (in career at least).

 

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

Well... that and the fact that all parts are 100% reliable in stock KSP. Redundancy is just added mass and cost when it's impossible for parts to fail. @TheEpicSquared has a reason to do this. The rest of us don't.

This is a very good point. Sometimes I wish that there was a nominal failure rate for parts, but whenever I consider installing the sort of mods that add that I always reconsider. I like my missions to run smoothly and according to design (or if they fail, to fail because of my own design flaws). But some of the rest of us do have reasons to include redundancy, which in most cases (like mine) has to do with either realism or unwillingness to revert.

[Ohm is Futile]

2 hours ago, eloquentJane said:

@TheEpicSquared That's a pretty well thought-out order of priorities. I find it interesting that you include redundancy; not many players consider that because of the option to quicksave and revert.

 

1 hour ago, TheEpicSquared said:

I include redundancy because I play with DangIt Revived.

Even with redundancy, unless you are using DangIt like TheEpicSquared, I don't think I can remember any rocket that would've been saved by redundancy because when something goes wrong, it's rarely just a little bit wrong... but with DangIt I can totally understand.

 

As for me, I am 29 years old and I build for:

#1 Functionality

#2 Simplicity/ease of use

#3 Optimization

#4 Aesthetics

#5 Versatility, can I use this rocket/part of this rocket for more than one mission?

[tg626]

46

Usually a design following a real life example.  However my "Vostok" for example will take the form of a mk1 capsule with no chute on a core with 4 radial boosters, but I don't go nuts trying to make it look like the actual rocket.

[ottothesilent]

Age 16

I build mostly Von Braun-alike craft, just because I've put a few hundred hours into flying single-stack, multistage boosters. As a result, they already look pretty nice and non-cluttered, and I try to integrate redundancy, especially with regard to electrics, since it's pretty easy to pair solar cells with a fuel cell somewhere, or a single RTG if I'm playing sandbox. As a result of using the Saturn family, I've got versatility, relatively high payload, and simplicity, which I fold into the functionality category. So, the short list is:

1) Simplicity

2) Ease of use

3) Aesthetics

4) Versatility

5) Redundancy

[Mjarf]

1) Redundancy, I rather build it with 2000m/s delta-v to spare than have just enough. I prefer to play science mode, so cost isn't relevant, I'll build a Mun lander with nuclear engines.

2) Stability, who likes a wobbly rocket, right?

3) Functionality, it has to get the job done in a not too tedious way.

4) Aesthetics, hey we all like to travel in style. I tend to go with a more "engineered" look.

5) Crew comfort, I don't want my little dudes to be cramped cold and hungry on their journeys.

Edited December 25, 2016 by Mjarf

[Rune]

I've traveled 33*2Π AUs around the sun, plus a few kms more since last night, in real life.

As to my virtual travels, I try to be a stylish as I can (what good is it to do anything if you can't do it looking good?), but I am an engineer at heart, so stuff has to be beautiful through function. Something ain't truly finished until you can't take out anything more!

That, and I play career exclusively (the same career save since 0.90), with the goal so taming the land as I go (build a reusable architecture so that I can revisit anywhere at any time without additional cost). I am also a big believer on KAS/KIS (have you seen those asteroid pics?), but that's pretty much the only mod I run which has an effect on actual gameplay. With all that in mind, the name of the game has been reusable single-stagers and modular payloads for a looong time. And since a picture is worth more than a thousand words, here you go, a long dissertation on what I actually do.

Since I do everything with KAC and in the same save, I haven't really gotten that far... yet. There are expeditions on route to both Eeelo and Moho, among other places, though.

 

 

Rune. Not bad for the first in-game year of the space program.

Edited December 25, 2016 by Rune

[Velve666]

I personally stick to no more than 2 SRB's. Most of my rockets look really dull, with a fairing covering up the payload on almost all but the heaviest lifts. 

Within the fairing however is where I design some cool payloads. I really love designing unique probes. Every one is built from scratch and I use alot of various girder segments to give it some body. Then add the science pieces as convieniently as possible for minimal EVA right clicking when returning to kerbin SOI. 

Still pretty new to ksp so as the tech unlocks I might eventually move up to some more "kerbal" builds. 

The balance of having little spare dV and minimalizing payload per mission requirement is keeping me occupied for now.