A post about Textures, marketing, and having fun.

[Whirligig Girl]

Edit3: So after some thought and thinking, I have had my mind changed about dirty grimey parts. As long as they aren't squeaky clean and shiny, they look good. The argument, below, by the way, is not about me thinking that the stock parts are perfect, it's about the style of the parts well suiting KSP. And after reading it through, thinking about it, and doing a bit of talking with my local psychology professor, I've come to the conclusion that the whole thing is pretty stupid after all.

This post was made as part of a response to suggesting that KSP's stock parts are ugly because they are dirty/grimey. First of all, I disagree with the premise. I like the stock parts style, but the models/textures are low-definition and perhaps need a revamp. In fact, the thread is THIS ONE, which is Ven's excellent stock parts revamp thread. Ven's parts (with some changes that I mentioned in the link) definitely need to become stock parts. Soon.

The purpose of the original post from Ven's thread was just to say "lol no they're not ugly" as well as talk about the important color scheme choices in KSP, but this evolved into me talking about how the game appeals to the non-science-nerd and how this can make them a science-nerd. It also references (but does not explicitly state) that true realism is detrimental to KSP, and that Authenticity is better.

TL;DR: Stock parts in KSP should be grimey, and clean parts aren't as fun to look at.

You have to remember that Jeb's Junkyard parts were literally made from "parts lying around". And although it isn't explicitly stated, it is implied that most Kerbal Spacecraft parts are made from junk/scrap/found-lying-by-the-side-of-the-road. the parts look dirty because it gives the Kerbals the character of "throwing things at the wall space and seeing what sticks." If Kerbals had clean (even if it's still baked) textures, it looks more precisely engineered and would make the player feel slightly worse for failure and slightly not as good for success. The same parts with different style can make the difference between "Holy crap! I made it!" and "Yes. We made it!"

People who like realism mods and the like can continue to use realistic part mods with clean textures, but at the basic core of the stock and intended experience is that the goofy Kerbals are throwing things together to try to do big things. And that is the mentality you see behind Let's Players who play KSP for the first time. They build something that looks crazy, which makes it all the more exciting when it actually works.

If you are like most people (Not like Most KSP Forumers), you can more relate to the guesswork, amateur-esque, Throw-together-fireworks-and-make-them-fly nature of Kerbals than you can relate to the calculated, cold, and calm nature of Real-World, Orbiter, and RealSolarSystem/6.4:1 Kerbal space programs. It's a far more effective way of educating people about spaceflight to get them hooked into the explosion-simulator reputation that the game has than it is to try and give them a realistic space simulator. Many more people get hooked into KSP and then spaceflight than they do Orbiter.

And that is why the dirty, grimy textures are important. It gives KSP itself a relatable character quality. And of course, the great thing about mods is that even though they might never become stock, you can always add them yourself if you do want the cold, calculated experience!

EDIT: Despite indeed having an opinion on SP+ parts, I managed to forget to include these here. My argument might begin to break down somewhat with these parts. I do not see it that way. "The exception that proves the rule" is a stupid phrase, but I think Plane parts are forced to be the exception due to how much more effort and research is needed to develop these.

Also, there is a trend that parts look less and less junk-y as they advance in tech. The Kerbodyne parts are much more precisely engineered than the Rockomax parts, and they are less scrap-heaped than Jeb's Junkyard parts. The plane parts logically would be the very top line of Kerbal Engineering. In real life you can strap together some fireworks and find them flying off into the sky. You can use found parts to build a rocket engine. (Copenhagen Suborbitals, for instance). But engineering a plane is far more difficult. There are many more rules to aircraft construction than to Rocket construction.

EDIT2: My Changed Views and Some Clarification

To be clear, the Kerbal Space Program is definitely a high-quality organization by Kerbal standards. To them, they think that KSP is very prestigious and indeed it is, which makes it funnier that the parts are the way they are.

And about the changed views. So when I was writing this it may seem like I want the parts to literally look like scrap mashed together. Not so at all. The stock style to me, is perfect for the Kerbals, and aside from the Mk1-2 pod (which is designed for reusability, says the description)

Edited October 9, 2014 by GregroxMun

[Franklin]

I don't know if it's fair to tie distaste for "grimy" model textures to the chant of the pro-realism camp. The big voices here in that camp have never really given a vocal care about what the parts look like beyond those that are poorly modeled, which has nothing to do with realism. Aesthetic is just artistic preference. You can have junkyard parts and a real atmosphere to chuck them through.

Also your most people could use a citation.

[Franklin]

Not to mention Squad adding the SP+ parts just yesterday might run against the grain you claim they're in with wanting to showcase Kerbals' interest in the junkyard aesthetic. The SP+ parts are very, very slick.

[rdwulfe]

I've always felt more that KSP felt more like legos that could fly in space. My legos didn't look like junk. They had a clean aesthetic. But nonetheless, they fell apart if you hit them too hard.... And exploded. Having a bunch of parts colored brown wouldn't make me feel better if they exploded. (Ok, they didn't explode, but it'd be cool!)

I LIKE the look of the parts Squad has put in. Perhaps, someone.. you, or another, could make textures for a mod that made everything a bit more dirty, like you want?

[Nemrav]

Before we get into "MILLION VERTICES OR ELSE BRAAAAA" I would like to say that the textures and models are just fine, if not a bit overdone (24 vertices for a cylinder, srrsly, it with many default shaders in unity it can look perfectly round on 16).... The style also seems to compliment the Kerbals... intellects.....

Making things look nicer is just fine, just don't remove the current minimums for people running minimum settings....

edit: I'm fine with some extra dirt marks grimy, just not forcing higher res to "get rid of" low res grimey...

Edited October 8, 2014 by Nemrav

[Skyentist]

Sleek space planes look cool.

However, I also don't mind my crafts looking like they visited several planets (or several roadsides) already.

[Specialist290]

Just dropping a small note in the thread to let y'all know that I've moved it to Suggestions and Development Discussion, since discussions of the basis and direction of KSP's general aesthetics are relevant to the development of the game. Carry on

[pxi]

I'd figure that in the vein of having parts that go from

junk --> spaceplanes

you'd reasonably expect that the textures also go from

grimey --> shiney

ie the early parts are dirty and the later parts you unlock are sleek. I guess in an ideal world you'd have dirty and clean versions of parts where appropriate, so that your later-game craft look uniformly clean.

[Whirligig Girl]

The parts for SP+ and other stock models look fine blended together in my opinion. They have the same basic design philosophy, after all. And of course, by grime I don't mean huge amounts of dark and black and brown, just no flat boring textures. Dirtiness can definitely add some detail where you'd otherwise have greeble. (remember the old old old KSP parts from 0.13?

[Tw1]

Not to mention Squad adding the SP+ parts just yesterday might run against the grain you claim they're in with wanting to showcase Kerbals' interest in the junkyard aesthetic. The SP+ parts are very, very slick.

Exept for the new texture for this fuselage, but this might not be from SP+.

I find it a bit plain and dull.

[tater]

I'm "pro-realism," and I never paid enough attention to the textures to care much. I'm not fond of that Apollo looking texture that doesn't line up, and I'm not overly fond of some of the corrugated looking fuel tanks. PAst that? Who cares?

[GusTurbo]

Exept for the new texture for this fuselage, but this might not be from SP+.

http://i.imgur.com/EAVTtRO.png

I find it a bit plain and dull.

Yeah, all of the 1.25m plane parts look just kind of meh. They don't really match the SP+ look at all.

[Woopert]

I like the look KSP currently has. Some dust and dirt might occasionally look good, but I like a realistic feel to KSP. Kerbals aren't stupid, they have, in my imagination, a strong civilization with good engineering skills. I like to make my rockets look somewhat realistic in terms of shape and profile. I like to imagine that the finest Kerbal engineers are putting together my rockets and that everyone is well thought out and planned.

I mean, I like to pretend that I'm actually running a space program. I aim for low cost, high performance rockets and craft, similar to what SpaceX does.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Woopert

[CaptainKipard]

The parts for SP+ and other stock models look fine blended together in my opinion.

And SP+ parts look well with B9. See how we're moving in a realistic direction?

BTW other than a bruised ego I still don't understand your issue with the word "mediocre" being used to describe stock parts.

They are. Objectively.

SP+ is better quality. Objectively.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard
typp

[Whirligig Girl]

"Mediocre" is NOT an objective word. It is inherently subjective.

[CaptainKipard]

I think we're talking across purposes.

It's still objective though when it's used to compare other games and mods.

[Guest]

Exactly. When talking about texture quality (measured by resolution and efficiency), for example, or about model quality, "medicore" is the right word to use. Art style is one thing, but Squad assets leave a lot to be desired in the "technical" area, too. They hardly share textures (something modders figured out long ago), and they're of lower polycount/texture resolution than many high-quality mods like SP+, KW or B9, or even the NASA pack. SP+ is better than the old parts in every aspect, even leaving aside everything subjective.

When put next to stuff like KW or B9, Squad assets simply don't measure up. I'm happy to see they're starting to change that.

[GusTurbo]

Sorry Gregrox, but they're right. It is apparent that some of the KSP models and textures were created with less skill than those in, for example, SP+. Back in '06-07, I was a modeler for some FPS mods, so I can appreciate the "craft" of modeling (and texturing to some extent, though I didn't do it much). And really, it's okay that some of the art assets aren't great at the moment -- the people making them can and likely will get better as they go along.

[NathanKell]

Chad became a much better modeler and texturer with experience and practice; C7 stuff was very much "programmer art" at the start, but his late stuff is great. Shame he wasn't given the chance to improve his earlier parts.

GregroxMun: just because some people disagree with you on one thing, and other people disagree with you on another thing, does not make everyone who disagrees with you part of the same mafia.

[Whirligig Girl]

So after some thought and thinking, I have had my mind changed about dirty grimey parts. As long as they aren't squeaky clean and shiny, they look good. The argument, by the way, is not about me thinking that the stock parts are perfect, it's about the style of the parts well suiting KSP. And after reading it through, thinking about it, and doing a bit of talking with my local psychology professor, I've come to the conclusion that the whole thing is pretty stupid after all.

[CaptainKipard]

and doing a bit of talking with my local psychology professor

LOL. Did she/he say "and how did that.....make you feel"?

I'll just say this final thing. I'm not sure even Squad know what they art direction really is yet.