You design style of choice?

[The Destroyer]

Generally sleek, and semi-realistic.

[zekes]

Perhaps gigantisme is your pleasure?

that's me.

[Rolanvorxariat]

incredibly realistic-ive never used more than 8 booster on a single rocket, kwr fairings and nose cones, kwr and Kerbodyne fuel tanks/engines/boosters, etc. The only futuristic crafts i have ever made is the INTEGRITY (module design based on the Endurance from Interstellar) and JOLANUS, and Jool-5 no return mothership planned to launch after my kolonation duna programme, with the transfer vehicle based on the copernicus and the landers based on the Asimov/kepler. So generally, realistic. Oh, and i'm not saying the endurance is unrealistic, i'm just saying it's futuristic

cheers

[GoSlash27]

Utilitarian.

My designs are all about doing the job as reliably as possible with the least fuel and cost. I let form follow function.

Best,

-Slashy

[ouion]

I design my crafts near-futuristic and realistic. I sometimes go near the border of Sci-Fi and even to building planes like a tank(not literally)

[RobertR]

My design style is usually just whatever works. I try to build efficient rockets so I guess they tend to be a little minimalistic.

[How2FoldSoup]

Always follow the rule of coolâ„¢

Generally whatever works as long as the rule of coolâ„¢ is followed.

[Voculus]

Always follow the rule of coolâ„¢

Generally whatever works as long as the rule of coolâ„¢ is followed.

That's how I do it. If I need struts, I use the invisible SNM struts from the B9 pack. Spaceplanes and rockets shouldn't look like a tarp staked to the ground.

[Tw1]

It varies quite a bit. I tend to just built what I feel like, what I think looks good or will do the job.

The things I make vary from rugged and sort of realistic:

To random and crazy for the sake of it:

With a few cases of imaginative, retro-futuristic.

[SciMan]

Basically, I aim for designs that do as much as possible with very low part counts, in as few launches as possible.

If I can't make a payload do what I want it to do in less than 100 parts, I'm probably trying to do too many things at once with it. Combining multiple payloads is fine, but I usually avoid it.

Why do I hate high part counts so much?

That one's easy: Lag. I don't like having to wait 10 seconds to load in a massive ship that I'm trying to dock to. Nor do I like running at less than 15-20 fps.

My MET timer starts flashing yellow at 75 parts, solid yellow at 100 parts, and I'm getting like 10 FPS at 200 parts, I have a fairly good CPU and graphics card, and I have 4 Gb of ram. I run a bunch of "heavy" mods, not because they look nice, but because I can use less parts to do more with them. One huge tank replacing 20 large tanks kind of thing.

To deal with the memory footprint, I run ATM agressive, but then I tweaked the settings so that I'm running at an effective 1/4 (or was it 1/8, can't remember) texture resolution.

Pretty is fine and all, but it means nothing if you can't even play the dang game at an acceptable framerate.

[Bill Phil]

Utilitarian.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Basically very dull. Unless I'm recreating a real life space craft.

[ArmchairGravy]

Modular functionality is what I'd call my style. Landers dock to hab modules which dock to drive modules which are also easily modified into asteroid captors. Everything with 30% more dv than needed because rescue missions are the suck.

[Cupcake...]

I'm incredibly vain about my designs. They have to look right as well as fly right...

Cupcake...

[VR_Dev]

I build a craft from scratch at least 20 times until I think it's perfect. However often times I just keep improving it and i never gets released. Then I get bored and move on.

[razark]

Functional > minimal > aesthetic; with the idea that technology is around a 1960s level.

My computer is quite old and can't handle a whole lot. I'm very used to the clock being yellow. So I build some thing that works, and build it as small as I can (with a few exceptions), and only then worry about how it looks. The only thing I build with anything over 100 parts is space stations, and I dread docking with them.

Occasionally I will design something to an aesthetic goal, such as an Apollo-style Mun landing, but they are rather few.

No pancake rockets.

I see this term thrown about. What exactly qualifies something as a "pancake rocket"?

[TokiTech]

Generally think of capability first in mind if the craft is meant for mission, later tweak the bar between capability and efficiency to perfectly fit for the subjected missions. I also don't migrate save files so designs are always kept as simple as possible (efficiency helps that), so is easy to recreate crafts from memory.

For fooling around i like all kind of design styles, as long it can move a few inches and explode or wobbles all the way to a new complete design that has mission potentials.

[federicoaa]

Usually, I try to make something good looking, then realize it's out of my skills, cry a little, and launch some functional monstrosity, then laugh at the explosions

[Rainbowtrout]

I like to have odd wing shapes on my planes. The "normal" delta wing setup, and some wings sticking out at an odd angle. I also don't try to cover up my payload, unless I'm playing FAR, or if I'm testing something.

[rodion_herrera]

It's probably exposure during my childhood years, of the real space programs of both sides of the cold war, that tends to influence me to keep to a design that is not "fat" (i.e. rockets with great girth/width), but tall (thus, inherently unstable with lesser struts), and also streamlined (even if purely for aesthetic reasons). This is why I hate the fact that even though I don't want to use mods, I am forced to use procedural fairings (something I think should be in KSP by default) mod. To date I have never designed "fat" rockets, although at one point I did use asparagus designs, but my max girth was only ONE ring of orange tanks around the core. But yes, building it tall is quite the pain, but then that's my design tendency.

[Sanguine]

I like to create aesthetically pleasing motherships for any interplanetary voyage - to hell with moderation!

However, when launching, these usually clip through my KW fairings.

[cantab]

I see this term thrown about. What exactly qualifies something as a "pancake rocket"?

One that's wider than it is tall, often considerably so. This is likely to arise if you take asparagus staging to the extreme.

[rodion_herrera]

One that's wider than it is tall, often considerably so. This is likely to arise if you take asparagus staging to the extreme.

Pancake is what I meant by designs with great girth.

[moogoob]

Corporate. As in, enough clean lines to impress, but with a reasonable-enough price tag to encourage buy-in.

[justidutch]

I am currently into Ringlistic Hugeism. My previous milieu was saucerism, preceded by a phase of Isn't That Ionic.

[Tankbuster32]

I build my launchers like 1960s NASA: tall, sleek and as few boosters as possible.