Spaceplane Plus textures

[CaptainKipard]

Can anyone else see the difference in quality between this pod and the adapter below it?

It's not just that they're less detailed. The texture resolution is lower for some reason.

[klgraham1013]

Yep. Not sure what their reasoning could be for this. Converse memory? I'm reticent to say it's out of laziness.

[CaptainKipard]

Were these parts added to stock from scratch or were they in the mod?

[klgraham1013]

The parts were already made. They could have just thrown them in without any changes and I would have been happy. Yet, some how, the cargo bay (on both, Mk2 and Mk3 amazingly) almost didn't make the release.

I can only assume that PorkJet must have been told to redo the models and/or textures from the point he was brought in. The Mk2 docking port is certainly a different model. Which again, begs the question; why the variation in textures?

[r4pt0r]

compare it to the large torque sas thing too, the textures on that are...well aged, shall i say.

[Whirligig Girl]

That adaptor is part of the Mki3 expansion, also made by PorkJet. SQUADhaters have no ground here.

[Red Iron Crown]

Were these parts added to stock from scratch or were they in the mod?

From scratch, inspired by the SP+ mod. The revised, symmetric Mk2 profile required new models and presumably textures.

[klgraham1013]

That adaptor is part of the Mki3 expansion, also made by PorkJet. SQUADhaters have no ground here.

Opps. Didn't realize I was looking at an Mk3 part. Still, I think we have reason to ask why the Mk3-Mk2 adapter doesn't match up to the Mk2 parts. Honestly, I think we've got plenty of ground to stand on.

SQUADhater

I complain because I love.

[Red Iron Crown]

That adaptor is part of the Mki3 expansion, also made by PorkJet. SQUADhaters have no ground here.

I'm not a Squad hater by any means, but the parts did get approved by Squad for inclusion. They are ultimately responsible for the quality of the parts included with their product, regardless of who made them.

[Nertea]

Mk2 cockpit textures are really quite large compared to comparable stock parts, and keeping the same texel density on the Mk3 parts would have probably required some massive textures. It looks like some compromises were made to keep memory footprint lower, hence the lower resolution on the adapters. Ran into the same problem with my Mk4 parts, kinda said screw it and just tried to keep the texel density similar at the cost of footprint. Can't say I agree with what they did, but the reason is relatively sane.

Alternately, it's a 2048 texture and they forgot to change the default max import size in Unity from 1024

[klgraham1013]

So, couldn't they have kept the higher resolution on the cockpit to accent the windows and doors while purposefully blurring the seams to match the seams on the lower res parts?

I feel like there may be solutions to maintain a constant look.

[CaptRobau]

The parts were already made. They could have just thrown them in without any changes and I would have been happy. Yet, some how, the cargo bay (on both, Mk2 and Mk3 amazingly) almost didn't make the release

The case of the Mk2 cargo bays is that it used Firespitter as a mod, so it needed a code change to the animation module to function. That's probably the most responsible for it missing the testing deadline. The cargo bays had to be made from scratch and animations do take more time to make and later test than a regular fuel tank. This explains the Mk3 situation. I think in both cases it was 90% certain they would make it in, but they were just covering themselves from broken promises if these more time-consuming parts took even more time than expected.

[Porkjet]

The low resolution on the new adapters is simply a mistake, original textures have texel density similar to Mk2 parts and will be replaced.

(Sorry for late reply, only just stumbled on this and thought I should reply anyway)

[klgraham1013]

Thanks for the update, Porkjet!