The "old" parts need an art overhaul.

[FishInferno]

With all of the new parts that have been released in the past updates, the older parts have started to look... out of place. The newer parts are sleek and crisp but the older parts really don't look as good most of the parts in the game really need a revamp, Here is a short list of what I think needs to be done (a lot could be done easily with the stockifying of Stock Part Revamp:

-Remodel the fuel tanks to have more detailing on the ends like the 3.75 meter tanks.

-Retexture the 3.75 meter tanks so the black markings line up.

-Remove the fuel tank "caps" on the engines

-Redo the engine effects, including:

-Different flames based on altitude (like in real life)

-Make engine smoke collide with the ground to get cool smoke clouds at launch.

-No smoke produced by liquid fuel engines/jet engines (unless near the ground to simulate dust/debris being blown around)

-No flames in space, but the engine bell should still glow red

What do you wish to be reworked in terms of the art/effects?

[CaptainKipard]

Porkjets parts don't all line up geometrically, and the texture quality of some of his parts look a little rushed.

[Vaporo]

Wouldn't the exhaust still emit light in space? Doesn't exhaust glow because it's hot, and not because it's interacting with the atmosphere?

[Bill Phil]

I think that rocket exhaust is visible, but not necessarily glowing, it's like a well distinguished vapor trail.

[FishInferno]

ok, then maybe make it kind of like RCS effects?

[razark]

Wouldn't the exhaust still emit light in space?

But it also expands very rapidly due to the lack of atmospheric pressure.

Apollo 17 lunar liftoff:

Note the glow on the Decent Stage, but once the Ascent Stage rises a bit, there's not really any visible exhaust.

[Bill Phil]

There is a glow, and the lander ascent engine probably isn't an amazing example.

[Starwhip]

Oooh, the smoke-ground collision seems promising! Also, the expanding exhaust is something I've wanted for a while, but haven't found any mod for it.

[razark]

There is a glow, and the lander ascent engine probably isn't an amazing example.

There is a glow shortly after liftoff. The later glow appears only when the engine is pointed directly toward the camera.

If we don't like the Ascent Stage, will a Saturn V do? Apollo 6, separation of the interstage between the first and second stages. Note that the exhaust is not visible except for the fact it is striking the interstage.

Video, at about 4:20

Edited January 10, 2015 by razark

[Renegrade]

If we don't like the Ascent Stage, will a Saturn V do? Apollo 6, separation of the interstage between the first and second stages. Note that the exhaust is not visible except for the fact it is striking the interstage.

Are you sure that isn't just a film deficiency? I mean, you're talking about some 60s era camera shooting on 60s era film - you might as well be shooting on a screen of mystery goo for all the quality that gets you. There was a fairly big boost to film and lens quality and engineering in the 70s and 80s.

And even still, modern, high grade film or digital is very limited compared to the eyes - you're talking 8-12 stops of dynamic range for modern camera gear, and 24 stops for the human eye. Bright light in a scene can make many subtle effects invisible to the camera.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just.. has anybody REALLY seen a large engine in a vacuum with their own eyes? In most vacuum situations, the only people present that can see with bare eyes would be inside the vehicle, with a terrible viewing angle (like the Apollo 6 footage - given that angle, you wouldn't be able to even see a poodle exhaust plume).

Also..why IS it visible when it strikes the interstage?

[Captain Sierra]

Guys, engine particle effects should NOT be based in reality. Bear in mind that MOST of the KSP playerbase are not rocket engine gurus and will not know or care what rocket exhaust does ASL or in vac. Don't realism-.... the beauty out of things.

Engine particle effects need to look BELIEVABLE, and to the masses, something like HotRockets passes the believability test with flying colors.

[Renegrade]

Guys, engine particle effects should NOT be based in reality. Bear in mind that MOST of the KSP playerbase are not rocket engine gurus and will not know or care what rocket exhaust does ASL or in vac. Don't realism-.... the beauty out of things.

What really? I helped manufacture engine bells in the 60s for some 'Appalling' US project. Something about Communists on the Moon? Green cheese? I forget the exact details. Anyhow, Rocketdyne wasn't able to make enough of these massively huge engine bells, so we filled in as a subcontractor and provided the ones with odd-numbered serial numbers. Anyhow, I'm certain everybody else reading this has been involved in aerospace in one way or another.

(just kidding)

I don't want to see the effects removed either, but certainly adding effects of exhaust expansion isn't going to ruin the visual aesthetics of the game, no?

Engine particle effects need to look BELIEVABLE, and to the masses, something like HotRockets passes the believability test with flying colors.

Uh no, not with that Poodle effect, it doesn't. The other effects were nice, but the Poodle one was terrible (and MAJORLY FAKE).

(Disclaimer: I haven't used Hotrockets since it corrupted a save way back in the day. I take my comments back if the Poodle effect has been improved since then..but I'm not trying it out ever again unless it's been changed to a new method wherein it cannot corrupt saves. Thank goodness I have an auto-backup, but I still had to roll back about 30 minutes)

[Brotoro]

Are you sure that isn't just a film deficiency? I mean, you're talking about some 60s era camera shooting on 60s era film - you might as well be shooting on a screen of mystery goo for all the quality that gets you. There was a fairly big boost to film and lens quality and engineering in the 70s and 80s.

And even still, modern, high grade film or digital is very limited compared to the eyes - you're talking 8-12 stops of dynamic range for modern camera gear, and 24 stops for the human eye. Bright light in a scene can make many subtle effects invisible to the camera.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just.. has anybody REALLY seen a large engine in a vacuum with their own eyes? In most vacuum situations, the only people present that can see with bare eyes would be inside the vehicle, with a terrible viewing angle (like the Apollo 6 footage - given that angle, you wouldn't be able to even see a poodle exhaust plume).

Also..why IS it visible when it strikes the interstage?

Gemini 10 and 11 docked with Agena target vehicles that were used to boost them into higher orbits. The Gemini docks nose-first to the front of the Agena, so the astronauts were looking back toward the Agena's engine. You could look up what the engine firing looked like...but I recall reading that the flame was not visible after engine start.

Addendum: I found the reference in a book. The description of the Agena burn by the Gemini 11 astronauts: At ignition there was a very bright fireball followed by sparks and smoke, but then it settled down to not being very visible. At engine burn tail off, things again got exciting again with sparks and smoke.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Brotoro

[razark]

Are you sure that isn't just a film deficiency?

Yes. It's a known phenomenon. If you ever read any of the Apollo hoax junk, you'll come across them complaining about the lack of visible exhaust, along with people explaining why. The exhaust spreads out, excess fuel is not burning off in atmosphere, and in the case of the Lunar Module, the fuel provides a very transparent exhaust in the first place. Look up photos of a Gemini launch. The flame is visible, but not very. The LM and SM used the same fuel.

Also..why IS it visible when it strikes the interstage?

Because the interstage starts burning when struck by a five large blowtorches.

Bear in mind that MOST of the KSP playerbase are not rocket engine gurus and will not know or care what rocket exhaust does ASL or in vac.

I've read very many stories from new players that say something along the lines of "I went straight up, and thought I'd be in orbit." Do you accept that as a reason to change the game to make it work that way?

[FishInferno]

Guys, engine particle effects should NOT be based in reality. Bear in mind that MOST of the KSP playerbase are not rocket engine gurus and will not know or care what rocket exhaust does ASL or in vac. Don't realism-.... the beauty out of things.

I think most people know that there can't be fire in Space

[Rdivine]

The fuel tanks such as and

have smeared textures to them.

All the rockets have polished tanks, which isn't smeared except after firing.

Squad please find nicer textures for the tanks!

(The newer parts look way more polished)

[Hannu]

Are you sure that isn't just a film deficiency?

No it is not problem in film. Flames emit light by two separate processes. One is that exhaust gas molecules are in excited state after forming. Their electrons fall back to ground states and emit light. It causes typically faint blue light. Other process is thermal radiation of solid combustion products. It can be from red to yellow and white and it's brightness depends how much there are suitable particles in exhaust gas and what is temperature. In many cases it wins electron excitation effect and flames seem to be bright yellowish. Kerosine contains carbon, which produce small particles. Amount depends on conditions. In many cases rocket engines are burned with fuel rich mixture, so there are excess carbon. Solid rocket boosters produce huge amount of small particles and their flames are extremely bright and smoke production is enormous.

But the second stage of Saturn V used hydrogen and oxygen. They can not produce any solid small particles and only light come from excited water molecules. There are much high quality video material from Space shuttle main engines. You can see faint blue glow. It could be seen also in the Apollo video, if there had been a black background instead of bright blue earth. Actually there are video from the same flight which shows S-IVB's (third stage) ignition from front end of S-II. You can see blue glow in front of black background.

Also..why IS it visible when it strikes the interstage?

Very hot exhaust gases burns paint and surface material of interstage. Burning is incomplete and produces glowing particles. You can test it by yourself if you want. Just take a gas torch and point it to a painted metal sheet.

[klgraham1013]

It'd be nice if the rocket parts looked less like this:

and more like this:

The NASA parts were a step in the right direction. Let's get the other parts up to speed.

[RainDreamer]

Some of the stock part does need to look like a tin barrel though, especially if we are going to have a barn as our first step in career. Strapping a pod on top of barrels of explosive and light it up. What else could be more kerbal? The later parts in the tech tree need to look much more sleek and high tech.

I suggest this mod for those who likes an update in look for stock parts: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92764-90-Stock-Part-Revamp-Update-1-6%21

(it also add a few more new things and modify some, but mostly improved look for stock parts)

[Whovian]

I've read very many stories from new players that say something along the lines of "I went straight up, and thought I'd be in orbit." Do you accept that as a reason to change the game to make it work that way?

No, but realism in aesthetics is a much different matter from realism in physics. KSP is meant to simulate rockets well within reasonable deviation (as it doesn't have n-body simulation, general relativistic orbits, or the slight deviation from spherehood planets tend to have); a quick look at most of KSP will inform one that aesthetics are not, in fact, a large portion of the game.

I wouldn't mind some overhaul to the aesthetics, specifically the pre-ARM parts' appearance, and in fact would rather like such an overhaul. I wouldn't object to modifying the exhaust effects as described either, though I don't have any preference on this bit personally. Do keep in mind, however, that aesthetics aren't the focus of the game, and the devs will focus on what they consider to be the most-needed modifications to the game.

[FishInferno]

Do keep in mind, however, that aesthetics aren't the focus of the game, and the devs will focus on what they consider to be the most-needed modifications to the game.

true, but the game will look tacky if it is released with newer, prettier parts alongside older parts that don't have the same art style.

[razark]

true, but the game will look tacky if it is released with newer, prettier parts alongside older parts that don't have the same art style.

I'm not sure why the part styles need to match. Go look at the Redstone and Atlas launch vehicles. They were both used to lift Mercury, but they had quite different art styles.

[FishInferno]

I'm not sure why the part styles need to match. Go look at the Redstone and Atlas launch vehicles. They were both used to lift Mercury, but they had quite different art styles.

But KSP isn't meant to replicate history. All of the parts should go well together so they can be used together without looking bad.

[klgraham1013]

Some of the stock part does need to look like a tin barrel though, especially if we are going to have a barn as our first step in career.

I'm not sure why the part styles need to match. Go look at the Redstone and Atlas launch vehicles. They were both used to lift Mercury, but they had quite different art styles.

KSP is supposed to be a lego set where any part can attach to any other. A consistent art style is necessary for this. Having an oil drum attached to the SP+ or NASA parts just looks bad. The problem with the "barn" excuse is that those oil drum parts will still be relevant long after the barn is obsolete. Unless the textures get updated along with the KSC, I'd rather have parts that look good right out of the gate.

[Daze]

KSP is supposed to be a lego set where any part can attach to any other. A consistent art style is necessary for this. Having an oil drum attached to the SP+ or NASA parts just looks bad. The problem with the "barn" excuse is that those oil drum parts will still be relevant long after the barn is obsolete. Unless the textures get updated along with the KSC, I'd rather have parts that look good right out of the gate.

I couldn't find a more perfect description LF why we need global overhaul