The new UI for KSP2 - improvements and regressions from previous concepts?

[Ahres]

On 10/26/2022 at 7:32 AM, Xelo said:

y e s.
(bar on duna)

now higher quality mockup.
I also think it should retract and disappear when there's no atmosphere, but that's probably just me.

Wow Xelo that's amazing!! This is exactly what I'm envisioning!

Also, another note for Nate, because I feel bad. While I've expressed my preference for the UI style, I'd still very much be happy with the latest style we've been shown in the Early Access Feature Video. It seems like folks on the forums saw the PCGamer style and were very vocal about how they didn't like it. Now we've been shown a new style because the devs were cool enough to respond to our feedback, and there's people saying they liked the old style better. That's got to be disheartening for whomever put so much work into what we've been shown on this latest iteration. Let it be stated at least once that it's still a very good UI and I would absolutely enjoy using it.

[The Aziz]

People who find it okay, don't say anything, most word comes from the complainers. That's a norm. Bad norm, so let's change that.

Anyway, back at the time of the article, most people complained how it doesn't look like KSP1 UI (because they're driven by nostalgia and are afraid of change), navball not in the center (where it obscures important part of the view during, oh I don't know, landing?) etc. Hardly valid arguments.

Here, now, most people have good points regarding clutter, pixels etc. Clutter was acknowledged, not sure about everything else.

Meanwhile, there was one different style in the latest video that was close to being the best of them all.

LCD font from previous one gone, navball was clear and simple (maybe too simple, but eh), all buttons and info is there, has modern shapes. Not counting out of place (I think) G or vertical velocity indicator.

[Luriss]

19 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

People who find it okay, don't say anything, most word comes from the complainers. That's a norm. Bad norm, so let's change that.

Anyway, back at the time of the article, most people complained how it doesn't look like KSP1 UI (because they're driven by nostalgia and are afraid of change), navball not in the center (where it obscures important part of the view during, oh I don't know, landing?) etc. Hardly valid arguments.

Here, now, most people have good points regarding clutter, pixels etc. Clutter was acknowledged, not sure about everything else.

Meanwhile, there was one different style in the latest video that was close to being the best of them all.

LCD font from previous one gone, navball was clear and simple (maybe too simple, but eh), all buttons and info is there, has modern shapes. Not counting out of place (I think) G or vertical velocity indicator.

Judging by the monitor this was taken on July 13, 2022. What's a bit odd however is that UI seems to have a closer resemblance to the old one as can be seen here:

https://imgur.com/e9UB8tm

I think the UI we saw in the feature video is newer (personally I prefer that one, but that's just my two cents).

[Ahres]

1 hour ago, The Aziz said:

People who find it okay, don't say anything, most word comes from the complainers. That's a norm. Bad norm, so let's change that.

...

LCD font from previous one gone, navball was clear and simple (maybe too simple, but eh), all buttons and info is there, has modern shapes. Not counting out of place (I think) G or vertical velocity indicator.

Well said, the Aziz. Like I mentioned, I'd still play the heck out of that newest UI. And, if I'm being honest, it's already grown on me in these days since it was unveiled....

Anyway, moving on to your screenshot, I noticed that clip as well. I do want to add another solely personal preference: I love the idea of the "tapes" flying by in the new UI as your vessel is blistering up into the sky or approaching the ground way too fast. That's a feature that could come in handy for landing where you can get a peripheral sense of how fast the ground is approaching without having to actually look at your velocity value. So I do hope that stays. What a fun thing to have included.

Oh dear... maybe I'm a fan of the new UI now. I didn't know I could flip-flop that quickly about something KSP related.

Edited October 27, 2022 by Ahres

[Ryaja]

On 10/24/2022 at 6:48 PM, Ryaja said:

Personally, I prefer this design o er the new one. It just feels more 3d and is a little bit smoother, I remember seeing someone combine this one with the older one, I really liked that design.

 

On 10/25/2022 at 3:01 PM, The Aziz said:

I believe what @Xelo crafted looked like the (almost) best compromise.

A combo of the old and the new

Also, there was a discussion about SI system, (not that I want to get back to it) but it shows well why case matters. M vs m.

This was the one I was talking about in my previous post

[Nazalassa]

On 10/24/2022 at 3:00 PM, RealKerbal3x said:

In KSP1 this usually wouldn't matter as 'normal' mission lengths often don't even make use of two digits

I am currently at year 21,755,218 and the mission isn't finished yet.

[shdwlrd]

I've been trying to come up with a response that didn't directly call out the stubbornness of people that think the navball is the only way to tell the orientation of your craft in space. 

The navball is mostly useful in horizontal flight, if not the most accurate thing you can use though. With most aircraft, its only a 1-2° change in orientation that can change an efficient flight profile to an inefficient flight profile. You're not in a real aircraft to hear and feel these queues. You need to rely on good, accurate orientation readings, which the navball doesn't give you. The ladder display does give you the accuracy you need. An greatly enlarged navball design works for that too. (Frankly, the navball in KSP is displayed too small to be helpful when minute changes in orientation is necessary.)

In vertical flight it's the inaccurate and incomplete information of the navball I can't deal with. In vertical flight in a tailsitter rocket, (not a helicopter or horizontally designed VTOL) how do you tell by looking at the navball which direction is forward/backwards? Which direction is right or left? (Forward is the side where the cockpit window(s) are. Backwards is the opposite side of the window(s). Left and right is from the forward prospective.) How do you tell the number of degrees off of vertical you are and in which directions? Look at the craft is the response I always get. But that isn't helpful. It seems to be a canned response from someone who can't see that there might be an issue, don't want something to change, or don't want to think that there might be a better way.

A good navigational and orientation display should clearly show your crafts situation in space with just a picture. Not a gif, clip, or movie, just a picture. The navball currently is barely usable in horizontal flight and useless in vertical flight. Outside of the inaccuracy of the information displayed, it's lack of a clear explanation of the crafts orientation with regards to your pitch, roll, and yaw within a 3d space makes it unusable for me. 

Yes, I would prefer a ladder style display but I agree, that may not be the best answer for everyone, but it's the best answer for me. You can also do a navball with the crafts orientation show within it. You can do a hybrid navball with integrated ladders for pitch, yaw, and roll. Or some other design that suits your needs. But give good, clear information of your crafts situation and orientation in space.

[The Aziz]

1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

how do you tell by looking at the navball which direction is forward/backwards? Which direction is right or left?

From these two you can tell everything. Forward, backward, left, right, up, down.

1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

How do you tell the number of degrees off of vertical you are and in which directions?

44 degrees east. Or right, if you want.

1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

The navball currently is barely usable in horizontal flight

Shows heading, current angle and pitch, what else do I need? It's not like I can go sideways in a plane.

1 hour ago, shdwlrd said:

lack of a clear explanation of the crafts orientation with regards to your pitch, roll, and yaw within a 3d space

Literally all I said above.

I take off on an atmoshpereless body? I look at navball (unless I have to avoid obstacles then of course I look where I'm going). I land? I look at navball until literally few last meters to make sure I'm landing on a safe ground. I dock? I look at navball, all the info is there (except distance to target, but that's KSP1 UI design fault, not the tool)

I don't know how in the world, a ladder, that shows only quite literally what's fight in front of my face, would be any useful. Especially when they use such narrow field of view. Well it is, for aircraft, where you don't need to see what's around you. Can I take a look at 90 degrees in every direction? Don't think so.

Also.

Spoiler

Space Shuttle, Orion, Starliner

Oh dear, navballs everywhere, how could they fly these with such useless tools??

 

[shdwlrd]

3 hours ago, The Aziz said:

44 degrees east. Or right, if you want.

If I press W, which way is the navball going to rotate? Will it move along the 90º marker? Will it move along the 45º circle? Will it move to the diagonally to the 180º at the horizon? Or zero 0º at the horizon? And before you ask, I would have to hit WASD to figure out which way the ball would move before I would change my orientation. Also, how hard would it be to show in text form; Pitch +46; Yaw +91; Roll -90 from the 0,0,0 on the navball? 

[Bej Kerman]

I don't really mind which KSP 2 UI gets used. Any way they have it, the biggest issue with the KSP 1 UI is still being addressed: The fact you have to look at the bottom of the screen for a speed and angle readout, ping your eyes to the very top of the screen just for the altitude, then look back at the middle to see how your craft is affected by how it's moving. Doing this is massively irritating, but it won't happen in KSP 2 because Intercept's UI experts actually know how eyes work.

[TLTay]

The most amazing thing to me after all of this KSP2 development is just how right HarveseR and team (Squad) got it with such a low budget and limited (initial)  game making knowledge. BRAVO! I salute you!

I've been reading from key developers how they've been iterating on the nav UI for... years maybe? Please just pick a dozen options and give the option to customize UI in the options menu. It'll be ok. The focus and time is better spent elsewhere. No need to reinvent the wheel. 

[Pthigrivi]

41 minutes ago, TLTay said:

I've been reading from key developers how they've been iterating on the nav UI for... years maybe? Please just pick a dozen options and give the option to customize UI in the options menu. It'll be ok. The focus and time is better spent elsewhere. No need to reinvent the wheel. 

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, TLTay said:

The focus and time is better spent elsewhere. No need to reinvent the wheel. 

Sudden Challenge

Get to Jool with no UI

That's right, it isn't important 

[Just a random person]

18 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

In vertical flight in a tailsitter rocket, (not a helicopter or horizontally designed VTOL) how do you tell by looking at the navball which direction is forward/backwards?

In a tailsitter, forward is the nose or top of the craft, generally pointing towards the sky, and is represented in the navball by the orange marker in the center. Dorsal ("up" if the craft was sitting horizontally like a plane) is the side with the hatch on all pods and lander cans, and is the top of the navball (the part with the velocity readout). Pitching up makes the nose move up "towards" the hatch, or dorsal side if you want to use the fancy terms. On the navball, this looks like the dorsal side (top of the navball) is moving towards your nose.

18 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Which direction is right or left?

Right or left side of the navball.

12 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

If I press W, which way is the navball going to rotate? Will it move along the 90º marker? Will it move along the 45º circle? Will it move to the diagonally to the 180º at the horizon? Or zero 0º at the horizon?

Like this: Arrows show the direction of the navball's rotation, crosses show the points around which it rotates, and the orange is the path that the nose marker is going to trace on the ball (the bottom of the ball will move towards the nose).

Simply put, the ball will move vertically from your perspective.

 

Same with yawing: like pitching but rotated 90 degrees.

The ball will move horizontally from your perspective.

 

Finally, rolling left (pressing Q): Navball rotates around the nose, direction of the ship doesn't change.

 

12 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

Also, how hard would it be to show in text form; Pitch +46; Yaw +91; Roll -90 from the 0,0,0 on the navball?

This I agree with, numerical readouts would be nice. However I think it would be easy to confuse the pitch coordinate (angular distance from horizon) with the pitch axis of the craft, which are different things (and in this particular case would be perpendicular to each other).

This again comes back to your original problem of the UI being hard to read if you aren't familiar with it. In the example, your heading is P+46, Y+91, R-90. What direction do you have to turn to change your pitch to 0? If you're not familiar with angular coordiantes, you'd  initially think to pitch down to reduce the pitch number. Actually you have to yaw right, because here the pitch coordinate is not the same as your pitch axis.

If you then accept that you have to learn to read a display in a certain way to efficiently use it, there is no real problem with a navball either. All the important information is there, you just have to know how to read it. It's the same with all displays and UI formats and whatnot, the navball is just arguably the most efficient one for spacecraft.

Edited October 29, 2022 by Just a random person
Typos...

[The Aziz]

It's been years since the attitude tool appeared on the bottom left of the screen in KSP1. And been present in hundreds of games. I still have no idea what pitching and yawing do. Or rather, which input does what. It's irrelevant because I can see it visually on the navball. I know when I hit D I do a righthand powerslide in a plane. Thus I don't need precise numbers. Aside from rare occasions I do some atmospheric flights, I don't need to read the exact heading either. Not very useful because I can see all the markers on the navball and my ship's relative position to them.

[Wubslin]

Question. Ages back, we got Game Informer claim no. 6 here about the navball gutter. You can also see that the navball is transparent, and markers on the opposite side of the ball can be dimly seen. Have these "which damn way is retrograde" helpers been cut in the name of visual cleanliness, or what? I thought they were pretty neat ideas.

 

[ShadowZone]

On 10/24/2022 at 4:10 AM, TROPtastic said:

At this point most of us have probably seen the Early Access trailer - including the part where @Nate Simpson showed off the new UI and talked about the tape indicator concept. Overall, it's great that Intercept is looking to real-world systems for design inspiration, but I feel like certain elements of their current UI are a bit lacking in terms of readability and usability (and in fact, could be improved by leaning even harder into modern real-world flight UIs). I thought this thread would be good to summarize some of the comments from the announcement thread and share my own thoughts, including the good parts of the new design!

 

Readability of atmospheric indicator

This one was brought up by @poopslayer78, who commented that "the rocket is very tall compared to each atmosphere layer indicator, which makes it ambiguous where layer you're in." You can see the current implementation below:

I agree (is altitude measured from the center of the rocket? the window? the bottom of the nozzle?), and I think the following concepts are better since they tell you exactly where you are in the atmosphere. The first one is poopslayer's nice AI edited one, and the others are my attempts in Photopea:

It would be nice as well if there was an indicator LED or symbol w/ text to say "You are in space now! No need to worry about drag!" like poopslayer mentioned in their comment, since the topmost box of this UI suggests that there is still some atmosphere with the pale blue dots. Alternatively, KSP1's atmosphere indicator did a great job of indicating that you were in space since the last region of the indicator had no colouring at all:

Visualizing the relative depth of the different atmospheric layers as shown in a previous concept would be very cool, particularly if this could change for different celestial bodies. If not, then sticking with equal size boxes as shown is fine.

Readability of navball

This one was mentioned by @t_v, who pointed out that " the amount of lines and markers on the navball makes it hard to really distinguish specific pitch angles, and the text on the rest of the UI fades into the information surrounding it". 

I partly agree with this comment, because some views look quite readable for precision orientation (kind of like the KSP1 navball, see first image below), whereas others are definitely hard to read with a combination of dithering at the edges, pixelated numbers, and low contrast secondary numbers (see 2nd image): 

We can also see that some of the orbital orientation markers were changed between builds (no more normal or radial indicators), which is hopefully something that is changed back to KSP1 symbology since the old symbols will be easier to read when placed on the navball. Given the increased emphasis on tutorials and animations to educate players, I'm sure that learning normal/anti-normal and radial/anti-radial symbols will be simple enough.

Overly "retro" aesthetic of the UI

This is perhaps the most subjective opinion, but it's one that I share. @The Aziz said in a post "the pixely font and icons just don't work for a civilization that is about to hit interstellar space. Instead, we landed in the late 90's." I think the dithering and font choice for UI elements is a big part of this, since it causes what would otherwise be a very modern interface to look rather busy, hard to read, and outdated. A bit strange for a society operating advanced jets and (eventually) interstellar technology that is decades or centuries ahead of 2022 humanity. They highlighted these SpaceX UIs which look exactly as modern as you'd expect a flight control interface to be in the 2020s:

You can see that SpaceX uses a smooth gradient shadow to indicate the 3D-ness of the navball, without any dithering or pixelation to be seen anywhere  

I actually don't think the SpaceX navball is a perfect fit for players who will be flying their crafts manually, so having more numbers like the current KSP2 concept and KSP1 is better than having fewer numbers and markings like the older concept below (and maybe like SpaceX too):

Personally, I think that something like the real world HUD below would be ideal as a working UI that is in the same style as what we have seen in the past: 

Everything is easy to read at a glance, highly legible, and uses high-contrast text and colours (even in this photo, which reduced some of the contrast). It also uses the "tape indicators" that the current UI does, so good job devs on implementing them  The main area where we could diverge is adding a smooth (non-dithered) gradient to the navball as shown in one of the team's earlier concepts, since we will make more dramatic attitude adjustments than most airliners  

 

Summary of likes and dislikes with the new UI

Since we were kindly asked to share things we like as well as what we don't like (thank you Fernanda), here is a list of what I think the new UI does well compared to previous concepts:

Great stuff

• The rolling tape indicators are a great way to show critical altitude, speed, and heading information at a glance, and having the indicators scroll based on rate of change will be super cool and engaging.
• The button outlines on the altitude and speed tapes make it more obvious that you can change between different modes, compared to the older concept I showed above.
• The mission time is super legible compared to a previous UI concept, and the button makes it obvious that you can switch between MET and UT.
• Having UI section "titles" like SAS.CONTROL and TIME.WARP = 1.0X will be useful for new and returning players alike
• The throttle indicator suggests to players that you can adjust your throttle smoothly (including by dragging the handle), which is great for people who may have thought that you can only adjust it in 5% increments or what-have-you.
• Putting a separate and legible rate of descent indicator right next to the navball is genius, and will probably help a lot of people to not slam into the ground (accidentally, anyway). Hopefully the warning and danger zones update based on local gravity and the strength of your landing gear.
• The numbers on the pop-out tape indicators are easier to read than the 8 segment style digits of the previous UI and the pixelated numbers of other parts of the current UI.
• The amount of interval markers on the navball makes it easier to burn at a specific angle and heading compared to a previous UI concept and kind of like the KSP1 navball.
• At a glance apoapsis and periapsis info is presented well.
• The GO button is solid green!

And a summary of what was said in the sections above, with some additions:

Areas for improvement

• The previous concept (shown under the aesthetic section) had a very tasteful and legible style of dithering, probably because dithering wasn't used for any elements that were intended to be read. If the team would like to stick with dithering instead of smooth shading, that is probably the way to go.
• Units should follow SI capitalization consistently to avoid confusion (ex. lowercase "m" for meters", "km" for kilometers, "Mm" for megameters (millions of meters), etc.) - thanks shimmy00!
• The text on the tapes themselves is a bit hard to read because of the pixelated font.
• The text in the UI section titles is  hard to read because of the pixelated font combined with its small size (the size would be fine if it was used with a normal minimal-serif font).
• The atmospheric indicator doesn't show neither exactly where a craft is in the atmosphere (KSP1 style) nor the relative depth of the atmospheric layers (older KSP2 concept style).
• The atmospheric indicator implies that a craft is still experiencing partial drag even when it is at its darkest colour due to the chosen dithering.
• The hinting of where other orientation markers were in a previous UI was very cool (appropriately futuristic) and useful, and that is missing from the latest UI .
• The removal of normal/anti-normal and radial/anti-radial markers is a step back in terms of rocketry education and general legibility
• The current navball is hard to read wherever dithering and pixelated numbers interact with attitude lines and oblique view angles (ex. flying straight up from the surface).
• Having pitch/attitude marks and labels only on the cardinal heading lines like KSP1 would make the overall navball more clear.
• Because of the dithering on the RCS and SAS buttons, it is not obvious that they are enabled if they are both on.
• Subjectively, everything pixelated and dithered in the current UI looks too outdated for the level of polish the rest of the game will have.
• The stage number on the GO button is harder to read compared to a previous UI due to the choice of font and the green on black colour choice.

Overall, I know that we're commenting on "pre-alpha" footage and that things could have already changed, but since we're approaching early access, I think its better to get this feedback out now so that we can ensure the best possible reviews at KSP2's EA launch  . I'll probably update this thread when @ShadowZone releases his UI video on Oct. 28, since he has real-world experience with UI design that will make for very insightful commentary.

 

 

Thanks for the mention and the great work aggregating the feedback so far!

Unfortunately I didn't find this thread until my video was already released or I would have mentioned it. But I'll put a link in the video description.

Here's the video btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvs6e92SqNg

 

[The Aziz]

Nice summary (though you said that KSP1 did not have a vertical speed indicator, or at least that's how I understood it, but it had one). Buuut I kept waiting for your own opinion on the style changes over the years (and even in the latest episode itself as there was one, I assume older, UI version).

[ShadowZone]

1 minute ago, The Aziz said:

Nice summary (though you said that KSP1 did not have a vertical speed indicator, or at least that's how I understood it, but it had one). Buuut I kept waiting for your own opinion on the style changes over the years (and even in the latest episode itself as there was one, I assume older, UI version).

Yeah people made me aware of my mistake already... I really never noticed that thing.

As for the version history, I cut a few paragraphs about that from my script because the video was already so long. Might do that when we have the real thing in our hands.

[jastrone]

in this video we see that almost all of the ui is located at the bottom of the screen. its good to have all the important parts of the ui in the same place but theres just too much stuff down there. i like how the navball sits in the corner but i think the stuff around it takes a bit too much space and i think it would be better to have the speed and atmosphere on other places  or atleast not a part of the navball. maybe under it would be a better idea.

and let me make it clear how much i hate the new atmosphere readout. as i have already said i dont like were it is but i also strongly dislike how it looks, if you zoom in on it you see that its pixelated and that looks really bad and doesnt really fit in with the ui. if you just lower the resolution of the video it looks much better. i also dont like how it is detached from the navball and the g force meter. i dont like how there is just a gap between the thing and the navball, same goes with the g force meter where there is a weird gap between them and its unsymetrical. just look at the other side of the navball there is no weird gap there. so if they really want all information readouts around the navball please make it look better. and it not only looks bad, as someone else pointed out there is no indicator just a rocket that takes up more than one hole square of the pressure readout. it looks bad and doesnt work please fix that.

now the other parts of the ui that arent that bad. the engine/fuel showing thing to the right over the stage/go button take up much space and in my opinion looks somewhat bad and cluttered. remove the backgroundand make the stripes a bit wider with the arrow pointer inside and it will take up a bit less space and you can atleast see through it.

 

the other thing is that there are so many things in the down centre. the timewarp, the manover node looking thing and the two squares with other squares inside of them. all of these are located right over where you are landing wich will make you tilt the camera down too see the ground. at that angle it will be harder to see how the spaceship is tilted and also harder to see how the ground is tilted. i had the same problem in ksp 1 since the navball was in the way and i like very much that it is in the corner but they just replaced it with other stuff that is in the way. most of these could be at the top of the screen instead. the timewarp thing was never in the way in ksp 1 so why change something that works. and why would you put it in the center it is not something that you need to quickly look at its something you press while you literally wait. there is no need for it to be in the center of the screen. the manouver node thing probably doesnt even need to be visible just in map view, on the other hand i dont know what it is but if they really need it it could fit over the navball where nothing is. like put all the ui on the side rockets are tall not wide you are covering up the rocket.

at last i dont really like the look of the ui, personally it looks a bit to digital and i prefer the ksp one ui where it almpst looks like a physical object. and all of the things look about the same. a dark blue square with some things inside of it. but thats just my opinion/taste and maybe it looks better after i have played ksp 2 for a while.

 

[Bej Kerman]

17 minutes ago, jastrone said:

but i think the stuff around it takes a bit too much space and i think it would be better to have the speed and atmosphere on other places  or atleast not a part of the navball. maybe under it would be a better idea.

I don't see a reason to do this. It's fairly distinct from surrounding elements and I don't think we should go back to having to scatter our eyes to know different things about our flight.

[Gargamel]

Overlapping threads have been merged. 

[jastrone]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

I don't see a reason to do this. It's fairly distinct from surrounding elements and I don't think we should go back to having to scatter our eyes to know different things about our flight.

it doesnt have to be far it just looks bad when they are just on top of eachother. take ksp one for example, a navball in the middle with a circle around it and every segment in that circle has some peice of info in it. here there is the navball in the middle, three differently sized circle segments around it that are not attached. three boxes over it and three small circles below it that are a part of it. there is no consistency and barelly any symetry. it doesnt seem planned it just looks like they put random things on top of eachother. and on top of all this(joke intended) there are different artstyles. I will try to make an image with something better later

Edited October 31, 2022 by jastrone

[Bej Kerman]

27 minutes ago, jastrone said:

it doesnt have to be far it just looks bad when they are just on top of eachother. take ksp one for example, a navball in the middle with a circle around it and every segment in that circle has some peice of info in it. here there is the navball in the middle, three differently sized circle segments around it that are not attached. three boxes over it and three small circles below it that are a part of it. there is no consistency and barelly any symetry. it doesnt seem planned it just looks like they put random things on top of eachother. and on top of all this(joke intended) there are different artstyles. I will try to make an image with something better later

The navball I'm looking at looks fairly uniform and is easy to parse.

[jastrone]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

having to scatter our eyes to know different things

heres an example on how it could be done in one thing and even making it more compact and looking more consistent

divided into four big sections that all have smaller sections but they all look the same.  this navball has all the same thing as the one shown but its just more consistent