Meecrob

@LoSBoL Ooh! Those are looking pretty slick!

I do not mean the front and centre of the display, I mean front and centre of where the pilot is looking. The Dragon one you sent is a displaying a different mode. There is no analogue in KSP. It still has a navball for quick reference while the pilot is concentrating on information that is temporarily more important than the navball. Thanks for the heads up, bro! This makes me happy.

You didn't look hard enough for the Dragon displays, and you mistakenly proved my point by showing that there is, if possible, a navball for quick reference wherever they can put one. Additionally the Orion example is valid. Look at the picture again, pretend to be in the pilot seat. That navball is pretty much where it would be if you were looking at KSP1. And that is my point. KSP1 has the navball EXACTLY where NASA has the navball. PLEASE Devs, for the love of God, do not pander to this group. Make the game proper, and let them have options to customize it however they want. maybe toss in some tutorials on how to use the navball, if they aren't already in KSP2?

The reason it obstructs your view is because you are not using it. Now, granted, you don't have to, but I'm sure you will notice that every KSP tutorial has a big emphasis on how to use the navball as your Primary Flight Display. Again, you can do it however you want, but lots of us prefer to use real-world techniques when playing simulators. Here is NASA's opinion on the matter: Mercury: Primitive navball front and centre Gemini: Navball front and centre for both astronauts Apollo: Again, front and centre. There is even a secondary navball for when the pilot is glancing at the instruments on the DSKY/centre panel Shuttle: Both the old steam gauge, and new digital panels have the navball front and centre. Bonus HUD literally front and centre on both as well Crew Dragon: Front and centre. Clearly inspired by Garmin's aviation panels Orion: Still front and centre [snip]

I think an interplanetary rocket qualifies as a "747 or something of that size." Why don't you just scroll past our discussion? This is literally the KSP2 Grand Discussion Thread, afterall.

I can show you, gimme a few days though, I'm a bit busy at the moment.

Because you keep trying to jam your opinion down my throat. You clearly do not understand that I am not trying to get kudos for being correct. I am merely trying to explain the reasoning behind navball placement. You are not the target of my comments. Similar to publicized debates, the people I am trying to reach are those reading my comments, not the person I am arguing with.

Look, I already said that I am 100% for having a movable navball. Would you kindly stop trying to prove me wrong? Again, this is not my opinion, this is the reality of aerospace. You can have whatever preferences you want, nobody is going to force you to do anything, but there is a very good reason navballs are where they are in real life. Also, for the record, if you focus on the navball, docking in IVA is exactly as difficult as from 3rd person.

No, its not. Otherwise they would put pilots in a pod behind the aircraft in real life.

I get your argument. I already addressed your point. To re-iterate: you will have much better results if you focus on the navball as opposed to the 3rd person view. I get that your personal preference is to focus on the 3rd person view. I wish you much enjoyment playing KSP. I'm merely saying the reasons behind this topic. Go play the game your way.

Oh my bad, you got me on that one. I was stuck thinking KSP1. Thanks for the heads up! Thanks for proving my last comment correct! Its been a slice.

Protip: the navball does not show altitude information. Look, I conceded that its your personal preference. I was saying what I did because people other than you are interested in stuff like this. I get you are interested in being "right" so go be right and leave me alone.

You can argue me all you want, this isn't my opinion. There is a saying in aviation: learn from others; you don't have enough lives to make enough mistakes to learn from experience yourself" I get that your personal preference is the navball on the side, I'm simply telling you the real-life reason navballs are shoved in your face.

I do not mean this to come across as mean, but just because you prefer something does not make it superior. There is a reason this instrument is front and centre in all air/spacecraft. I guarantee you, you will be able to fly better if you focus on the navball as opposed to the visual of your craft.

Edit: Having the navball closer to where you are looking speeds up your scan. you should be cycling through navball, altimiter, etc. as fast as you can. It also helps if when you are looking at the navball, the visual representation of your craft is in your close peripheral vision. With the navball at the side, its further from your centre of focus. Again, its personal preference, but there is a reason for the navball to be in an "annoying" place...its supposed to be. I agree on the movable UI, for sure.

Its a personal preference, but I wager that people with a background as a pilot prefer the navball front and centre. I'm not telling you or others how to play the game, but it is established fact that every aircraft/spacecraft has this instrument as in your face as possible.

The difference is you can fly a plane with reference to Visual Flight Rules. You can see your movement relative to another object (the Earth). In KSP, you have no reference other than the skybox.

I think, by deduction, they must be at least testing this capability. Perhaps they are testing out new thermal systems?

I know I'm walking in late, but I'm not sure I get this discussion. I'll be the first to admit that KSP is no Reentry (https://store.steampowered.com/app/882140/Reentry__An_Orbital_Simulator/), but RPG? Nah, this is pedantic semantics. Nobody is putting KSP on the list of RPGs like Diablo2 or ChronoTrigger. Maaaaybe you can stretch it to mean "KSP took some really weak RPG elements as a crutch to prop up the rest of the game", but its not an RPG no matter how much you dissect the "magic/hand-wavey" part of the underlying systems. MSFlightSim is technically an RPG if you use the logic in this thread. I am not an actual 747 pilot, I am "role playing" as one...but its still in a simulation. Seriously, go post a poll "Does KSP give you the same experience as Baldurs Gate?" C'mon, you know the answer. Maybe we should flip this; is Baldurs gate a simulation of an RPG? its a digital facsimile of an adaption of the core ideas of D&D...so is it "simulating" the table top game?

I agree totally, I just think that if I wasn't finished with a design, I'd hide it on the back side of my press graphic. Look, I want to not like Blue Origin, but I gotta be real and give them the benefit of the doubt. I want to eat crow if it means more space stuff!

I'd hazard to guess that Blue Origin intends to have a ground-level door, but they don't know what it will look like yet and just showed off the stuff they are close to completion. Doors are not usually complex...you can figure them out later. Just leave some space kinda thing.

To me, it seems that the KSP1 flight UI/navball was made by someone who has experience with flight sims, while the KSP2 UI was made by someone who plays arcade games that involve flying. Not sure how hard this would be to program, but maybe have multiple flight UIs that you can switch between, like HUD modes in aircraft. For example have a separate UI for Ascent, Orbit, EDL and Atmospheric/Ground Ops. That way you can prioritize important information pertinent to the flight regime at hand, rather than trying to place it all on the screen at once. With reference to the navball discussion above, you could have one UI where it is in the middle and one where it is off to the side, with the ability to toggle between the two, rather than having to choose one or the other (or manually moving the navball mid-flight).

Yeah, I agree. Especially if they are testing out slight tweaks on the engines.

I think what @WelshSteW is getting at is that it would be nice if things were worded with more care/communications were consolidated to a single point of view (not a single person's opinion, but a consistent opinion whoever gives the answer). In this example we have one person excited to announce the addition of a new team member. The way I took it, the aim was to advertise "we just hired an individual you all know and respect," which is a good thing to say. Another person said that there is a full team. I took that to mean "don't worry about the pace of the updates slowing down due to staffing issues (as has been speculated on this board)." Again, a good thing to say. However, when you combine the two, they can be contradictory. And objectively, some things said in the past have been said, then walked back*, so people are going to be sensitive about it. Having said that, I get the other side too. Accurately articulating yourself isn't gonna get 0.2 to drop any faster. I think we need to remember that we are mad at a situation, not eachother. I know I need to take that advice as well. * I am specifically being vague. We all were here, we don't need to re-hash it.

Yeah, I saw an interview with the guy who designed it, and he basically said that his earlier model worked, so he just scaled it up. It struck me as the same line of thinking as if you knew a Cessna 152 works, you can just scale it up to airliner size without any modifications. What could possibly go wrong?