Bej Kerman

I'm not belittling your experience, I'm explaining that the game's still playable in your scenario.

Their looks are irrelevant (they fit the artstyle of the game as with all the other parts, that's the most that matters) and they keep your engines off the surface of the pad. That's literally all they need to do. And? The clamps don't need umbilicals or bridges to the crew capsule from the launch tower.

That's great, though I maintain the bug is not a game breaker. It's just a craft spinning.

Okay Can't remember what the B stands for (building? base?), but OABs are gonna be where you launch interstellar vehicles from. Those things that range from hundreds of meters long to kilometers. No, I don't think the Lowne method is gonna be viable between a crew shuttle and a colossal space station. Unless you like your dockings to take hours, again assuming the game runs physics on OABs. I think assuming OABs will be important for interstellar colonisation is a pretty solid assumption. If you don't want to go interstellar or play with colonies, I guess that's your way of playing.

We're back to a desire for realism without much thought into gameplay impact. Life Support is not going to turn your game into a big budget Hollywood drama a la The Martian, it's outright going to prevent you from playing out The Martian from NASA's perspective. It'll just be a timer that goes down too quickly to mount any kind of rescue beyond LKO. Out of genuine and sincere curiosity, would you have watched The Martian if it was just Mark Watney sitting completely still for two hours before succumbing to a lack of snacks? Because that's what LS would do if it were deadly.

I really want to know what your plan is if a vessel runs out of power or you're still here when OABs come out. Those are scenarios where you end up with the game supposedly "unplayable" bc the Lowne lazy method is not viable, but things are running completely within the bounds of what the devs intended. It really is an exaggeration because the game is still playable. You can still at least try dock normally. You're not softlocked or forced to revert. Unplayable means you can't do either, but in this case, you can.

You can see said navigation tool if it's off to the left as well. There is no compromise, being able to see it and the ground is simply better than only being able to see it. If you don't like wasting 2/3rds of your screen on emptiness, then how come with KSP 1's navball (in the case of low resolution monitors) you suggest wasting 2/3rds of the screen vertically? The top and bottom is where the action is happening, thus I posit to you that panning the camera in KSP 2 to put the vessel alongside the navball is less wasteful than panning the camera in KSP 1 to account for the navball. Also you can just zoom in so less space is wasted. So just pan the camera then zoom in. Problem solved.

That one's new to me. Learning to dock via the Lowne lazy method is like learning to draw anime before learning how to do realistic anatomy. You're not hurting me, but it can only be useful knowing how to dock properly in case a bug happens. Barring bugs, you might need to dock with something whose batteries are dead and reaction wheels inoperable, and at some point you'll be expected to dock vessels to orbital bases that are far too big to use the Lowne lazy method on. Thus I expect only knowing how to dock like this will probably cause trouble for you in the future, even under circumstances that are 100% as the developers intended. And with that, I maintain that the game being unplayable in this report is an exaggeration per my initial stance.

They're both just information received from someone else. Sorry, allow me to rephrase: If you start steering someone into using whatever OS, through commandive statements (e.g. "Hang on a bit longer!"), whether by accident or not, [insert rest of sentence here].

We absolutely do

Hearsay is direct experience to anyone who says it, but still ultimately no more valuable.

That's the point. Deadly life support makes poor planning boring.

A counterargument, it's a counterargument. And yeah, if you start pushing people into using whatever OS you use instead of allowing them to make their own educated choices, I'll move to counter an argument that boils down to "look at these things MacOS can do that are common to basically all systems with an internet connection". I'm pretty sure a search list that consists mostly of blogs and claims that it's a "pretty widely accepted trend" still fall into hearsay. Since Wikipedia doesn't accept "just google it" as a valid citation, it's probably for the best a citation is seen here. Preferably not one of the thousands of blogs or Quora questions listed there.

What's wrong with them?

"I have one day to rescue X and no torch drives" is not stakes, just annoyance.

If we define advantage as something you can find on nearly every device, I guess so Well, your honor, we've got plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence!

Those aren't advantages. Cloud services are not exclusive to just Macs, a Unix line is something Linux probably has and the GUI is so subjective it's probably not worth touching on when comparing OSes. Sunk cost fallacy. Okay, but till a citation is given, for all intents and purposes we can ignore claims of stability

A citation is needed on "stability and reliability".

Killing one of the most fun emergent gameplay loops in all of gaming would be a real burden, yes. Putting a hard time limit in the same boat as not having enough ablator or fuel is a false equivalent. Plus, as Vl3d said earlier, there's a difference between actually thinking out how this affects gameplay and if it'd be more annoying than fun, and simply having an emotional desire for realism. As far as I can tell, you've not yet explained how exactly you'd want this implemented, besides in a manner that completely prevents you from doing Blunderbirds style missions.

What benefit do macs have over PCs? If they want to use a PC instead, I say they should go right ahead.

The game isn't unplayable cause a very minor SAS bug prevents you from using the lazy method. Just dock as you would do an immobile station, rotate parallel to the target port and approach from there using RCS.

Just to reiterate again, this is not "slightly".

It ain't. When rendered at an integer scale, I think it looks quite nice. The problem is when it's scaled or moved by a non-integer amount. Ultimately a flat UI would have been better by virtue of being really easy to scale for any resolution, but I don't think what the designers were going for here is necessarily bad.

Docking is just as plain sailing in KSP 2 as it was in KSP 1. At this point, reports of the game being unplayable are greatly exaggerated at best.

Newsflash: KSP has planets, and if the presence of landing gear parts is anything to go off of, it's an important gameplay aspect. I get you were trying to make some kind of joke, but the entire point of a joke is to have some aspect of truth to it.