Bej Kerman

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.

A. That's one more input the player needs to worry about now B. Some people have motor issues like dyspraxia C. Even discounting all this, your vertical field of view is effectively reduced Yeah no, having to look left slightly beats this hands down, and again can be fixed rather easily for people who can't do with it there. Being able to see the ground and having to look a tiny bit more away from the craft to see the navball is IMO better than not being able to see the ground at all just for the navball to be a tiny bit clearer. Especially in low resolution cases.

And that's worse than not being able to see the craft or the ground it's approaching, how? Again, the navball not being in the center of your vision is a non-issue in most cases, and in the case of users with poor eyesight, they can just pan the camera.

What would this do that normal launch clamps don't? What function would the Mk1 serve to justify its redundancy?

Welcome back! Per myself and Master39; I'd also be interested in you addressing the flaws in Dakitess' evaluation.

You never explain why Already explained why that's a bad solution.

Oh, okay. Now I'm curious, what did KSP 1's node editor do better for you?

No it wasn't.

I just did. 2.35 if you're curious. It wasn't bad and it'd work for something like SpaceEngine or Elite Dangerous, things that don't demand vertical space (hell, in Elite Dangerous, it's better since some ships have little vertical leeway but a lot of windows along the sides), but I'd still rather use the top and bottom of my monitor in the case of KSP 2 rather than spend it on black bars. Maybe I'll revisit using scope in a more literal sense if I ever wanted to record cinematic footage, but for most intents and purposes I think just sticking to 1.78 and scaling down the UI will yield the desired real estate without leaving unused areas of your monitor. Don't apologise for that, I was more concerned about you putting 16:9 down as if it's useless. It's a nice compromise between the academy ratio and scope.

"Disrespectful to the perils of space travel" is kind of a leap though.

I'd say making life support negligence outright fatal would only slip into "more annoying than it's worth" territory.

Out of genuine curiosity, this isn't hyperbole or some kind of joke, is it?

Okay, this one's on me, I should've figured something like this would happen as soon as a real world example of the navball being moved to the left came up. Bye bye

It's not up for discussion? Well apparently it is at SpaceX, and they decided it's best in the corner. Well there are real rockets with left-mounted navballs as illustrated above. The aerospace industry is as far as you can get from personal preference. And putting the navball on the left is a decision that SpaceX agrees with so I'm not sure what your point is, besides arguing for your own personal preference being default.

People who suffer from eye problems, as valid as their problems are, are not a majority of the playerbase, same goes for people who go overzealous on ultrawide setups, so the navball being in the corner by default really isn't a problem, and again you can just move the camera if you need your vessel next to it, so it's a non issue in those two cases. Yes I can blame game designers for not making a UI work at a common resolution. I like to use my whole screen as well and that's why I think the current default should remain the default. But again, while moving the navball isn't an option, the closest thing you have got right now if your peripheral vision is an issue is to move the camera. Till the devs let you drag the UI elements around, there's not much to do besides take this workaround or leave it. -Plus the developers themselves who made this the default navball behaviour in the first place, compared to the two or three posters complaining about the current default.

Said pilot IS using the navball, that doesn't make the idea of it being in the center by default and blocking the view any less problematic! You're making up a problem, the navball being ignored, that was never relevant. So what if the pilot concentrates on the navball? The navball doesn't tell them how close they are to scraping the edges of the cargo bay and it's blocking the view that would let them see how close they are. To address another example, so what if Matt Lowne is concentrating on the navball? That doesn't make zooming out to see the ground any less irritating for him and other console players. PC users who need to use smaller monitors will suffer from this issue as well so this is still a mistake on Squad's part. I'm simply using KSP:EE to demonstrate my point and point out an area where a lack of foresight for PC users ended up hitting another player group hard. And Squad is, well, Squad, so naturally it was placed badly. You don't like the navball being to the left? Just move the camera so your vessel is closer to the navball. I mean, that's just your solution, and if you really don't want to fiddle with the camera so the navball and vessel are next to each other, that's something for you to consider. That's a non-issue for the bigger part of the playerbase, and previously mentioned people who really need both in the center of their vision can just move the camera. Right? Tell me why the navball sitting too far from the middle of your vision is a problem if for the past several days you've been telling everyone to just move the camera.

With how remarkably square the human vision is, I'm surprised 21:9 is as popular as it is, especially compared to more logical ratios like 16:9 and 4:3.

Again, you're calling a playstyle you don't align with bad. The player in question is capable of docking like this, a point you're consistently ignoring, but would have trouble doing so if the navball occupied the middle of the screen. The problem is the navball, clearly. The player is obviously not shooting themselves in the foot if they're capable of doing a docking like this with little clearance around the lander, much less behind the engine. They're being shot in the foot by the navball since that is the one thing preventing them from docking as effectively. Just to reiterate a third time, the player is completely capable of docking in this scenario. ...adapting the experience, for example, by moving it to the left for the sake of the lower resolutions consoles tended to output at? It's not the console's or the player's fault the navball is in the middle and being blown up to display clearly at a low resolution, all by default. Developers tested this and didn't once ask "maybe we should move the navball to the left so players don't have to contend with this at the same time they're coming to grips with our janky control scheme".

Your way of doing things is not "doing things properly". It's certainly not the only good way of doing things. It's merely your way of doing things, and that's fine until you start parading other ways of playing as bad or daft. If a player is 100% capable of an improv docking with less than 2 meters of clearance between the lander and the walls of a cargo bay, but they're impeded by the placement of the navball, that's not a problem with the player's skills, because they're quite clearly a capable pilot. It's purely a problem with the navball and you shouldn't be quick to bash players who play the way they want because you want to avoid fairly addressing situations where the navball being in the middle would hinder their gameplay experience. The degree to which Lowne had to zoom out, just to see the slither of ground between the bottom of the lander and the top of the navball, is not "a bit". It's frankly absurd how small his landers got on screen during his console playthrough, and probably worse for Lowne himself since he's used to 4k monitors. So... the KSP 1 navball is a wasteful bloaty mess, per the Lowne example? Again, per Master39, if bloat was the problem, Matt Lowne would not have had a difficult time getting the ground immediately below is lander into view.

Or maybe you're just not used to 16:9. The game was obviously developed for 16:9, it's an industry standard ratio. Plus, I'd wager 16:9 4k is better than whatever your setup is meant to be since it gives you more vertical room (useful for landings) and also doesn't give an absurd amount of screen space to the very extreme edge of your vision.

It isn't. It's an instrument. In real life it's your view, but in KSP its purpose has always only been to supplement the view from the camera. It doesn't tell you your alignment, and even if it did it would not tell you how close you are to scraping a structural element. The game for making you zoom out. A. Simply being aligned with the docking port does not give the engine any more clearance in the example so it's still helpful to be able to see the lander as it docks to make sure you don't scrape anything. B. I sincerely can't believe I have to explain this: KSP is an arcade-ish game, not an industry grade simulator, and it's just hyperbolic to expect players, old or new, to plan missions and procedures to the same degree as real life space agencies. The navball does not tell you if your engine is about to collide with the back of the cargo bay. That job belongs to the part of the screen it would block were it in the middle. Because why dedicate less pixels to showing the lander, thus making it more difficult to see? I thought you were considering accessibility? It's much better to just move the navball. By your token, is it the players' fault for the UI rendering poorly, because they're not using the exact monitors the developers used during development? Just use the same monitors, right?

They are addressable, even if it hurts your case because it exposes you to situations in the game where you need the navball on screen without it obstructing your view. Again you're back to blaming the player instead of simply addressing the player's situation. Here's an example, maybe the player is docking a lander inside a tight cargo bay and needs to see the clearance around the lander - and the navball being in the middle would prevent them from making sure they don't scrape the engine on the back of the cargo bay. Are you going to blame the player for daring to save construction resources on smaller cargo bays, or maybe, just maybe, having the navball on the bottom is detrimental. It doesn't matter if the ground is seemingly (keyword: seemingly) flat, it'd still be irritating to only be able to see a few feet below your lander like in the example from Lowne's gameplay. It is, though I wouldn't want the developers to change the current default in an attempt to reduce complaints.

Using prefab parts as a strike against robotics is like using prebuilt LEGO sets as a strike against having a giant tub of bricks to do with as you please. Fair enough, though the game's not going to be in this state forever.