This game fails to take into proper consideration just what an idiot I am

[DarkGravity]

The engineer reports in the VAB are very helpful. I especially like how they mention non-critical things like if a docking port is being used as a decoupler for a nose cone. Stuff that doesn't have to be pointed out, but if you're being stoopid might be worth looking at before you launch.

Well, I can be pretty stoopid at times - especially in KSP it would seem. I just launched my second rocket with the wrong sized docking port. See? I told you I can be stoopid. The problem is they look so similar in certain situations, especially for newer players. Especially considering the icon in the parts list makes the Jr. look bigger than the regular one.

So my suggestion is: the engineer reports point out that you are using docking ports of a certain size. That's it: just a little sentence that says: "Clamp-o-Tron Jr. in use." In case you didn't notice what size you put on.

Now before the flames start, I'd just like to point out that this is one of those really easy to do suggestions with really no downside (at least that I can see). So why not be helpful to the idiots among us?

Edited May 28, 2015 by DarkGravity

[Capt. Hunt]

I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble seeing how anyone could confuse the standard and junior docking ports. Sure they look similar in the menu, but once you load them into the VAB you can clearly see the difference in size. So, unless you're building rockets blindfolded, I'm not sure how someone could really make that mistake.

Now before the flames start, I'd just like to point out that this is one of those really easy to do suggestions with really no downside (at least that I can see). So why not be helpful to the idiots among us?

As a bit of a modder and a coder myself, I know that's almost never true, you don't know what goes into the back end of the engineer reports. There's a point at which more idiot proof just becomes more needlessly complicated.

That said, I wouldn't mind more warnings for things in the report, like missing antennae or batteries. I know there's Werner Checker, but it seems redundant to have that and the stock reports.

[DarkGravity]

I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble seeing how anyone could confuse the standard and junior docking ports. Sure they look similar in the menu, but once you load them into the VAB you can clearly see the difference in size. So, unless you're building rockets blindfolded, I'm not sure how someone could really make that mistake.

Unless I'm building rockets blindfolded?!!! And some people say this is the best forum community. Pffft! Why the need to toss in a personal attack, Capt. Hunt? Yes, once you get them out of the menu, (where you acknowledge their appearance is confusing), they do look reasonably different. That is, aside from their shape color and overall appearance. But even if it is easy to tell them apart once they're out into the VAB, who pulls out two at a time to see that difference? Maybe once you have built a bunch of rockets with docking ports, maybe it is obvious, but when you are new, the fact that you wanted the bigger grey circular doodad with the lip on it and clicked on the bigger grey circular doodad with the lip on it is enough to make some idiots without blindfolds think they actually got the bigger grey circular doodad with the lip on it. And since it is a stage 0 item, you can waste a lot of time when you do put the wrong one on. Well, I can anyway.

Amazing. I implied I've had it with flames, and still I get flamed. First post. No waiting. I made a mistake. I made a suggestion to help others in my situation not to make the same mistake. I get told no one could possibly have that problem unless they were blind. Lovely. Just lovely.

Edited May 28, 2015 by DarkGravity

[Panzerbeard]

Unless I'm building rockets blindfolded?!!! And people say this is the best forum community. Why the need to toss in a personal attack, Capt. Hunt? Yes, once you get them out of the menu, (where you acknowledge their appearance is confusing), they do look reasonably different. That is, aside from their shape color and overall appearance. But even if it is easy to tell them apart once their out into the VAB, who pulls out two at a time to see that difference? And once you have built a hundred rockets with docking ports, yes, it is obvious, but when you are new, the fact that you wanted the bigger one and clicked on the bigger icon is enough to make some idiots without blindfolds think they actually got the bigger one.

Amazing. I implied I've had it with flames, and still I get flamed. First post. No waiting. I made a mistake. I made a suggestion to help others in my situation not to make the same mistake. I get told no one could possibly have that problem unless they were blind. I'm really fighting the urge to get unpleasant here, Capt. Hunt.

With respect, I don't really think anything he said was intended as flaming, might want to cool your boosters there.

[DarkGravity]

Fine. I still think my suggestion has merit. Am I really the only one who has put the wrong port on his ship?

Edited May 28, 2015 by DarkGravity

[Red Iron Crown]

Can't say I have. I often grab the wrong one from the menu but it is immediately apparent it's the wrong one when i go to place it.

DarkGravity, please do not confuse someone disagreeing with you as someone flaming you.

[DarkGravity]

I dunno. I say "I did X" and someone says "you'd have to be blind to do that," I don't see that as simply disagreeing. But that is my final comment on the subject. Maybe I'm wrong. I've been wrong before. Like when I clicked the wrong docking port. Twice.

Maybe a better idea would be to make it so that it is harder to click the wrong docking port in the first place. Maybe give them different colors or make the small one actually look small in the parts menu. Or both.

[sumghai]

Without comparing examples of both docking ports, I can quickly tell the Clamp-o-Tron Jr. from the standard Clamp-o-Tron, as the former is 0.625m in diameter and the latter 1.25m.

The size of a part's preview image in the VAB/SPH part list is automatically determined by the bounding box of the entire model, because if the relative part sizes were also reflected in the preview images, very small parts such as the surface-attached Gravoli sensor and the 2HOT thermometer would be so small, they'd hardly be visible in the thumbnails.

One way (that already exists) to make sure you've grabbed the right part is to hover over or right-click the thumbnail, which will display a popup box that tells you the actual name of the part along with its stats. Definitely no way to mistake the Jr. for the Standard-sized port through that method.

[pincushionman]

The problem with this suggestion is not that it wouldn't be useful, because it might be. The problem is there's no real way for the game to know which parts are wrong, and which are not. Maybe you need a jr. docking port to interface with a micro-probe, which is another vessel. Maybe you need a standard one to interface with a lander, which is another vessel. Maybe you need a sr. to interface with a station part…on another vessel.

There's literally no way for the game to know which of these options is the right one, because the game has no idea what you intend to do with it.

[DarkGravity]

The problem with this suggestion is not that it wouldn't be useful, because it might be. The problem is there's no real way for the game to know which parts are wrong, and which are not. Maybe you need a jr. docking port to interface with a micro-probe, which is another vessel. Maybe you need a standard one to interface with a lander, which is another vessel. Maybe you need a sr. to interface with a station part…on another vessel.

There's literally no way for the game to know which of these options is the right one, because the game has no idea what you intend to do with it.

But that's nothing new. There are lots of engineer reports that are given even when the game doesn't know what is right for your ship. Like the game doesn't know if you need a parachute or not. Maybe you're landing on the Mun, so it just tells you "hey, no parachute." Likewise it could say "Hey, your docking port is a Junior."

Parachutes and docking ports are both things that get used well after launch, and any problems with them in the VAB can end up wasting a whole bunch of your time, cuz you don't realize there is a problem until later in the mission. When the game informs you that you have no parachute, it is just helping you with what really should be the player's own checklist. It is just kind of a special item because you can need to redo a whole mission and not just a launch. Same exactly with docking port sizes. Just a helpful thing to be included in an automated checklist.

[Capt. Hunt]

Sorry, sometimes my autism gets the better of me and I don't realize what I mean to be blunt comes off more insulting then intended.

I'm still not sure it's that necessary to have a warning when the size difference should be readily apparent. The three ports are matched to the three smallest rocket sizes after all. if you put a junior on a 1.25 meter piece, you should be able see that the port is half the diameter of the other piece.

[DarkGravity]

I appreciate the apology, Capt. Hunt. We're good.

I agree, on a small rocket, the difference is easier to see. But those aren't the only rockets. When you put a junior on a 2.5m piece thinking it is a standard port, it is much less obvious, especially to a new player. In that scenario (which is the scenario that happened to me) even the standard port only covers up 25% of the area of the 2.5 m part. Even the standard looks small in that situation, so if you put a junior on, it looks small, but you were expecting the standard one to look small, so it is easy to overlook.

But even if it should be obvious to everyone, is that really a reason not to do this? Shouldn't it also be obvious when you don't put a parachute on your ship? All you have to do is open your eyes and look. So should we get rid of parachute reports? Are parachute reports not a welcome part of the game, even though it "should be obvious?" Little advisories like that (not really a warning) can be helpful, especially when failing to notice it can cause you to need to redo a whole mission.

Edited May 29, 2015 by DarkGravity

[Tankman101]

It baffles me how anyone could confuse two docking ports once placed.

Each has very clear defining features...

[DarkGravity]

If you line them up next to each other and take an extreme close-up photo, it is possible to tell them apart easily. Heck, you could probably tell identical twin sisters apart using this technique. But that is a highly contrived situation. When someone puts a docking port onto a ship, that is not what they see. Not even close.

In these two photos, of course it is possible to tell them apart, especially after playing the game for a long while, but the difference is subtle and some players are new. This can be the cause of needing to redo an entire mission, not just a launch. Maybe it is the kind of thing that would never affect you personally, but considering all the engineer advisories the game gives already, is it really unreasonable to say that an advisory to this might be a good thing? Am I really the only one who could make put the wrong port on and not notice?

When you're building a rocket, you don't get the benefit of seeing both of these views at the same time. You only see one on the monitor, the other one is in your memory. And that is assuming you have placed both docking ports before. New players don't have that going for them. The icon for the small one looks like it is large in the parts menu, enticing you to choose the wrong one, and the difference is subtle once installed, at least it can be, depending on the situation. Perhaps even more subtle than the difference between seeing a parachute and not, and yet we have advisories for parachutes and all sorts of other things that are easily seen if you just bothered to look.

I'm not suggesting that we revamp the way docking is done in the game. Just an engineer advisory.

Edited May 29, 2015 by DarkGravity

[Tankman101]

Even from far away they look different.

Note the spokes on the 2m port are still visible as well as the dark coloration on the .6m one. The parts around them also give an indication of their size.

Not to mention you should probably be checking what port you have in the menu anyway.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Tankman101
Words

[DarkGravity]

You have conclusively proven that it is possible to see the difference if you just bothered to look. However, engineer reports are not exclusively reserved for situations where it is impossible to see the problem for yourself. The difference between having a parachute and not having one can be obvious at a distance too, and you should probably be checking if you have a parachute or not. Yet the game gives an advisory. Why? Cuz it is helpful in some situations to some people.

- - - Updated - - -

...I guess that is what the developers are aiming for.

Take your parachute example - say you forget it and your ship crashes after a long mission that is bringing you back a heap of science. You are much less likely to forget a parachute again, and that is part of the fun of this game.

But there IS an engineer advisory to help you prevent that in the first place. And if there is one for that, then there should also be one for this. Either that or they should remove the parachute advisory.

Edited May 29, 2015 by DarkGravity

[thereaverofdarkness]

I think it'd be great to have a bunch of trivial info listed in the engineer reports. After all, the key lists an icon for such benign reports, yet I have seen very few of them pop up. Most of my rockets get caution reports only (usually things that are actually fine because I know what I'm doing). Also, I think the icon for the clamp-o-tron jr should be changed to better differentiate it from the regular clamp-o-tron as long as they are going to look alike. I'm an expert at this stuff and I had to memorize their position to tell them apart quickly because I simply cannot tell by looking at the thumbnail images which one has the rim. It isn't very apparent in the thumbnail. Another cool feature would be the ability to sort parts by the size that they are or the size they are built for. For instance, 1.25m size category could include all 1.25m cylindrical parts along with anything that has a 1.25m attachment surface (like engines and adaptors), modular girder segments, medium landing legs, AV-R8 and AV-T1 winglets, etc. Then anything that's meant for any size, like small science equipment or a lot of the radial-mounted utility parts, would also be listed.

- - - Updated - - -

It baffles me how anyone could confuse two docking ports once placed.

http://i.imgur.com/vKuVe54.jpg

Each has very clear defining features...

From a top-down angle which obscures the rim on the medium, it looks almost identical to the small except for the size difference. The color of the basin is not a defining factor because it appears different at different lighting angles. The rim on the medium can easily make it have the darker basin.

Edited May 29, 2015 by thereaverofdarkness

[Damien_The_Unbeliever]

I think, to some extent the issue is that, for every existing item on the engineers report, there's a way to build your rocket so that it will report "no issues found".

But with this suggestion, every rocket that you build with at least one docking port will have an unclearable item in the report. That's going to be incredibly annoying for the "OCD" crowd who always want a clean sheet before launching (especially since we don't, as yet, have a "don't report on this issue again in the future" feature)

[TothAval]

the game could generate a list of parts used per stage, and hide it in the "note"-functionality(as in toolbar contract list) in the engineers report, name it blueprint, vessel parts or whatever, expandable only when clicked upon, otherwise not displaying the information, to keep the original function of the engineer report untouched, i guess this could be useful, especially if i load .craft-files from other players and wan't to know what is inside without reverse engineering the rocket part by part.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Sort by bulkhead/cross-section profile, 1.25m size. There, you'll get the right size.

Look at the part name when you grab it. That will stop you grabbing the wrong part.

Yes, I agree, there could be more done for easier accessibility, but at some point, that starts to hinder and annoy people the longer they play. Every new save you start up, you always get the pop up dialog boxes - informative the first time, annoying the second and beyond. The Engineers Report says 'Unused Liquid Fuel Resource' - I know, it's a resupply vessel. 'Consumer not receiving fuel' - I know, I'm taking it to orbit to test it as part of a contract. 'No parachutes' - I know, this is an Apollo style lander that will never need them. 'Jr Docking port in use' - I know, I'm going to dock with a Jr probe.

Also, it should probably be noted that the Report is for things that are actually wrong and need attention. Stuff like engines not receiving fuel, or fuel not having a matching user etc. With the chutes, it assumes that you'll be returning and will need a parachute for Kerbin. There's no ladder to get back in, it's a plane that has no wheels etc.. things that a perfect vessel doesn't have. Simply having a Jr docking port on the vessel is not something wrong or needs attention because, as mentioned elsewhere, there's no way for the game to know what you intend to do with it. For that reason, I see this suggestion as out of scope for the Report.

So the question comes back to how to stop you using that part in the first place. I've mentioned two such suggestions. I mean, it really doesn't take a lot of time to double check, you just have to remember to do it.