The advisability of multi-monitor support. (Split from an unrelated thread.)

[catloaf]

20 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

Which again, is still a sizable number.

What if it were slightly higher, like 50% or 55%?

Who says that this subforum is only what it's going to be at launch? If it's going to happen later, it'll happen later. If it happens at launch, it happens at launch.

I think that if it ever happens, it should be at launch, but I'm not a programmer, so I can't be a good judge of that, but my opinion is that it should be.

I think that unfortunately, these peoples brains are hard coded to believe that any number below 50% is zero <snip>. Of course it's never too late to change...

Often people will keep arguing In a debate when they know they've been defeated, restating the same points and desperately clinging to being right. I have done it more times than I wish to admit, because knowing you've been defeated and admitting it are two very different things... With the latter being much easier than the former.

In all seriousness just the infrastructure to have undocked windows capable of rendering graphics and taking info from the game would be amazing and give modders so many great opportunities (I'm thinking playing arcade games while waiting out ion burns.)

Edit: I can't even describe how cool it would be to have a fully playable 0.13.3 as an Easter egg, with a steam trophy for landing on the Mün in it (and maybe a code to get something on your forum posts.) This feature has so much potential!!! Much cooler than multiplayer.

Edited July 16, 2020 by adsii1970
A new section of "The Great Wall of Text" averted with a well placed ...

[catloaf]

On 7/14/2020 at 10:01 AM, Bej Kerman said:

Docking is an integral part of the game. Support for silly double monitor setups are not.

A better analogy would be maneuver nodes. The're not required to play the game but are really useful and are far better than holding a protractor up to the screen or waiting till the Mün passes over the horizon. Also docking is technically not required to land on every body in the game (I site Bradley Whistance's 10 part count grand tour, which contains no docking.) Also, you can beat career with Mün and Minmus missions, plus a few interplanetary probes to skip Kerbin science grind. 

Edited July 16, 2020 by catloaf

[catloaf]

On 7/13/2020 at 10:15 PM, AlamoVampire said:

@pandaman

I really am tired of feeling like I am being forced to repeat myself. Less than 45% of respondents in the poll that has been linked what, 4 or 5 times now state they use multiple monitors. I am sorry Pandaman, but, the fact remains that multiple monitor support is an OPTION. Regardless of how I feel or how you feel when you strip it down to base facts, it is an OPTION. Right now, right now as the game is being built, especially right now in the middle of a world wide pandemic when time is even more limited, and given that companies have the nasty habit of demanding more and more and then demand that more and more even faster and faster the fact remains corners get cut. It cannot be helped. It is a fact of life. When corners get cut to save a few minutes or hours or a day of work to meet that deadline the company suddenly thinks it can demand more in less time, which mandates MORE corner cutting. Right now, right now, the fact remains that multiple monitor support just is NOT a mandatory feature, it is an optional feature, and as such it should needs must be considered down the road and not right now. I really am tired of feeling like I am being forced to repeat myself.

 

001407142020

Like I have said before, 1. 45% I people can use it, probably 95% of the remainder won't care. 2. They could dumb down the game to 0.18 levels to increase performance, by removing "unnecessary features" like maneuver nodes, "mostly cosmetic" parts etc. But they dont. Why? Not profitable. Not profitable because it helps 2 people run it on their potatoes while making every one else quit. Just because it's not a critical part of gameplay now does not mean it can't be someday. When maneuver nodes were added would you have\have been opposed to it if a poll had said that 56% of people were fine with protractor's? 3. The reason why you keep repeating yourself is because you can't say anything else. If you could respond in a meaningful way to our questions you would have.

The two big flaws in your argument are that you assume it will be a massive technical hurdle or presents technical problems (like I and multiple others have said if this is the case they should abandon it.) And that you assume that because 44% of people can use it 56% of people opposed to it. The first argument may be true but we have no way of proving this. And your assumption about other people's opinions is most likely wrong.

Edited July 16, 2020 by catloaf
Anyways it's pay and I should be going to bed now.

[Bej Kerman]

3 hours ago, catloaf said:

On 7/14/2020 at 6:01 PM, Bej Kerman said:

Docking is an integral part of the game. Support for silly double monitor setups are not.

A better analogy would be maneuver nodes. The're not required to play the game but are really useful and are far better than holding a protractor up to the screen or waiting till the Mün passes over the horizon. Also docking is technically not required to land on every body in the game (I site Bradley Whistance's 10 part count grand tour, which contains no docking.) Also, you can beat career with Mün and Minmus missions, plus a few interplanetary probes to skip Kerbin science grind.

Maneuver nodes are useful and actually help when piloting spacecraft by saving Delta-V because you can find the path that works best. Also, that is irrelevant, docking is still a major part of the game. Besides, this isn't about maneuver nodes or docking ports. This is about how useless double monitors are.

3 hours ago, catloaf said:

On 7/14/2020 at 6:15 AM, AlamoVampire said:

@pandaman

I really am tired of feeling like I am being forced to repeat myself. Less than 45% of respondents in the poll that has been linked what, 4 or 5 times now state they use multiple monitors. I am sorry Pandaman, but, the fact remains that multiple monitor support is an OPTION. Regardless of how I feel or how you feel when you strip it down to base facts, it is an OPTION. Right now, right now as the game is being built, especially right now in the middle of a world wide pandemic when time is even more limited, and given that companies have the nasty habit of demanding more and more and then demand that more and more even faster and faster the fact remains corners get cut. It cannot be helped. It is a fact of life. When corners get cut to save a few minutes or hours or a day of work to meet that deadline the company suddenly thinks it can demand more in less time, which mandates MORE corner cutting. Right now, right now, the fact remains that multiple monitor support just is NOT a mandatory feature, it is an optional feature, and as such it should needs must be considered down the road and not right now. I really am tired of feeling like I am being forced to repeat myself.

 

001407142020

Like I have said before, 1. 45% I people can use it, probably 95% of the remainder won't care. 2. They could dumb down the game to 0.18 levels to increase performance, by removing "unnecessary features" like maneuver nodes, "mostly cosmetic" parts etc. But they dont. Why? Not profitable. Not profitable because it helps 2 people run it on their potatoes while making every one else quit. Just because it's not a critical part of gameplay now does not mean it can't be someday. When maneuver nodes were added would you have\have been opposed to it if a poll had said that 56% of people were fine with protractor's? 3. The reason why you keep repeating yourself is because you can't say anything else. If you could respond in a meaningful way to our questions you would have.

The two big flaws in your argument are that you assume it will be a massive technical hurdle or presents technical problems (like I and multiple others have said if this is the case they should abandon it.) And that you assume that because 44% of people can use it 56% of people opposed to it. The first argument may be true but we have no way of proving this. And your assumption about other people's opinions is most likely wrong.

When did it become 45%? Where'd you get that from? How is a really wide screen made of 2 screens any better than one screen? One screen provides adequate space to do anything so why you need 2 is beyond me.

[The Aziz]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

One screen provides adequate space to do anything

Of course, sure, you can work with that, do your job, no problem, we've all done that, we've all been doing that for years, but... It's not only about games, I use my second screen to keep something else there so I don't have to alt-tab every few seconds. Or, as I have my console connected to my main screen, I can play on it and still use the second screen of my pc.

Putting two windows on one screen next to each other isn't as convenient, especially when you're working with something that is wider than tall. Even on ultrawide. So it isn't better than two.

With aspect ratio of 32:9 (or something similar), as you'd get from two screens with most common dimensions, I can keep both windows in "fullscreen" at the same time. I don't have to switch between windows, or reduce workspace. Hell, I can even go hyperultrawide and extend whatever I'm working on to both screens (not that it's super useful as I get a pole in the middle lol)

Convenience, ergonomy, workflow. It's that easy.

[swjr-swis]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

One screen provides adequate space to do anything

This handful of transistors can do all the calculations we would ever need. There's a worldwide market for maybe oh, about 10 computers or so. 640Kb is more than enough memory to do anything we can ever conceive. We can perform everything needed with just a single button on a mouse. And we all know that VR is a scifi fad only.

You'd think by now people would be more careful about making such statements.

 

6 hours ago, catloaf said:

arguing In a debate

Maybe the mistake being made here is that this is being regarded as a debate. Maybe it helps to realize that it is not.

None of the words we plaster in this thread will decide the matter one way or another. There's no 'camps' to band into, no position to defend. There's no tally taken or points being scored. We're all just voicing our opinions and discussing the merits of a suggestion made.

[linuxgurugamer]

30 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

This handful of transistors can do all the calculations we would ever need. There's a worldwide market for maybe oh, about 10 computers or so. 640Kb is more than enough memory to do anything we can ever conceive. We can perform everything needed with just a single button on a mouse. And we all know that VR is a scifi fad only.

You'd think by now people would be more careful about making such statements.

Taking quotes out of context will make any quote look meaningless.

At the time those quotes were made, they were valid (mostly).  Looking at them now, of course they seem silly.

 

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Taking quotes out of context will make any quote look meaningless.

At the time those quotes were made, they were valid (mostly).  Looking at them now, of course they seem silly.

 

Yes, you're right, but at this time it just sounds as silly stating that "a single monitor is more than enough".

This goes beyond the argument at hand, as I stated earlier I don't have a multi-monitor set-up as I blew my "new monitor budget" on VR (never looked back) but I can think a use for at least 4 monitors while gaming with space for even more and I don't think to be the only one that talks on TS/Discord and interact with a browser occasionally and/or listens to YT/Music/podcasts while gaming.

 

I can get the "I don't think Devs should waste time on this" argument (even if I think it could be applied virtually to any feature we don't like) but not the "multi-monitor setups are useless" one.

 

 

[DunaManiac]

Let's look at the two main arguments against it, in full.

So, let's imagine Multiplayer. Yes, I know it will be a major design pillar of KSP2, but it will also be optional, and arguably noncritical since the first step would be to get the game working in Singleplayer. Now, using the same arguments used earlier, I will attempt to argue that

1. Performance. Considering the amount of coding to do so, it would probably a monumental amount of code. I'm not a programmer, but I do know that all this code would be just floating around in Single Player, utterly useless. Anyways, I'm betting that multiplayer would be a thousand times more complicated than adding a feature almost half the player base would find useful.

2. Development time. The devs have probably spent a large portion of these 2-3 years developing KSP2 focusing on multiplayer. Multiplayer would probably be an enormous endeavor to design due to problems with timewarp, physics range etc. Far more than multi-monitor support.

Just my 2 cents.

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

How is a really wide screen made of 2 screens any better than one screen?

The problem is, as stated before in other places on this thread, it's for convenience. First off, I'm not aware that huge screens like that are actually on the market, and it wouldn't fit on say, your average desk. The one thing it can't do is allow you to do two things at once on different screens, as well as widening the original one.

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

45%

Also, 44%, 45% does it matter? If you want to know, we got that number from rounding up 44%. A percent difference really doesn't matter.

[linuxgurugamer]

36 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I can get the "I don't think Devs should waste time on this" argument (even if I think it could be applied virtually to any feature we don't like) but not the "multi-monitor setups are useless" one.

I don't disagree with you, in fact, I said essentially the same thing above:

 

37 minutes ago, DunaManiac said:

First off, I'm not aware that huge screens like that are actually on the market, and it wouldn't fit on say, your average desk. The one thing it can't do is allow you to do two things at once on different screens, as well as widening the original one.

4k screens are here, I have one on my desk

 

37 minutes ago, DunaManiac said:

Also, 44%, 45% does it matter? If you want to know, we got that number from rounding up 44%. A percent difference really doesn't matter.

A better way to say it, is "nearly half of all respondents".  IMHO, the numbers you mention (44%) are very significant, but I wonder how many of the people who weren't interested never bothered to answer.  From experience, I'd say that the number is skewed because it isn't a truly representative sample.  It's kind of like asking people in a bar if they drink alcohol.

[Bej Kerman]

56 minutes ago, DunaManiac said:

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

45%

Also, 44%, 45% does it matter? If you want to know, we got that number from rounding up 44%. A percent difference really doesn't matter.

On 7/12/2020 at 12:08 PM, Bej Kerman said:

According to the disappeared post, 14.68% of desktop users have more than one screen connected to the their PCs, as do 4.36% of laptop owners.

  

[swjr-swis]

2 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Taking quotes out of context will make any quote look meaningless.

At the time those quotes were made, they were valid (mostly).

Those statements I very loosely quoted provide their own context in being used as a set demonstrating the historically repeated failure of making that type of deterministic statements. Every one of those was a variant of "Based on my expertise and all data available to us now, clearly it's ridiculous to even consider such-and-such ever being done/used/necessary."

Making any absolute statement against something based solely on one's own limited imagination or experience of possible applications at the time has a way of proving wrong sooner or later. In many cases, sooner rather than later, and often, quite hilariously wrong.

The really remarkable part in this case is that the particular statement I reacted on was being made right in the middle of a civilization that has so many screens laying around that we're not even aware anymore how we've trivialized them. I think it's a pretty safe bet the person typing those words with utter conviction even had a smartphone in their pocket, a TV in some corner of their room, and perhaps a tablet nearby. But surely, "One screen provides adequate space to do anything."

[Bej Kerman]

6 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

"One screen provides adequate space to do anything."

Of course, I'm not talking about how useful they will be in the future. I'm talking about how useless they are now, this decade.

[swjr-swis]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

Of course, I'm not talking about how useful they will be in the future. I'm talking about how useless they are now, this decade.

We agree, I'm not talking about how useful they will be in the future either. I'm talking about how useful they've been in the past decade already.

Don't open the spoiler or click any of the links if you might react adversely to images of multiple screens being used, now or in the past.

Spoiler

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Channel_1_Israel_DSC0193.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/SKY_Sport24_PCR.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Rtl_regie.JPG

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Celebro_Studios_Gallery.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Oto_godfrey-multi_screen_studio.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Deutsche-boerse-parkett-ffm008.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/AMDExtravaLANzaToronto7.JPG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bej Kerman]

6 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

Of course, I'm not talking about how useful they will be in the future. I'm talking about how useless they are now, this decade.

We agree, I'm not talking about how useful they will be in the future either. I'm talking about how useful they've been in the past decade already.

Don't open the spoiler or click any of the links if you might react adversely to images of multiple screens being used, now or in the past.

  Reveal hidden contents

This isn't a real space agency, this is a game. Similarly, you don't need 100 people with you to play KSP.

[The Aziz]

Some people use their gaming setups for work also. Lemme introduce you to home offices of people who work at our game:

https://imgur.com/a/ec0Pk85

It's a game, hmm, okay, a game about flying rockets. Lemme think who also uses multiple screens...

Oh, yes, people who actually fly rockets:

Edited July 16, 2020 by The Aziz

[swjr-swis]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

This isn't a real space agency, this is a game.

A game about a space agency. A game about astronauts and pilots. Or if you think of yourself as spectator, a game about spectating/filming/directing space adventures. A game about environments, jobs and people that as a core inherent feature of their daily jobs are exposed to multiple screens All. The. Time. Mission Control. Cockpits. Video editing rooms. These are the roles you and I play when we fire up KSP.

You are directly questioning the usefulness of having multiple screens available, in the context of literally playing at being the people who arguably deal most with multiple screens in what they do on a daily basis, and have been for many a year now.

I'm baffled. What's next... arguing that there's no use for actual steering wheels when playing a Formula 1 racing game?

 

[catloaf]

7 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Maneuver nodes are useful and actually help when piloting spacecraft by saving Delta-V because you can find the path that works best. Also, that is irrelevant, docking is still a major part of the game. Besides, this isn't about maneuver nodes or docking ports. This is about how useless double monitors are.

When did it become 45%? Where'd you get that from? How is a really wide screen made of 2 screens any better than one screen? One screen provides adequate space to do anything so why you need 2 is beyond me.

The point is that it may be useful, you just don't know because you've never used it. Also, the 45 was a typo, I meant approx 44% and 2 screens are not better than 1. An undocked map view\infrastructure for undocked windows would be much more useful.

Docking is not that important. When I learned how to dock it wasn't a huge game changer. It barely even changed how I play. Like the windows it it usually a nice thing to have that could become a game changer if used correctly. 

Edited July 16, 2020 by catloaf
Who was feels like this thread will be locked before the end of the month...

[catloaf]

38 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

A game about a space agency. A game about astronauts and pilots. Or if you think of yourself as spectator, a game about spectating/filming/directing space adventures. A game about environments, jobs and people that as a core inherent feature of their daily jobs are exposed to multiple screens All. The. Time. Mission Control. Cockpits. Video editing rooms. These are the roles you and I play when we fire up KSP.

You are directly questioning the usefulness of having multiple screens available, in the context of literally playing at being the people who arguably deal most with multiple screens in what they do on a daily basis, and have been for many a year now.

I'm baffled. What's next... arguing that there's no use for actual steering wheels when playing a Formula 1 racing game?

 

I'll say what I've said already, these people know their wrong, and they are showing it. Using typos and small flaws to judge the overall merit of one's argument, making the same argument over and over again, citing issues that may not exist, and of course ignoring the part of my posts that make their claims redundant.

Edited July 16, 2020 by catloaf
Oh yes, and getting mad about docking even though it's a bad analogy and not related to the feature.

[catloaf]

1 hour ago, swjr-swis said:

 

I'm baffled. What's next... arguing that there's no use for actual steering wheels when playing a Formula 1 racing game?

 

WASD, is fine. They should focus on polishing the game rather than useless features for people who spend money on gaming. It takes time do do stuff handled by the os and they should work on optimizing a very optimized game so my potato can run it. Also adding any non required feature creates technical debt for the game (ignore that cutting corners leads to half baked games with fancy graphics that people forget after a year.) They should not add silly steering wheel support, they should work on more useful features like pay to win and lootboxes.

There, proof that their whole argument can be applied to anything you can't use and others can.

Edited July 16, 2020 by catloaf

[pandaman]

37 minutes ago, catloaf said:

An undocked map view\infrastructure for undocked windows would be much more useful.

And just imagine how handy it would be if you could just move that undocked view aside out of the way, so it didn't obstruct your main view, but still see the map and have it large enough to read?  Would that be of any use to you at all?

That is exactly the kind of option that a multi-monitor setup enables.  Yes, a single BIG screen may be adequate, but a multi screen setup can allow much more flexibility with how they are placed too. And all screens do not need to be the same size either.

Edited July 16, 2020 by pandaman

[catloaf]

10 minutes ago, pandaman said:

And just imagine how handy it would be if you could just move that undocked view aside out of the way, so it didn't obstruct your main view, but still see the map and have it large enough to read?  Would that be of any use to you at all?

That is exactly the kind of option that a multi-monitor setup enables.  Yes, a single BIG screen may be adequate, but a multi screen setup can allow much more flexibility with how they are placed too. And all screens do not need to be the same size either.

Yes. This is exactly what we should have. Plus, people without a second monitor could still use the feature of they were willing to sacrifice screen area for the game.

[adsii1970]

Okay, folks -

This is just a friendly reminder to keep politics out of this and other threads on the forum, even if they are in jest.

Otherwise, keep on discussing the main topic. Good discussion is always wanted.

[TBenz]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

 

This isn't a real space agency, this is a game. Similarly, you don't need 100 people with you to play KSP.

So you concede that multiple monitors can be and are useful in the modern world?

I'm glad we have that settled.

Edited July 16, 2020 by TBenz

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

 

This isn't a real space agency, this is a game. Similarly, you don't need 100 people with you to play KSP.

I'm too lazy to search one of those very common screenshots people take with KER, MJ, KOS and other 20 windows crowding the screen, but I'm sure you're familiar with the idea and that's not some concept for the next decade, it's the common situation with KSP in the last one.