Poll on multi-monitor support

[mcwaffles2003]

18 minutes ago, Draco T stand-up guy said:

It does depend a lot on what the second screen is used for.

I'd like to see Mission Control on it (Replacing MechJeb), my orbital information, the orbital information of anything targeted, as well as a real-time representation of the Kerbol System. That's while in flight.

In the VAB to be able to see the mission plan (from Mission Control), the specs of each stage and its dV so that I can compare the capabilities of my design in relation to the mission parameters.

In Mission Control I'd like to be able to see Tracking. In fact, I think a full function Mission Control would be where having two screens would really shine. Especially in designing missions.

It would be nice if just anything was there at the start so we know it is there already to plug in to and adjust. At that point you could have multiple windows to scroll through per screen with different layouts/data sets  while the main screen remains looking at the ship. Or heck maybe someone wants a screen with a map and a screen with data and no screen with the ship for some reason, the choice would be ours. Modders could play around with it and bring us things I can't imagine that could be useful. One monitor could be a cockpit view, another is 3rd person outside the ship, another could be the map, etc... It would just give players options to work with.

TL;DR

Overall, I just think the experience of sitting down and having a mission control at you fingertips would be nothing short of amazing feeling

 

=

[mcwaffles2003]

So with 50 votes in and only 10% saying it shouldn't be in and over 50% saying it would be desired and used....

Can we agree it is an overall good idea with hope that the devs consider? I hope this poll has given us the answer

 

[mattinoz]

18 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

So with 50 votes in and only 10% saying it shouldn't be in and over 50% saying it would be desired and used....

Can we agree it is an overall good idea with hope that the devs consider? I hope this poll has given us the answer

 

Yes would be nice if doable, Ok if happened down the track and would suck if it happened as paid DLC.

[Draco T stand-up guy]

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

over 50% saying it would be desired and used....

The really interesting thing about that stat is how many people are indicating that they would go out and get a second monitor so that they could use it.

[mattinoz]

17 minutes ago, Draco T stand-up guy said:

The really interesting thing about that stat is how many people are indicating that they would go out and get a second monitor so that they could use it.

I think Covid lockdowns are pushing people to having a second screen as a more common thing, if work is going to invade the home the least it can do is make games more fun.

[mcwaffles2003]

1 minute ago, mattinoz said:

I think Covid lockdowns are pushing people to having a second screen as a more common thing, if work is going to invade the home the least it can do is make games more fun.

And in a lot of games utilizing a second screen adds little benefit aside from stretching an image but with KSP the use case is obvious

[Draco T stand-up guy]

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

but with KSP the use case is obvious

Yes, KSP could make much better use of a second screen than pretty much any other game out there.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

Alright, so I'm just gonna say this. I don't think any fourm polls are actually representative of what the "Majority" wants, because any fourm regulars are basically mega-nerds or heavily involved in community projects/modding/all of the above. Which also would correlate with second screen use pretty heavily, and thus i would expect the KSP fourms to show a massive bias towards multi-monitor usage.

All of that said, I'm not actually against multiple-monitor support in theory. But in practice; unless it's basically free to implement and doesn't suck up too much developer time and resources i wouldn't want it. And this is why i voted "No"; because even if they were able to recycle significant portions of the project from multiplayer code and use Unity's API's i still think people are asking for way more than they could potentially deliver. So they'll spend weeks/months wacking this in, debugging it, and then when {Insert pet feature} isn't present people will take a big old steamer all over them for not including it. Where if they don't include it at all, then they'll get over it since the expectation won't ever be set in the first place.

And there's a second element here, and that's really outside their control. Which is OS and Driver interactions; i used to use a second screen on a regular basis. But Windows couldn't clean up the virtual displays afterwards, both AMD and Nividia's drivers are absolute trash at handling multiple displays. And if you have any differences between the resolution, refresh rate, aspect ratio it all just makes this house of cards even worse. So as a result, not only will people not be satisifed. BUT now they're gonna get support overhead and hate for issues that aren't even their fault.

To me, it just doesn't seem worth it at all. Even if they implemented it, and it was everything people wanted and MORE. I wouldn't use it; just because the software stack outside of KSP2 wouldn't allow me to do so reliably. My desktop is already enough of a "Project Car" as it is xD

[AlamoVampire]

@Incarnation of Chaos doesnt help with how people word polls. People on some level either conscious or subconscious will word a poll in a way to elicit the response they are looking for. Taking this poll for example to me at least question 1 is pretty fairly worded and benign. But, question two is worded in such a way that it elicits a desired response. Especially since two options (1&2) could be better worded and broken apart to give a wider range of options. If I was making this poll I would have worded question 2’s options like this:

2. Your opinion on multi-monitor support

A: This feature should be included in KSP2

B: This feature should not be included in KSP2

C: I have no opinion on this feature

I would have then snapped the original choice A from the OP’s 2nd question into a third question and not bothered asking if those who will not use such a feature if they care if others do.

3. If this feature is included would you use it

A: Yes

B: No

I think this way is far less loaded and feels more fair. In fairness I chose option 2 in his question 2, but only sided with “will not use” as seeing as I will not use the other half is pointless. In fairness further, to answer my variant questions: 2. B 3. B.

I keep seeing pictures of NASA mission control being used as a justification for support of multi-monitor and again I say that is an inappropriate comparison or justification. Why? For NASA and other space agencies real lives are on the line and information can and will and HAS saved astronauts lives. In ksp no lives are on the line. Just pixels. 1’s and 0’s. I honestly do not care if it gets added LATER after release, just not now during runup to release. It again is 100% optional and 100% not critical or vital to gameplay. I have of course said all of this before and of course now that I have added this final final thought to all of this, I am walking away again. 
 

060007242020

[mcwaffles2003]

7 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

@Incarnation of Chaos doesnt help with how people word polls. People on some level either conscious or subconscious will word a poll in a way to elicit the response they are looking for. Taking this poll for example to me at least question 1 is pretty fairly worded and benign. But, question two is worded in such a way that it elicits a desired response. Especially since two options (1&2) could be better worded and broken apart to give a wider range of options.

Really? How does it elicit a desired response? It breaks down to:

A)Desirable

B)Benign

C)Detrimental

That isn't loaded, it's covering all the possibilities. Also, the majority of respondents said it is flat out desirable. What does your set of choices add? The "This shouldn't be in the game, but if it is I would use it" option?

 

7 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

I keep seeing pictures of NASA mission control being used as a justification for support of multi-monitor and again I say that is an inappropriate comparison or justification. Why? For NASA and other space agencies real lives are on the line and information can and will and HAS saved astronauts lives. In ksp no lives are on the line. Just pixels. 1’s and 0’s.

So since NASA uses it to save lives it shouldn't be implemented and is inappropriate? How is this a logical justification against? 

NASA uses lots of monitors because they want more displayed data. So do some KSP players. What does lives being on the line have to do with anything here?

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Really? How does it elicit a desired response? It breaks down to:

A)Desirable

B)Benign

C)Detrimental

That isn't loaded, it's covering all the possibilities. Also, the majority of respondents said it is flat out desirable. What does your set of choices add? The "This shouldn't be in the game, but if it is I would use it" option?

Well, the third option is very negative, and that in and of itself can create bias.

The second question could have been phrased better.  First off, there is no need to ask if someone wants a feature to be in the game.  There are always going to be lots of features, some of which various people will never use.

A better phrasing might be:

• Assuming that there was multi-monitor support in the game, would you use it?
  • Yes
  • No

And frankly, you left stuff out.  Multi-monitor support is merely one aspect of multiple windows.  If a game or program has multiple windows, then it automatically has multi-monitor support.  And I can see someone wanting to have multiple windows on a single screen.

[AlamoVampire]

@mcwaffles2003

2. Your opinion on multi-monitor support

• I would like to see this feature in the game and would use it
   
   33
• I wouldn't use this feature but I wouldn't mind it existing in the game for others to use
   
   19
• I do not want this feature to be in the game

 

option 1 is a loaded question. You clearly want this optional feature and on i presume a subconscious level you worded it to reflect your desires AND loaded it further by adding an optional response as part of the question.

option 2 is also loaded by how its worded. You ask if we will use it (i wont. End my alignment with the question, but) then ALSO load it by asking an unnecessary follow up. I do not care if YOU use it. I do not find it necessary to have and cannot accept development time being subverted to again a 100% OPTIONAL 100% NONCRITICAL feature during run up to launch. It will without question necessitate less polish on 100% CRITICAL 100% VITAL features.

 

Showing NASA and then comparing it to a 1. Game 2. A scaled down generally UNREALISTIC game (yes the physics mostly check out but little green guys and lets face it its too easy to get to space in ksp) is an inappropriate comparison. It would be like me comparing combat in DCS to what actual fighter pilots go through in real life. Its close. But not 100% so my comparison is more appropriate than yours. Or saying that I am able land a lunar lander in an  old school DOS game means that translates 100/100 to what Neil Armstrong did 51 years ago.

Now, I formally walk away. No more can or will I say.

 

165407242030

[TBenz]

5 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

I do not find it necessary to have and cannot accept development time being subverted to again a 100% OPTIONAL 100% NONCRITICAL feature during run up to launch.

I don't see anything suggesting that multimonitor support needs to be implemented for launch.

 

5 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

Showing NASA and then comparing it to a 1. Game 2. A scaled down generally UNREALISTIC game (yes the physics mostly check out but little green guys and lets face it its too easy to get to space in ksp) is an inappropriate comparison.

No it is not. NASA uses many monitors because they need to display a massive amount of information. While KSP is much simpler than any NASA mission, and does not require nearly as much information to be relayed to the player, there is still a lot. Enough information to justify having two different scenes, the flight scene and the map scene. The fact that KSP literally breaks the mission view across two different scenes is fully sufficient evidence to prove that there is a practical use to using multiple monitors. Each scene displays important information, and there is benefit to being able to monitor both easily at the same time.

There can be valid arguments had against actually including multiple monitor support in KSP2. There aren't any arguments that can dispute the validity of multiple monitors use cases in KSP2, which is what the pictures of mission control are establishing.

Edited July 25, 2020 by TBenz

[Incarnation of Chaos]

17 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

@Incarnation of Chaos doesnt help with how people word polls. People on some level either conscious or subconscious will word a poll in a way to elicit the response they are looking for. Taking this poll for example to me at least question 1 is pretty fairly worded and benign. But, question two is worded in such a way that it elicits a desired response. Especially since two options (1&2) could be better worded and broken apart to give a wider range of options. If I was making this poll I would have worded question 2’s options like this:

2. Your opinion on multi-monitor support

A: This feature should be included in KSP2

B: This feature should not be included in KSP2

C: I have no opinion on this feature

I would have then snapped the original choice A from the OP’s 2nd question into a third question and not bothered asking if those who will not use such a feature if they care if others do.

3. If this feature is included would you use it

A: Yes

B: No

I think this way is far less loaded and feels more fair. In fairness I chose option 2 in his question 2, but only sided with “will not use” as seeing as I will not use the other half is pointless. In fairness further, to answer my variant questions: 2. B 3. B.

I keep seeing pictures of NASA mission control being used as a justification for support of multi-monitor and again I say that is an inappropriate comparison or justification. Why? For NASA and other space agencies real lives are on the line and information can and will and HAS saved astronauts lives. In ksp no lives are on the line. Just pixels. 1’s and 0’s. I honestly do not care if it gets added LATER after release, just not now during runup to release. It again is 100% optional and 100% not critical or vital to gameplay. I have of course said all of this before and of course now that I have added this final final thought to all of this, I am walking away again. 
 

060007242020

Um; i wasn't really commenting on the wording of the poll. More just saying that a poll on this fourm is going to diverge significantly no matter what from a poll sampling the general audience interested in this game regardless of how you word it.

[Draco T stand-up guy]

19 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

But in practice; unless it's basically free to implement and doesn't suck up too much developer time and resources i wouldn't want it.

As I implied elsewhere - multi-monitor support is pretty much endemic to multi-player and, if I'm reading what the developers said in an article accurately, how they're getting better performance on physics calculations.

19 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

But Windows couldn't clean up the virtual displays afterwards, both AMD and Nividia's drivers are absolute trash at handling multiple displays.

And yet, in nearly two decades of using multiple monitors I've never had a problem. I presently have a 24", 16:10, 1920x1200 main display and a 22", 16:9, 1920x1080 running perfectly on an AMD Radeon RX550.

 

 

[Incarnation of Chaos]

1 hour ago, Draco T stand-up guy said:

As I implied elsewhere - multi-monitor support is pretty much endemic to multi-player and, if I'm reading what the developers said in an article accurately, how they're getting better performance on physics calculations.

And yet, in nearly two decades of using multiple monitors I've never had a problem. I presently have a 24", 16:10, 1920x1200 main display and a 22", 16:9, 1920x1080 running perfectly on an AMD Radeon RX550.

 

 

Which is why this is the most useless statement in tech support, because it doesn't help me isolate what my problem may be or rule out anything. It's just clutter, and is one of the things i was talking about.

Also that remains to be seen, even if they have code for MP that could make the synchronization easier it's not safe to assume it could be dropped in without any issues to support multiple monitors. Also you don't want to run a full server client just for a display utility, so you'd have to at least remove it's network functionality and the like. This all takes time, resources, and most importantly doesn't help the main goal of KSP2.

 

[pandaman]

I am in favour of including the feature, and would use.it.

 A lot of the arguments against relate to the extra work, and potential delays and problems of adding it, which are not unreasonable concerns.

However, what if that work is already done and it is already able to be included, but just not shoen?  (perhaps so as not to risk suggesting that players will 'need' multi monitors to play it).   Would those against it argue for it's removal,  accept it and not use it on principle, or give it a try if/when they can?

[Incarnation of Chaos]

32 minutes ago, pandaman said:

I am in favour of including the feature, and would use.it.

 A lot of the arguments against relate to the extra work, and potential delays and problems of adding it, which are not unreasonable concerns.

However, what if that work is already done and it is already able to be included, but just not shown?  (perhaps so as not to risk suggesting that players will 'need' multi monitors to play it).   Would those against it argue for it's removal,  accept it and not use it on principle, or give it a try if/when they can?

Then they could show it, and be very clear and concise that it's an optional feature extending what can be done on a single screen. If they did, and it was clear that they wouldn't have major issues with support then i would completely reverse my position. But that's the same with quite a bit of KSP2, the lack of information makes me tend more towards the cautious side.

[mcwaffles2003]

 

11 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

option 1 is a loaded question. You clearly want this optional feature and on i presume a subconscious level you worded it to reflect your desires AND loaded it further by adding an optional response as part of the question.

How is this "loaded"? It's a blunt and straight forward option, you just disagree with it. Please don't accuse me of making "loaded" questions simply for having an opinion different than yours. Also nowhere in this do you describe how it is loaded but simply assert that it is so.

 

11 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

option 2 is also loaded by how its worded. You ask if we will use it (i wont. End my alignment with the question, but) then ALSO load it by asking an unnecessary follow up. I do not care if YOU use it. I do not find it necessary to have and cannot accept development time being subverted to again a 100% OPTIONAL 100% NONCRITICAL feature during run up to launch. It will without question necessitate less polish on 100% CRITICAL 100% VITAL features.

There are 2 "no i wouldn't use it" options, but of those that won't use it, it's fair to ask them if it bothers them that the option is included. I would make 2 options for those that would use it but the response of "yes I would use this but I don't want it in the game" seems a bit silly, no? 

Actually your statement as presented perfectly justifies the creation of this response choice as you have bluntly stated the opposite of:

11 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

I do not care if YOU use it

hence the necessity in differentiation as some wouldn't use the feature but are OK with the features inclusion in the game.

11 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

Showing NASA and then comparing it to a 1. Game 2. A scaled down generally UNREALISTIC game (yes the physics mostly check out but little green guys and lets face it its too easy to get to space in ksp) is an inappropriate comparison. It would be like me comparing combat in DCS to what actual fighter pilots go through in real life. Its close. But not 100% so my comparison is more appropriate than yours. Or saying that I am able land a lunar lander in an  old school DOS game means that translates 100/100 to what Neil Armstrong did 51 years ago.

Oh, should I show a different space agencies multi monitor setup? I don't get what you're even getting at in this line of argument. It's a game so we shouldn't include details that give the user a great feel of actually running a mission control? Why? Should the game intentionally strive to be unrealistic?

Should DCS stop mimicking realistic aerodynamics since "it's just a game"? Are you arguing games shouldn't stive to mimic their real life counterparts? I am genuinely confused as to the reasoning behind this position.

Also, where did I ever state or imply anything like:

11 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

I am able land a lunar lander in an  old school DOS game means that translates 100/100 to what Neil Armstrong did 51 years ago.

 

11 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

Now, I formally walk away. No more can or will I say.

Thats cool, argue based on assertions, make a statement accusing me of making loaded questions and leave... yeah, really cool. 

[pandaman]

1 hour ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Then they could show it, and be very clear and concise that it's an optional feature extending what can be done on a single screen. If they did, and it was clear that they wouldn't have major issues with support then i would completely reverse my position. But that's the same with quite a bit of KSP2, the lack of information makes me tend more towards the cautious side.

I do agree, they could easily have mentioned that multi monitor support is inluded, and then left it at that.  In the same way they did with MP pretty much.  So I do tend to think it's not in the mix.

Although one potential argument in favour of not showing it (other than 'surprise' factor) could be how it is interpretted by us, a lot may not read the text that says 'this is a handy, but not essential feature'.  Look at what happened with the UI bits that got shown, many seemed to assume that it was the final version and that is how it will be, when release was still 18 months away.  I don't think this is actually the case, but it is a possibility.

[mcwaffles2003]

14 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

A better phrasing might be:

• Assuming that there was multi-monitor support in the game, would you use it?
  • Yes
  • No

But this leaves unclear the opinions of those not using the feature on whether or not they care if it is included in the game. I tried adding a 3rd question about how much of a delay in development time this would be worth to the community but a fair amount of people already voted on the 1st 2 questions and they wouldn't be allowed to submit a vote for the 3rd poll since they already voted, so I omitted it.

14 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

And frankly, you left stuff out.  Multi-monitor support is merely one aspect of multiple windows.  If a game or program has multiple windows, then it automatically has multi-monitor support.  And I can see someone wanting to have multiple windows on a single screen.

That's a fair clarification as its the more intended question to ask, just all the threads recently have been using the term "multi-monitor". I wish I could change that part of the poll as that is more concretely the intended feature. Though, I hope multi-monitor support as in spanning a single window over 3 screens was not the type of feature most people were thinking of when voting as in other discussions the central feature was having a constant map view open in a different monitor as a separate window

Edited July 25, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Incarnation of Chaos]

42 minutes ago, pandaman said:

I do agree, they could easily have mentioned that multi monitor support is inluded, and then left it at that.  In the same way they did with MP pretty much.  So I do tend to think it's not in the mix.

Although one potential argument in favour of not showing it (other than 'surprise' factor) could be how it is interpretted by us, a lot may not read the text that says 'this is a handy, but not essential feature'.  Look at what happened with the UI bits that got shown, many seemed to assume that it was the final version and that is how it will be, when release was still 18 months away.  I don't think this is actually the case, but it is a possibility.

Right; i forgot that I'm on the internet and that Poe's Law holds. FORGIVE MEH!!!!

[Draco T stand-up guy]

4 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Also you don't want to run a full server client just for a display utility, so you'd have to at least remove it's network functionality and the like.

But you do need to for multi-player and, as I said, it looks to me like they're doing it that way to get the better performance on the physics. If they are running a server model then it doesn't matter how many windows are open - the performance will only be affected minimally.

 

4 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

Which is why this is the most useless statement in tech support

It wasn't tech support - just showing that your issues are, pretty much, unique to you.

Really, if things were as bad as you say no one would be using multiple monitors.

 

15 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

If a game or program has multiple windows, then it automatically has multi-monitor support.

Actually, it isn't. If an app creates a window then creates windows that are children of that first window they, usually, can't leave it. That is often a consequence of the development environment.

[Superfluous J]

On 7/24/2020 at 1:47 AM, Draco T stand-up guy said:

The really interesting thing about that stat is how many people are indicating that they would go out and get a second monitor so that they could use it.

Or it means people interpreted the first question to mean using multiple monitors for KSP or not.

[TBenz]

4 hours ago, Draco T stand-up guy said:

Actually, it isn't. If an app creates a window then creates windows that are children of that first window they, usually, can't leave it. That is often a consequence of the development environment.

I'm fairly certain that "multiple windows" meant "multiple top level windows".