User-Interface - Old vs New

[Periple]

I didn't like the old flight UI at all! The important information was scattered all over the place and often behind buttons. Timewarp and altitude up top, navball down in the middle where it blocks the view when you're landing, nav information in a cluster at bottom left and it doesn't even display all of the information at once, you have to click to cycle through modes.

With the new flight UI I really appreciate the navball cluster. I also like the way the other main UI controls are placed and the information they display. The resource manager is a HUGE improvement over resource transfer in KSP1, but it does take up too much space. Same for the parts manager. I also think the SAS control cluster is too big.  I hope they'll be able to make them more compact and then make the entire UI scalable.

I absolutely love the new VAB. I went back to KSP1 last week for a small project and building just felt so much clunkier and more fiddly. There too the main issue is the parts manager. I'd like to keep it on-screen all the time or maybe toggle between it and the parts list, but it's too big. It's also hard to find the part you want if you have many, for example if you have the same type of engine on multiple stages, it's hard to tell from it which is which. 

Overall I think the KSP2 UI design is much better than the KSP1 one (it's kind of debatable if KSP1 even has a UI design as such, it just has a bunch of very barebones UI elements placed wherever). It does need a few rounds of iteration to get it really good, as well as QoL features like scalability, compact mode for some of the controls, and what have you.

[J.Random]

I cannot understand how anybody would think that part manager is an improvement, bunching stuff together by type. It works for a three-part craft, but it will be a mess for a 1000-part one. At the very least there should be a way to divide the groups by stage. And it would be better (but also worse in a way) if player could define the zones/modules manually - say, "from this docking port on, it's a lander, keep its parts separate" (and maybe have a separate AG tab for it, which could be toggled on and off) or "from this part to that one is a propulsion module of the craft, keep everything between them in the part tree in a separate area of the part manager".

[LoSBoL]

I love the new UI, especially with wider monitors than just 16/9. I do agree that scaling would be needed to make everybody happy and what would be even nicer, is that all the UI elements would be modulair, and you would be able to drag them where you want them. 

On a sidenote, is it new that in the Map View, you are able to pan wherever you want to go by clicking and holding the third mouse button? It's awesome and I don't remember you are able to do so within KSP1.

[Moons]

Well guess people are different i think for example:

• - the new "are we in space" view is ugly and i think it looked way better beeing on top
• - the "orientation ball" besides the Navball would be less annoying if it was smaller and above the Navball - it also should be transparent and the icons should be way smaller
• - the Navball just has too many details - you probably even cant make it smaller since you wouldnt be able ot read anything
• - the Engines ressources and the Go-Button area are a giant waste of space and they dont even look good - its a huge grey box for no reason with a tiny font and tiny bars for no reason blocking a huge part of the screen
• - Kerbal Picture and Vessel-Ressource is the same - its huge, the actual information is tiny and the use of grey boxes with outlines blocks lots of screen space for no reason
• - Vessel actions on the left and the menu on top is also pretty useless to be shown constantly

 

 

My suggestions:

- reduce the complexity of the NAVball and stop pushing everything on the bottom left - or at least add a "legacy UI option" - i also think that the "are we in space" view sh ould be on top and look more like before since the new design - in my opinino - is ugly (and make it smaller or add options to change size)

- change the design in general - i know its supposed to use stylish or whatever but in reality it just looks like it doesnt belong into the game

- put the orientation ball that is now beside the Navball above it- make it smaller and transparent- reduce the size of the icons in it

- all menus that arent required all the time should just minimize themselves with an option to "lock them" in their expanded version

- Minimalism is the key - remove all pointless boxes that block a players view - the ressource windows (vessel and engines etc.) are way too big - they have huge boxes yet use a tiny font and the actual information is probably using 1/4th of the screen space it blocks due ot the boxes.

- put the time-speed up etc. on the top left and make it way smaller - it takes up way too much space for what it is - i also dont understand why every of those menus even needs its own black bar with additional text - who cares?

 

 

VAB:

- change lighting - the center of focus should be the rocket - not the menu and the hall

- make everything smaller - the important thing is the rocket - not the menu

 

I was also wondering about a function to improve building - i often am annoyed by having to look for parts that even fit - would it be possible to have an option to only show parts that are compatible with the last built part (especially the size) - or maybe even a suggestion system to some extent - for example - if i build a tank - fitting engines will be shown in a special window on the right - or if i build an engine decouplers that fit will be shown etc.? (obviously players should be able to disable it) - this would make building faster and probably even help new players

Edited March 11, 2023 by Moons

[The Aziz]

"I'm used to interface in Need For Speed 1 and therefore it's superior to everything that came later"

"I would like to have my speed at the top in NFS Heat because it's where it used to be"

34 minutes ago, Moons said:

would it be possible to have an option to only show parts that are compatible with the last built part (especially the size) - or maybe even a suggestion system to some extent - for example - if i build a tank - fitting engines will be shown in a special window on the right - or if i build an engine decouplers that fit will be shown etc.? (obviously players should be able to disable it) - this would make building faster and probably even help new players

You can sort by size you know. 

[Moons]

36 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

"I'm used to interface in Need For Speed 1 and therefore it's superior to everything that came later"

"I would like to have my speed at the top in NFS Heat because it's where it used to be"

You can sort by size you know. 

You can do that aswell in KSP1 but it still isnt very user friendly.

 

So then let me some up your post:

"Change for the Sake of change is great - everything new is better automatically".

 

And you probably will be suprised - i also like the old speedometers in cars better then the new digital ones. I would argue that im way to much into new tech - i buy too much of it and use too much of it - still i dont think everything new is automatically great. Also looking at the new UI most of it is simply design for the sake of design- and thats something i never liked. Im more of a "Form follows function" guy - i still enjoy a good design if it embraces that motto - and i like a clean design in general where the things i need are presented in a way for me to see them as fast as possible. And im not a fan of compressing all information as much as possible in a tiny spot.

Edited March 11, 2023 by Moons

[The Aziz]

21 minutes ago, Moons said:

You can do that aswell in KSP1 but it still isnt very user friendly.

In KSP1 it's straight up broken, there's no other way to say it. It is, if you take a closer look, the longest 1.25m tank appears further down the list than short 2.5m tank. That's not size, that's volume. In 2 you have size categories you can open and close if needed, that's a significant improvement.

34 minutes ago, Moons said:

Change for the Sake of change is great - everything new is better automatically

I never said that. But I do have enough experience in design to notice that the new one, despite obvious stylistic mismatches, is much more ergonomic that the old one. Everything you need the most is in the bottom half of the screen, leaving the least crucial elements away from view, and allowing the have the middle nearly free of the interface. You don't have to look away from the speed to see your altitude or fiddle with tiny SAS buttons. Time is something you deal with fairly often, especially during maneuvers, why have it hidden in the corner away from everything?

48 minutes ago, Moons said:

and i like a clean design in general where the things i need are presented in a way for me to see them as fast as possible. And im not a fan of compressing all information as much as possible in a tiny spot.

I don't follow, aren't those (not necessarily) the opposites? You got what you need most often, close to each other so you don't even have to move your eyeballs, so it's fast, but then, you don't like it?

[cocoscacao]

What I am sorely missing is the ability to fine tune maneuver while the view is focused on something else entirely. I hope they'll bring that back.

[Moons]

15 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

In KSP1 it's straight up broken, there's no other way to say it. It is, if you take a closer look, the longest 1.25m tank appears further down the list than short 2.5m tank. That's not size, that's volume. In 2 you have size categories you can open and close if needed, that's a significant improvement.

I never said that. But I do have enough experience in design to notice that the new one, despite obvious stylistic mismatches, is much more ergonomic that the old one. Everything you need the most is in the bottom half of the screen, leaving the least crucial elements away from view, and allowing the have the middle nearly free of the interface. You don't have to look away from the speed to see your altitude or fiddle with tiny SAS buttons. Time is something you deal with fairly often, especially during maneuvers, why have it hidden in the corner away from everything?

I don't follow, aren't those (not necessarily) the opposites? You got what you need most often, close to each other so you don't even have to move your eyeballs, so it's fast, but then, you don't like it?

You do relaize that when i talk about the UI i talk about the general looks and style and not about little details and bugs/problems it had? If to you it seems as if i wanted to say that KSP1s UI was perfect - i never meant to say that.

I dont have to have expericence in design to know if a UI is more or less ergonomic for me to use. Compressing everything in a small area isnt good design. The view is actually blocked a lot since lots of pointless things are constantly visible or way to big or have grey boxes that block additional view for no reason.

I never had a problem with the SAS buttons - they were perfeclty fine - the new ones are way too big. Also those are things most people would probably control via hotkeys at some point if possible.

Why should time use up so much time and why move it where you just argued is the most important space of the screen?

 

In genearl shouldnt most of those functions be something done via hotkeys anyways?

No i dont like it because having lots of information with lots of details in the same area actually leads to me taking longer to find that information.

 

Im also pretty sure that the new Interface actually takes up more % of the screen than the old one.

Edited March 11, 2023 by Moons

[RocketRockington]

I just expected better from the UI.  When you have a game go from the absolute first version of a genre, and then move to much bigger budget ver2, that also has examples from a couple other indie games doing similar things to learn from - you expect blanket improvement rather than 2 steps forward one step back.

Also a lot of the menu UIs look unfinished and like big wastes of space, as @Moonssays.  Hopefully they are unfinished rather than intended.

VAB UI is the pretty good to me - as expected since star theory apparently worked on that first. 

 Flight UI is a mess.  Nav Ball cluster is ok but way too cluttered. The orientation ball is unnecessary usually and would have been better as an in-scene UI that can be toggled on as needed.

 Other parts not so good, and I generally echo moons on this.

What would have been better - and they had the budget to do this - is to modularize the UI so there was a good UI for key types of flight.

Eg: an ascent/desecnt UI.  A plane flight UI.  An orbital maneuver UI. A docking UI, with key info available. KSP2s UI is missing any way to see most orbital elements, at least KSP1 got that eventually.

Hopefully they've made the UI more moddable than KSP1 - but the fact that app bar is the way it is in KSP2 gives me little hope of that.

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by RocketRockington

[DeltaDave]

17 hours ago, J.Random said:

I cannot understand how anybody would think that part manager is an improvement, bunching stuff together by type. It works for a three-part craft, but it will be a mess for a 1000-part one. At the very least there should be a way to divide the groups by stage. And it would be better (but also worse in a way) if player could define the zones/modules manually - say, "from this docking port on, it's a lander, keep its parts separate" (and maybe have a separate AG tab for it, which could be toggled on and off) or "from this part to that one is a propulsion module of the craft, keep everything between them in the part tree in a separate area of the part manager".

I completely agree with regards to the new parts manager. I would add that the disclosure arrows to the left of each item aren't helping. They're commonly used in interfaces to expand and disclose sub-items, but in KSP2 the icons themselves make it appear there is additional details to unroll when there is not. I would suggest removing the arrow icon from panels that have nothing more to unroll.

[cocoscacao]

6 hours ago, DeltaDave said:

I completely agree with regards to the new parts manager.

Someone posted Shadowzone's interview with Nate here on the forum (or you can search YouTube). I think he mentioned there that part manager is still a debatable topic. If I understood correctly, we're the testing ground whether it will stay or not. But if that is the case, I guess enough people has to up-vote such opinion. We need a poll.

For me, it's fine as long as they refine it a little. For starters, make it disappear when right-clicking into nothing, and make it focus + expand on the part I'm right-clicking on.

Edit:

Also, now that the resources are displayed in a different section, fuel tanks are basically "dead dropdown" clutter.

Edited March 12, 2023 by cocoscacao

[Klapaucius]

On 3/11/2023 at 5:26 AM, HowDoKerbal said:

Everything about the new UI is an improvement. The only issues that immediately come to mind are some font choices and the part movement arrows in VAB.

I agree on the font choices. For us older players, some of the text is just too small and hard to read.  I think overall the UI is an improvement, but I thought the standardized text on the old UI was clear and easy to read.

[RocketRockington]

Part manager is ok...if it was in addition to part action windows.  By itself, it's awful.  Part action windows should come back.