KSP2 EA Grand Discussion Thread.

[PDCWolf]

22 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

-snip-

 

God, your images hadn't loaded at first. Someone who knows what they do related to UI is gonna see that and snap.

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, PDCWolf said:

The navball is your view

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.

1 minute ago, PDCWolf said:

it's the thing that tells you if you're on alignment, going straight at your target or slanted, and how fast

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.

2 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

If you're so zoomed in, who's to blame?

The game for making you zoom out.

3 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

you need an alignment to be established pre approach

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.

Spoiler

To quote Master39:

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

Oh, and BTW, another detail that everyone seem to have forgotten in the past half a page, in KSP you don't usually land planes on paved runways following a rehearsed standard procedure, but vertically land rockets and landers in random places, with random obstacles at a random slope.

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.

4 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

You're setting examples of people specifically shooting themselves in the foot by not knowing how to use instruments and ignoring them

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.

9 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Based on your example, if you zoom in enough you wouldn't see the ground anyways, so why would zooming out and in be an option in one example but not the other? hmm...

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?

[Pthigrivi]

38 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Yep, and in both cases the navball is as close to the window as possible for the construction limitations the LEM has. In fact, they took care to put the navball right by their vision in both stations, which is why they're at the edge of the window no matter which side you take.

Hmm. Im not so sure. They each have their own navball and they could have just put the instrument panel directly in front of Armstrong's face with a center window they could both look out through. I think it has to do with having a clear vertical sense of alignment when looking out. Heres another image of a helicopter cockpit with the central view through the windshield and the navball just off to the side. I think its just that when a clear view of the ground is absolutely critical that clear vertical real-estate becomes more important. After all the navball isn't responding to parallax, it shows what it shows no matter which angle you view it from. Looking at an environment does however, especially when in 3rd person. When you drag to shift the view of your vessel off to the right you're no longer looking straight through the center of the vessel and using that information to assess alignment with the terrain below is much more difficult. 

Of course what would be amazing would be a HUD overlay showing your present trajectory and marking the landing spot on screen similar to the trajectories mod. That would be gold.

Edited November 12, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[LoSBoL]

2 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

God, your images hadn't loaded at first. Someone who knows what they do related to UI is gonna see that and snap.

When talking about the first three images I indeed snap myself. KSP² in 16 by 9 is horrible. I can't play like that. And I didn't even post a map view or the mission Report View after crashing. I stand by my opinion that KSP² isn't developed for 16:9 screens.

[Bej Kerman]

3 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

I stand by my opinion that KSP² isn't developed for 16:9 screens.

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.

[PDCWolf]

24 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

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.

If you don't know how the alignment of your target factors into your own alignment and can be discerned through the navball, I can only shrug.

25 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

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.

  Reveal hidden contents

To quote Master39:

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.

"Arcade" is not an excuse for "the game penalizes me for not doing things properly". If you bash your stuff against themselves because you couldn't rotate or operate the camera and you specifically want your rocket vertical on the screen for a docking maneuver even though you have more lateral real state.  Then yeah, I'm blaming you. Honestly the landing example was your best bet, and even then it's not unreasonable to zoom out a bit, much less if the navball wasn't a wasteful bloaty mess.

22 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Hmm. Im not so sure. They each have their own navball and they could have just put the instrument panel directly in front of Armstrong's face with a center window they could both look out through. I think it has to do with having a clear vertical sense of alignment when looking out.

The way the LEM was built, that's the only place where instruments can go. For that configuration, they still took the basic lesson that the the one situational awareness instrument in the whole cockpit has to be as close to your eyesight as possible.

Wherever you decide to place the navball, you'll always find it's right next to where you'd look outside from.

26 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

After all the navball isn't responding to parallax, it shows what it shows no matter which angle you view it from. Looking at an environment does however, especially when in 3rd person. When you drag to shift the view of your vessel off to the right you're no longer looking straight through the center of the vessel and using that information to assess alignment with the terrain below is much more difficult.

Wait, are you saying you can't land unless the rocket is specifically aligned to the center of the screen? Like sure, cutting off the lower part could be an issue if you couldn't zoom out, but at this point we're just inventing bad situations to try and nitpick at.

Also again, the navball is your vision. you know the alignment of your vessel by looking at it, it's specifically made so you know the alignment of your vessel even if you can't see anywhere else.  What you need to land is a navball, an altimeter, and a vertical speed indicator. Anything after that is a gift from the gods. Even if you were to land on the most treacherous, incluned terrain, you'd still land going straight down and then have your ship descend and compress into place.

30 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Not sure what the image is for. If the panel has to be shared between pilot and student, or copilot, the navball is midway between them, but still right by the edge of the panel (closer to where vision is). Helicopters are very commonly flown from the right, and so the pilot has the navball closer to him.

Also if you look at literally any other helicopter:

Spoiler

If it's a situational awareness indicator, it goes as close to the vision as possible, that's a universal truth, nothing more I can say about it. In analog cockpits it's an artificial horizon or HSD, and goes in the middle below the vision. If it's a shared cockpit it goes where both people can see it, still as close to the vision as possible. If it's a digital PFD, it goes still exactly in the same places. If it's a transparent hud it goes right in your eyes.

The navball on the left is wrong, it'll always be wrong. You're free to like it there though, but that doesn't make it right.

[cocoscacao]

4 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

How about those IVA's?

what is this? Where did you get those imgs from? 

[PDCWolf]

15 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

what is this? Where did you get those imgs from? 

I think that's the same trick they did for the sneak peek shot: clipping the camera inside the cockpits, specially easier inside the VAB where those shots are.

[Mikki]

@LoSBoL I must explain here that i play KSP2 on a HDMI TV set from quite a distance and the UI is scaled up to 110%, and i mostly send my Kerbals to orbit and dock to other vessels. I use the Navball all the time and i don`t care much about the space it gobbles up, when using the docking UI it could be even larger...

I would appreciate if we could resize and position all the stuff by ourselfs. I`m sure the devs are aware about this issue since this thread has allready blown off the roof all the way to Minmus, and i guess Gargamel is lurking around the corner to hit the breaks on this topic soon 

Spoiler

  

[Bej Kerman]

28 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

"Arcade" is not an excuse for "the game penalizes me for not doing things properly"

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.

30 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Honestly the landing example was your best bet, and even then it's not unreasonable to zoom out a bit

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.

27 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

much less if the navball wasn't a wasteful bloaty mess.

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.

[LoSBoL]

35 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

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.

You can certainly say that I'm used to this screensize, I do stream a lot to my laptop on the couch to, and KSP2 (even more than KSP) doesn't fare well  at 16:9 if you look at how filled it is with UI elements obstructing the view, in flight with the burn meter on it nearly covers 25% of the screen estate. In the VAB the Part Picker on the left is huge, open the part manager and the screen is filled.
The extra sharpness of 4K could help I guess, but that would need you to be able to scale every UI element down, including things like the Part Picker in the VAB. But it could at least help with not putting so much interface in your face while in flight.

32:9 can indeed be seen as an absurd amount of screenspace, you get used to it very fast though, it's like two 27 inch QHD monitors side by side but without a bezel. 
For KSP maybe somewhat to much, but KSP2'S GUI does benefit more from width than from more sharpness, a 21:9 screen opens it up, not to mention the added immersion, KSP is a game of views as well for me, you do get a more cinematic  view of the beauty from your space endeavors.
 

49 minutes ago, cocoscacao said:

what is this? Where did you get those imgs from? 

KSP2, this is what you see if you clip into the cockpits.

[PDCWolf]

3 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

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.

Again, you're setting an example where players require to shoot themselves in the foot. You're telling me the navball in the middle is bad because players choose to ignore it.

4 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

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.

You like to blame that on the navball being in the middle, I'd love to blame that on the limitations posted by the consistently outdated consoles and SQUAD (or rather, whoever they contracted for the port) not polishing and adapting the experience.

12 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

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.

Can you make the KSP1 navball smaller? not as in scale, but as in compacting the elements it presents more whilst keeping them readable. The answer is probably not, or at least not by a lot.

[Pthigrivi]

20 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

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.

I mean the larger point is also just being ignored here: that there is a difference between being an embodied pilot physically within the cockpit and viewing your flight space through a horizontal monitor. Here's the typical field of view for a person. Notice you have an aspect ratio thats roughly square and biased downward. If I had a square screen I'd probably also want the navball centered below with other flight information to either side. All of these design considerations are important. 

3 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Again, you're setting an example where players require to shoot themselves in the foot. You're telling me the navball in the middle is bad because players choose to ignore it.

Both, my dude. We're using both sources of information.

Edited November 12, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[Bej Kerman]

7 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Again, you're setting an example where players require to shoot themselves in the foot. You're telling me the navball in the middle is bad because players choose to ignore it.

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.

6 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

You like to blame that on the navball being in the middle, I'd love to blame that on the limitations posted by the consistently outdated consoles and SQUAD (or rather, whoever they contracted for the port) not polishing and adapting the experience.

...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".

[Kerbart]

I don't pretend to be a mod but it certainly would be nice if the Navball discussion gets it's own thread. *cough*

Although really it seems to come down to opposing views on where it should be and how many pixels of screen estate it should take up, suggesting that making that customizable is the best way forward.

[Bej Kerman]

18 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

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.

[Periple]

10 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

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.

Widescreen is really immersive though! I think it’s because it extends all the way to peripheral vision and you have to turn your head to properly see things to the side.

[PDCWolf]

48 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I mean the larger point is also just being ignored here: that there is a difference between being an embodied pilot physically within the cockpit and viewing your flight space through a horizontal monitor. Here's the typical field of view for a person. Notice you have an aspect ratio thats roughly square and biased downward. If I had a square screen I'd probably also want the navball centered below with other flight information to either side. All of these design considerations are important. 

Both, my dude. We're using both sources of information.

I agree we don't yet have disembodied pilots flying real life aircraft or spacecraft in third person, but we have some examples from games and we know they use transparent HUDs right in the middle of the screen. Your image there correctly portrays my point that currently, on a 16:9 display at 1080p (should be worse at higher res?) makes the navball sit at a point where it's not in a useful place anymore (for peripheral vision to understand it).

If you're really using both, unless you're on a really compressed screen and sacrificing a lot of real estate to have a bigger navball, then the better idea is to have the navball right there.

32 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

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.

It's still the same situation: You're choosing to ignore an instrument that tells you everything you know. The cause-consequence is "I choose to ignore item, therefore item is bothering me", not the other way. Of course it's gonna bother you if you choose to not make use of it.

32 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

...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".

First off, whoever made the ports was not SQUAD (IIRC). Second off, SQUAD somehow knew where the situational awareness instrumentation must go. It goes there. You like it somewhere else? go right ahead. I'm not against it or any other element being placed wherever you want, but where it is, it goes for a reason. They also clearly thought being able to move the camera around was enough if the UI ever became a problem (which is the same as in normal KSP1).

Why is enhanced edition like that? no idea. They clearly didn't want to make a different UI, and we don't know how much budget they set aside for it and how much of that could've been used to make it a better experience. Moving it to the side solves a problem but creates another, as it sits outside of your peripheral vision. That you consistently choose to ignore that (and call people out for "not moving the eyes inside their sockets") is not an argument.

Edited November 12, 2023 by PDCWolf

[Bej Kerman]

21 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Of course it's gonna bother you if you choose to not make use of it.

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.

22 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

First off, whoever made the ports was not SQUAD (IIRC)

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.

23 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Second off, SQUAD somehow knew where the situational awareness instrumentation must go.

And Squad is, well, Squad, so naturally it was placed badly.

24 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

They also clearly thought being able to move the camera around was enough if the UI ever became a problem (which is the same as in normal KSP1).

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.

24 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Moving it to the side solves a problem but creates another, as it sits outside of your peripheral vision

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.

[PDCWolf]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

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.

The point of the navball being in the middle is that you can keep it in your peripheral vision when you look at the action, or keep the action in your peripheral vision whilst you look at the navball. Something that's impossible to do if the navball is all the way on a corner. For space docking scenarios like the one you propose, just rotate the camera and make use of the whole horizontal real estate, otherwise you'd really be gimping yourself on purpose.

Your scenarios really depend on not wanting to use the tools that are already there for you.

3 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

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.

Can't blame game designers for not making a UI work on every resolution and screensize combination possible, that's just a reality of the industry. Ask anyone with an ultrawide monitor and they'll tell you how that reality applies to them as well.

4 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

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.

I mean, if you don't see the problem with that, great, but I like to use my whole screen AND have the navball where it's supposed to go.

6 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

That's a non-issue for the bigger part of the playerbase,

Says who? The people who like the navball on the side? A self perceived majority of 10 posters in this thread?

[Bej Kerman]

17 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

The point of the navball being in the middle is that you can keep it in your peripheral vision when you look at the action

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.

17 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Can't blame game designers for not making a UI work on every resolution and screensize combination possible, that's just a reality of the industry. Ask anyone with an ultrawide monitor and they'll tell you how that reality applies to them as well.

Yes I can blame game designers for not making a UI work at a common resolution.

17 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

I mean, if you don't see the problem with that, great, but I like to use my whole screen

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.

17 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Says who? The people who like the navball on the side? A self perceived majority of 10 posters in this thread?

-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.

Edited November 12, 2023 by Bej Kerman

[PDCWolf]

10 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

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.

Nope, that's the default behavior of how you interact with flight instruments: Situational awareness instruments go in your peripheral vision. That's not even opinion, that's well established ground rules of human-interface machine design. Putting the navball on the side means it's out of your peripheral vision. That's not even up for discussion.

That you'd be up to discussing reality is more proof that you don't have a point other than your personal preference, than of anything else.

13 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

-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.

Yeah, they haven't been know so far for being competent, making good design choices and many other things, have them...

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, PDCWolf said:

Nope, that's the default behavior of how you interact with flight instruments: Situational awareness instruments go in your peripheral vision. That's not even opinion, that's well established ground rules of human-interface machine design. Putting the navball on the side means it's out of your peripheral vision. That's not even up for discussion.

It's not up for discussion? Well apparently it is at SpaceX, and they decided it's best in the corner.

3 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

That you'd be up to discussing reality is more proof that you don't have a point other than your personal preference, than of anything else.

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.

4 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Yeah, they haven't been know so far for being competent, making good design choices and many other things, have them...

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.

[The Aziz]

Ping me when this pointless bickering ends next year.

[PDCWolf]

23 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

It's not up for discussion? Well apparently it is at SpaceX, and they decided it's best in the corner.

Lmao had to pull the single exception in the suite of like 50 images posted to this thread. That really paints the picture of your whole arguing until this point, grasping at straws and creating whatever cherry picked scenario you can to try and maybe dig out a point.

With that, I'm done.