KSP2 EA Grand Discussion Thread.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, AlizeInSpace said:

This whole argument about being able to see the rocket now is complete nonsense and 100% ableist. Shameful and disgusting.

This is not any more ableis than suggesting that the game could have a VR mode.

Nobody here is arguing for locking the navball anywhere, were discussion about the best default position.

I don't think anyone would stand up against being able to personalize the UI and move stuff around.

 

3 hours ago, AlizeInSpace said:

I'm now watching members of the community say my eyes should just work.

Nobody has said that.

 

3 hours ago, AlizeInSpace said:

As a side note. After 20k hours of KSP 1 Navball being in the center, it never once got in the way of anything. You can move the camera for a reason folks.

More than one person expressed multiple time that having important things, like the landing area, covered by the navball forces them to have to actively control one additional aspect, be it flicking on and off the UI or actively controlling the camera like you're suggesting (which doubles the needed inputs).

[snip]

I will just leave this here, close to a reminder that people here are just talking about the default behavior of the UI.

And, reminding most of the people that are defending the placement the UI are also talking about the poor readibility of the used font, and one of the main points about how big the navball is was about the use of negative space to make the whole thing more readable.

To me it looks like that nobody is against the game being more accessible.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Master39
Redacted by moderator

[Bej Kerman]

27 minutes ago, Master39 said:

More than one person expressed multiple time that having important things, like the landing area, covered by the navball forces them to have to actively control one additional aspect, be it flighting on and off the UI or actively controlling the camera like you're suggesting (which doubles the needed inputs).

I think it's ironic they're complaining about how the navball being to the left by default is ableist. By the same token, as someone with dyspraxia, "just move the camera folks" is ridiculous and also dismissive of people who need minimising the inputs they need to focus on. I can dock and land OK - but not if the navball is being obstructive as it was in KSP 1 and I'm being told to just "move the camera".

1 hour ago, AlizeInSpace said:

You can move the camera for a reason folks

(Quoting cause I want your two cents on my minirant about how nonsense this is to hear, struggling with motor control)

Edited November 11, 2023 by Bej Kerman

[Snark]

Some content has been redacted and/or removed, owing to personal remarks.

Folks, please don't make things personal.  The topic of this thread is KSP2, its features, what you'd like (or not like) to see, etc.

The topic is not what you think of your fellow posters, their motivations, their attitudes, what you think they should or shouldn't do, whether you think they're being "reasonable," your perceptions about their past behavior, etc.  If you have a problem with someone's behavior, take it up with the moderators by filing a report.

By all means, argue.  Address people's points, and if you happen to disagree strongly about their points, go ahead and express your disagreement (along with your reasons).  But please don't go after the people themselves.

Thank you for your understanding.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

I don't know how VTOL VR manages its fantasy planes, but IRL...

Good, but we're talking about a videogame's HUD.

A videogame played in third person, how many games out there have the minimap or the health indicator cover the Main Character from the shoulders down?

 

2 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Finally, there are people with Visual Field Deficits, Focus Deficits, and so on, and they'd definitely appreciate the navball in the middle, as looking to the side (made worse depending on monitor size and resolution) means not seeing the rocket anymore.

I don't get why you're pointing that out to me, the "fantasy" planes game was exactly my example to point out how interesting and useful a holographic HUD could be.

Also, just to point out, you don't have to use it to land in game, that's just me playing with it.

The problem being? It's different from KSP1, if the dev ever proposed something like this we would all be here arguing about how tue navball was better.

 

2 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

So far, the only somewhat valid argument is that it obstructs the view, which is much more dependent on how badly designed and wasteful of space the navball is than anything else.

"So far, the only somewhat valid argument is..."

The whole point the discussion from the beginning.

If the navball didn't obstruct the view nobody would he here pointing out how the navball in the middle obstructs the view.

Which, by the way, is also the main reason you could collapse and move it around in KSP1, and the reason it was moved to the side in KSP2.

The whole discussion stands on that "somewhat valid" argument.

 

DISCLAIMER: I'm completely in favor of the UI being entirely moddable and customizable. And I would be even more happy with a Holographic HUD, which would solve all the problems pointed out by everyone, and most of the accessibility problems too.

I'm merely talking about what I personally consider the best design and default setting for the game, not how everyone should be forced to play.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Master39

[Meecrob]

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

"So far, the only somewhat valid argument is..."

The whole point the discussion from the beginning.

If the navball didn't obstruct the view nobody would he here pointing out how the navball in the middle obstructs the view.

The reason it obstructs your view is because you are not using it. Now, granted, you don't have to, but I'm sure you will notice that every KSP tutorial has a big emphasis on how to use the navball as your Primary Flight Display. Again, you can do it however you want, but lots of us prefer to use real-world techniques when playing simulators. Here is NASA's opinion on the matter:

Mercury: Primitive navball front and centre

 

Gemini: Navball front and centre for both astronauts

Apollo: Again, front and centre. There is even a secondary navball for when the pilot is glancing at the instruments on the DSKY/centre panel

Shuttle: Both the old steam gauge, and new digital panels have the navball front and centre. Bonus HUD literally front and centre on both as well

Crew Dragon: Front and centre. Clearly inspired by Garmin's aviation panels

Orion: Still front and centre

 

[snip]

Edited November 11, 2023 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Meecrob said:

The reason it obstructs your view is because you are not using it. Now, granted, you don't have to, but I'm sure you will notice that every KSP tutorial has a big emphasis on how to use the navball as your Primary Flight Display. Again, you can do it however you want, but lots of us prefer to use real-world techniques when playing simulators. Here is NASA's opinion on the matter:

Mercury: Primitive navball front and centre

 

Gemini: Navball front and centre for both astronauts

Apollo: Again, front and centre. There is even a secondary navball for when the pilot is glancing at the instruments on the DSKY/centre panel

Shuttle: Both the old steam gauge, and new digital panels have the navball front and centre. Bonus HUD literally front and centre on both as well

Crew Dragon: Front and centre. Clearly inspired by Garmin's aviation panels

Orion: Still front and centre

 

 

With regards to the accessibility issues, did I read that comment correctly? Did they basically say "this person with a disability isn't worth listening to because I have a disability as well?"

Just tell me one thing: when was the last time a NASA astronaut landed a first stage from a third person view? Or anything else.

Your point only applies to IVA view, which is not the argument here, I fully support the IVA view to be as realistic as possible.

Oh, BTW, you know what else real people that really land real stuff use? Holographic HUDs, like the one I've repeatedly supported in all my last replies.

I'm using the navball, I need it, that's why I can't "just hide it with F2" but I also need to see where I'm landing, given that, outside of the KSC, I'm not landing in an heavily prepared area after rehearsing that specific landing in that specific place for hundreds of hours.

When I land on the moon I need to see potential slopes or obstacles, I don't have a full control room of engineers doing that for me months ahead of the launch.

[Pthigrivi]

4 hours ago, AlizeInSpace said:

I'm disabled. I have to sit 8 feet from my monitor. Therefore, I use a very large monitor. The Navball being in the left corner makes it so that's the only thing I get to see. [snip] My field of view is just the Navball. My rocket is somewhere off in the corner of my vision. I just want the ability to move it back to its proper spot and shrink it. 9 months in and this still isn't an option. I just really want my money back. I have zero faith in the devs to deliver any accessibility features let alone actual improvements over KSP 1. I'm now watching members of the community say my eyes should just work. [snip] At this point. I'm done with this game and Intercept. [snip] So, that's it. My faith is gone. I'll see ya all in KSP 1. At least I can see my rockets fly.

 

P.S. As a side note. After 20k hours of KSP 1 Navball being in the center, it never once got in the way of anything. You can move the camera for a reason folks.

Thanks, Alize, for your perspective on this. I think this kind of accessibility is incredibly important in games and why allowing UI configurability is so key. Interesting  to hear about making the UI smaller in some cases. This is unintuitive for folks who would think larger and more readable text would make things easier but it makes sense as you describe it. For some folks bigger might be better be but obviously accessibility isn’t a one size fits all thing. All of these tools are important. I super appreciate your thoughts and don’t hesitate to come and give feedback. 
 

And damn, 20k! I thought I was a vet with 6 or so. 

Edited November 11, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[Snark]

Some additional content removed.  Folks, please avoid "arguing about arguing," and don't make things personal by trying to characterize people, their attitudes, and their ways of expressing themselves.  Address posts, not posters, please.

[Bej Kerman]

5 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

Finally, there are people with Visual Field Deficits, Focus Deficits, and so on, and they'd definitely appreciate the navball in the middle, as looking to the side (made worse depending on monitor size and resolution) means not seeing the rocket anymore.

Since this was the solution you proposed when the navball was blocking the rocket, can they not just pan the camera so the rocket is near the navball?

[Bej Kerman]

Supplemental

8 hours ago, AlizeInSpace said:

You can move the camera for a reason folks.

There you go, I guess.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Bej Kerman

[PDCWolf]

4 hours ago, Master39 said:

Good, but we're talking about a videogame's HUD.

A videogame played in third person, how many games out there have the minimap or the health indicator cover the Main Character from the shoulders down?

Minimap and healthbars are not on the same category as a navball. A navball is a very basic SA instrument that you wouldn't be able to fly without in a lot of situations.

This is what flying looks like in third person in Starfield. Orientation instruments go as close to the middle of the screen as possible, even on top of your ship.

Everspace, orientation cues go in the middle of your vision.

4 hours ago, Master39 said:

I don't get why you're pointing that out to me, the "fantasy" planes game was exactly my example to point out how interesting and useful a holographic HUD could be.

Also, just to point out, you don't have to use it to land in game, that's just me playing with it.

The problem being? It's different from KSP1, if the dev ever proposed something like this we would all be here arguing about how tue navball was better.

The fantasy comment is aimed at me not knowing how realistic they made the huds. I know the planes are mashed up from real life, or at least inspired, but I wouldn't know if they put approach and landing type HUD pages because I never played VTOL VR. However I do know in real life people have worked a lot on giving pilots the ability to land whilst still looking at the hud, because it's kinda hard to look through the floor of your plane, and you still need the AOA and vector information anyways.

4 hours ago, Master39 said:

"So far, the only somewhat valid argument is..."

The whole point the discussion from the beginning.

If the navball didn't obstruct the view nobody would he here pointing out how the navball in the middle obstructs the view.

Which, by the way, is also the main reason you could collapse and move it around in KSP1, and the reason it was moved to the side in KSP2.

Because saying the navball obstructs the view is in reality much more dependent on it being a giant bloated mess than its positioning on screen. It's an argument we wouldn't be having if it was decently sized and not as wasteful on negative space and useless elements.

If we can't have a transparent centered hud like most space games have, we should have the navball as close to the action as possible, because as much as I can move the eyeballs in their eyesockets, I'd prefer it if I'm able to use my peripheral vision instead of going all the way to a corner.

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Since this was the solution you proposed when the navball was blocking the rocket, can they not just pan the camera so the rocket is near the navball?

What I want is to have the one instrument I need right at a glance, and yeah, that's a way to accomplish it right there, but I'd also like to not waste 2 thirds of my screen on nothing if I don't have a reason.

 

[Bej Kerman]

4 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Since this was the solution you proposed when the navball was blocking the rocket, can they not just pan the camera so the rocket is near the navball?

What I want is to have the one instrument I need right at a glance, and yeah, that's a way to accomplish it right there, but I'd also like to not waste 2 thirds of my screen on nothing if I don't have a reason.

Why not zoom in (or rotate said 2/3rds of the screen to a nearby object e.g. space station) then?

[PDCWolf]

15 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Why not zoom in (or rotate said 2/3rds of the screen to a nearby object e.g. space station) then?

-media snip-

Here, since we're posting game media, here's me landing on KSP1 (I recorded this some time ago for someone on reddit). At least you'll understand how the navball really doesn't bother me at all.

https://streamable.com/cuhvcv

Also it'd be really cool if the forum embedded Streamable.

Edit for data: this is recorded natively at 1080p.

Edited November 11, 2023 by PDCWolf

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Here, since we're posting game media, here's me landing on KSP1 (I recorded this some time ago for someone on reddit). At least you'll understand how the navball really doesn't bother me at all.

Good for you

Unfortunately, not everyone plays with the same UI scale and monitors - this is what Matt Lowne's playthrough of KSP Enhanced Edition looked like.

Look at how far he needed to zoom out in order to see the ground immediately beneath the lander.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

This is what flying looks like in third person in Starfield. Orientation instruments go as close to the middle of the screen as possible, even on top of your ship.

Everspace, orientation cues go in the middle of your vision.

Oh, look, Holographic HUDs, exactly like the ones I've mentioned for for the past 5 comments.

Good thing you managed to find good examples of a thing I've already said I support and I'd like to see in the game.

 

39 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Minimap and healthbars are not on the same category as a navball. A navball is a very basic SA instrument that you wouldn't be able to fly without in a lot of situations.

Maybe I'd agree on the minimap, depending on the game, it's just a conveniently navball sized and navball shaped element that is present in many games, and it always goes into a corner.

But on the health bar being less important than the navball in KSP, that's just wrong. It's basically the most basic example of a bit of crucial information any game needs to convey rapidly, and, funnily enough, it's also almost always shoved into a corner.

 

 

39 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Because saying the navball obstructs the view is in reality much more dependent on it being a giant bloated mess than its positioning on screen. It's an argument we wouldn't be having if it was decently sized and not as wasteful on negative space and useless elements.

No, it's mainly given by placing it in the middle of the screen, right in front of other things.

If the problem was just with how "Bloated" the navball is we wouldn't have options to move and collapse KSP1 navball which, at half the size, still manages to always be in the way.

To add to that, since KSP2 navbal is not in the middle and never was, most people talking about it being in the way are already thinking about the much smaller KSP1 version.

[PDCWolf]

Just now, Master39 said:

But on the health bar being less important than the navball in KSP, that's just wrong. It's basically the most basic example of a bit of crucial information any game needs to convey rapidly, and, funnily enough, it's also almost always shoved into a corner.

Except the trend has been, at least on games that treat their audience as having more than 2 braincells, for healthbars to morph into in-scene assets, or color overlays, or audio cues, or animation cues, and so on.

What games need to convey rapidly is damage direction, and guess where damage indicators are... yeah, right in the middle of the screen.

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, PDCWolf said:

Because saying the navball obstructs the view is in reality much more dependent on it being a giant bloated mess than its positioning on screen. It's an argument we wouldn't be having if it was decently sized and not as wasteful on negative space and useless elements.

Coming back here cause I wanted to add to Master39's point, that even if the navball was bloated, it's not an issue because it's in the corner of the screen.

You also never addressed the screencap I sent of Lowne's gameplay (showing that bloat being a problem if there is any is 100% dependent on the navball being in the middle) and Master39's point that "most people talking about it being in the way are already thinking about the much smaller KSP1 version" so I'm interested in seeing your 2c there as well.

[PDCWolf]

30 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Coming back here cause I wanted to add to Master39's point, that even if the navball was bloated, it's not an issue because it's in the corner of the screen.

You also never addressed the screencap I sent of Lowne's gameplay (showing that bloat being a problem if there is any is 100% dependent on the navball being in the middle) and Master39's point that "most people talking about it being in the way are already thinking about the much smaller KSP1 version" so I'm interested in seeing your 2c there as well.

That screencap is painful to look at, however I don't think it's too fair to the discussion to guide ourselves on what happens outside of standards. The game was designed for and tested at a certain resolution, and for what essentially is the default UI scaling. This is a convoluted way of saying: Yes, if you make it take the whole screen, I agree it's obstructive. However the also would be true no matter where you put it, you can make it obstructive if you play on like 800x600 for example, or scale it to the max.

As for people saying it's obstructive in KSP1, I really can't relate, I showed how I play, it's a complain that in like a thousand hours (yeah, not a veteran, I know) I've never had.

 

[Bej Kerman]

36 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

That screencap is painful to look at, however I don't think it's too fair to the discussion to guide ourselves on what happens outside of standards. The game was designed for and tested at a certain resolution, and for what essentially is the default UI scaling. This is a convoluted way of saying: Yes, if you make it take the whole screen, I agree it's obstructive. However the also would be true no matter where you put it, you can make it obstructive if you play on like 800x600 for example, or scale it to the max.

?????

So we can talk about the KSP 2 UI not handling certain resolutions well ^{(for the record: when it comes to the pixelated style scaling improperly, yeah, I agree that is a problem)}, but as soon as we discuss the KSP 1 UI becoming outright obstructive at certain common UI scales, especially those you can expect console players to play at, it's "[not] too fair"? Not to mention, claiming "if you make it the whole screen, I agree it's obstructive" which, purposefully or not, implies people who play at these UI scales would do so intentionally only to make their experience worse.

I think it's completely fair to cite this example. People playing at lower resolutions or with their monitor across the room like in any living room setup is not unheard of, and if anything, it's frankly not fair to pull the rug from under my argument as soon as any criticism of UI scaling poorly blows KSP 1's way.

I guess this is a convoluted way of saying: I don't think it's too fair to the discussion to excuse Squad with "the game was designed for and tested at a certain resolution", as if it isn't standard practice to ensure UIs scale well between 720p and 3840p and super incompetent on Squad's part to not do so!

Matt Lowne would not configure his game purposefully to make his console experience even worse, full stop. Players playing with the UI this big is not something that never ever happens and is not something devs shouldn't try to account for when coming up with layouts for their UIs. I'll hold Squad fully accountable for placing the navball in the middle so that players have to zoom way out to see the ground below their landers.

Edited November 12, 2023 by Bej Kerman

[MechBFP]

18 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

?????

So we can talk about the KSP 2 UI not handling certain resolutions well ^{(for the record: when it comes to the pixelated style scaling improperly, yeah, I agree that is a problem)}, but as soon as we discuss the KSP 1 UI becoming outright obstructive at certain common UI scales, especially those you can expect console players to play at, it's "[not] too fair"? Not to mention, claiming "if you make it the whole screen, I agree it's obstructive" which, purposefully or not, implies people who play at these UI scales would do so intentionally only to make their experience worse.

I think it's completely fair to cite this example. People playing at lower resolutions or with their monitor across the room like in any living room setup is not unheard of, and if anything, it's frankly not fair to pull the rug from under my argument as soon as any criticism of UI scaling poorly blows KSP 1's way.

I guess this is a convoluted way of saying: I don't think it's too fair to the discussion to excuse Squad with "the game was designed for and tested at a certain resolution", as if it isn't standard practice to ensure UIs scale well between 720p and 3840p and super incompetent on Squad's part to not do so!

This came to mind, lol.

 

[PDCWolf]

29 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

?????

So we can talk about the KSP 2 UI not handling certain resolutions well ^{(for the record: when it comes to the pixelated style scaling improperly, yeah, I agree that is a problem)}, but as soon as we discuss the KSP 1 UI becoming outright obstructive at certain common UI scales, especially those you can expect console players to play at, it's "[not] too fair"? Not to mention, claiming "if you make it the whole screen, I agree it's obstructive" which, purposefully or not, implies people who play at these UI scales would do so intentionally only to make their experience worse.

The resolution discussion was attached to accesibility. It's right there, you can go back and check: bigger resolutions push the navball further away, taking the craft even further away from peripheral vision. Now, this is exceptionally funny because it's the opposite when you scale down, right until the UI does become obstructive, but at that point, why even bother discussing at all? Yes, the UI will always either be obstructive, or will also be too far away, or whatever other misconstruction you're interested in continuing to make.

Whatever they did with the trainwreck that is the console version I have zero care in the world for, other than a "I'm sorry" to console players.

38 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

I think it's completely fair to cite this example. People playing at lower resolutions or with their monitor across the room like in any living room setup is not unheard of, and if anything, it's frankly not fair to pull the rug from under my argument as soon as any criticism of UI scaling poorly blows KSP 1's way.

We'd have to resurrect SQUAD and ask them what their intended scale (in reality we know the intended is whatever "1" represents in that menu) is, and at which resolution. And then we'd have to ask them why the console version looks like that.

40 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

I guess this is a convoluted way of saying: I don't think it's too fair to the discussion to excuse Squad with "the game was designed for and tested at a certain resolution", as if it isn't standard practice to ensure UIs scale well between 720p and 3840p and super incompetent on Squad's part to not do so!

You're projecting industry standard practices on what effectively was a ragtag team of indies most of which were working on their first project. We should be glad they reached a standard at all, and ask why a team of 50 trained professionals produced such a clunky, controversial UI.

42 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Matt Lowne would not configure his game purposefully to make his console experience even worse, full stop. Players playing with the UI this big is not something that never ever happens and is not something devs shouldn't try to account for when coming up with layouts for their UIs. I'll hold Squad fully accountable for placing the navball in the middle so that players have to zoom way out to see the ground below their landers.

Matt Lowne's mistake was getting the console version without being informed of what a trainwreck it was. I agree with the rest except for accusing SQUAD of following aviation 101 with their UI.

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, PDCWolf said:

Whatever they did with the trainwreck that is the console version I have zero care in the world for

So... you don't care that the navball covers a horribly large portion of the screen?

1 minute ago, PDCWolf said:

You're projecting industry standard practices on what effectively was a ragtag team of indies most of which were working on their first project.

Completely irrelevant. They received backing from a large company and had every chance to move the navball to the left by default. It doesn't take an industry veteran to think "Wow, this UI element covers too much screen space. It's best off in a corner".

5 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

We should be glad they reached a standard at all

No

6 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

and ask why a team of 50 trained professionals produced such a clunky, controversial UI.

A flat style would've been better but that's all I'm giving. The overall layout is still lightyears ahead of KSP 1.

3 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Matt Lowne's mistake was getting the console version without being informed of what a trainwreck it was.

You're blaming Matt Lowne for the default placement of the navball?

7 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

accusing SQUAD of following aviation 101 with their UI

Back to this. Aviation 101 is not gaming 101, and again, look at how little space the navball gave Lowne to view the ground under his vessel.

[Stephensan]

i see that even at page 100 I'm here to steal thunder that..

 

Edited November 12, 2023 by Stephensan
Drinking Water Is Healthy, And By Reading This You Will Drink Water

[Spicat]

7 hours ago, Meecrob said:

[Snip media]

Why do you keep bringing real craft UI which is not at all the same as a game and moreover when we talk about the third person view?

And also ksp is mostly about spacecraft, not only planes, and generally in spacecraft you don't really look at windows which is different from ksp where you need to know where you land, that's the main argument.

Besides, I don't know where you found this picture of Crew Dragon but all I could find is a navball in the corner:

For Orion in your message, I won't call that "front and center".

So even talking about real life, it's not even a valid argument.

Edited November 12, 2023 by Spicat

[Bej Kerman]

4 minutes ago, Spicat said:

Besides, I don't know where you found this picture of Crew Dragon but all I could find is a navball in the corner

They can't even trust real life rockets to agree 100% of the time