Suggestion: UI highlight of the most relevant parts to choose right after stacking a previous part

[Dakitess]

So yeah, I think I already spoke about that when KSP2 released, but not in a dedicated thread.

I won't have any image example to illustrate this, I'm on the train with very limited bandwidth, and I'll forget to write it down again if I wait more.

The suggestion is to benefit from the UI Part library of KSP2 which already is fairly better than KSP1, since it properly shows diameters.

This Week-End I participate to a 30h KSP1 Hackathon, no pause, no sleep, it was damn good ! And damn fustrating to aaaaaaalways look for that damn specific very logic tank. The size-mass-price-whatever filter are no help, they don't work as intended.

Anyway, in KSP2, what would be a huge step forward in ergonomics for both beginners and experts player, is a UI assistant that would just highlight parts in the library accordingly to what you just used as the previous part. As I said, no pics, sorry, I'll try to add them later, but stay with me, it's really easy and straight forward.

You choose the nice 3 crew pod which as a top M diameter and a bottom XL diameter (don't remember exactly haha). Then the game automatically highlight the relevant parts in the library : parts that can be stacked with the good diameters, including adapters of course. Tanks, batteries, engines, parachutes, etc.

You can get it "simple" as is, or go a step further : if that's a pod, then you'll want below some "mandatory" (i.e. very logic) Fuel tank OR Decoupler OR HeatShield.

If it's a tank you just added, below any other part, then only the bottom part is free, so it will highlight part according to the diameter and the nature : decouplers, engine, other tanks, adapters, and so on.

You can feel that the first step that ignore the nature of part and just highlight according to the accessible stack diameter is sufficient, since pretty much anything is possible in KSP, it's not that benefitable to process that above a pod, you won't often use a tank. Except that, well, skycrane, and so on, so let stick to the "easy" main option ^^

It feels quite "simple" to implement (no dev here, haha) and very worthy ergonomically speaking. It would streamline well better the design, helping the user to identify the good diameters, especially when adding simple tanks, decouplers, heat shield, etc. Of course, the other diameter remain totally here, visible, clickable, usable, it's just a highlight diameter compatibility and that's it  Of course it would totally ignore the parts that don't stack vertically, but whatever, you would not need / want recommandation about thermometers, legs, etc, would you ?

Your opinion about it ?

Edited November 21, 2023 by Dakitess

[The Aziz]

Given the freedom of construction, it would be the opposite of smart. I may have no intention at all to use the highlighted parts, so why highlight them in the first place? You have working size sorting here, unlike KSP1, it's all you need.

[Dakitess]

Mmh because it would only be a slight highlight that you Can very easily ignore or even deactivate ?

For beginner for instance, if would be a very nice feature, to me.

[Bej Kerman]

10 hours ago, Dakitess said:

Mmh because it would only be a slight highlight that you Can very easily ignore or even deactivate ?

For beginner for instance, if would be a very nice feature, to me.

Doing this to beginners would only box them into matching specific parts instead of teaching them how to use their own judgement.

[Dakitess]

It's not a "Now put a parachute". At all. It's more a "among the parachute, this one is the good diameter one". That's it. Veeeeeery easy to ignore.

It's juuuuust an addition to the existing "size" indicator : it has colors, it's clearly written "XL" but you don't necesseraly paid attention to what diameter you choose right before, and then it's not help seing "XL" or "L", you'll end up trying and then knowing which one it is. A matter a second you say ? Yes ! Indeed ! But why not improving that second ? Size indicators are also a QoL improvement which is about a second of two figuring out the part you wanna use.

It's not something crazy uh ? Just very convenient and practical, coz I swear, the KSP1 logic is / was terrible and the KSP2 one is way more better but still not perfect. So nothing like a priority, more like an idea, a suggestion.

Oh, and regarding Beginner, you definitely want to take them by the hand if we are dealing with the SandBox point of view where all parts are available. Definitely. Don't make me believe that you introduce KSP to someone and let it cook a frustrating absurdity while scrolling in the part library not having a clew of what to do. So yep, this UI addition would be a good way to guide a beginner identifying what parts make sense at what moment and the player will learn the "why" and "how" if the game don't insist about it.

But again this is a bonus way to see the UI, It would be fairly good as a start to only get that slight highlight of the correct diameters parts without including any part nature. 

Edited November 22, 2023 by Dakitess

[Bej Kerman]

Quick few things. Beginner experience and improved tutorials exist so beginners will not need a feature like this to figure out where the parachutes are and how they attach to vessels. More seasoned players will not need telling which parts attach to which. And competent builders from KSP 1 who were thrown off by the jumbled parts list should have an easier time browsing parts given that they're sorted by size properly and also sorted into distinct subcategories.

With that said:

25 minutes ago, Dakitess said:

It's not a "Now put a parachute". At all. It's more a "among the parachute, this one is the good diameter one". That's it. Veeeeeery easy to ignore.

Not necessary to the aforementioned seasoned and competent players.

25 minutes ago, Dakitess said:

It's juuuuust an addition to the existing "size" indicator : it has colors, it's clearly written "XL" but you don't necesseraly paid attention to what diameter you choose right before, and then it's not help seing "XL" or "L", you'll end up trying and they knowing which one it is.

It's not the UI's fault if the player forgets what they're doing mid construction, so this isn't applicable to beginners or seasoned players. The UI is doing its job by telling you the sizes of parts, it's up to the player to remember what they're doing between placing one part down and placing the next.

25 minutes ago, Dakitess said:

Oh, and regarding Beginner, you definitely want to take them by the hand if we are dealing with the SandBox point of view where all parts are available. Definitely. Don't make me believe that you introduce KSP to someone and let it cook a frustrating absurdity while scrolling in the part library not having a clew of what to do.

Not an issue because of the aforementioned tutorials.

I think the best way to describe this suggestion is that it's redundant. It's supposed to make things easier for beginners, but it'd only make it harder for them to think outside the box (some aesthetics are best achieved by intentionally mismatching cross sections, and beginners won't learn this from your proposal). It's supposed to help the more experienced players browse the parts list quicker, but they should already be on their way to developing a muscle memory for the parts list, and might just be slowed down by this.

I think this is just unnecessary, and that the devs' time is better spent trying to make the existing parts of the UI easier to read, instead of developing massive tools that don't help many players across the board.

Edited November 22, 2023 by Bej Kerman

[Dakitess]

The tutorial definitely won't enter in that details so far, or it will be for a specific "your first rocket" and that's it. Afterward, no help for the beginners to figure out what would / should go in this place, what is the correct size at a glance, etc. This is the main default of Tutorial : they show, you follow, you feel you got it but finally, you did not. You can start it over, but you'll only repeat the intended path, while what you're looking for is some contextual help when you're assembling YOUR rocket.

Anyway, this is more about Diameter Compatibility immediate identification rather than a contextual help, which would be a nice bonus to me.

I get that you don't feel this necessary : it's not "necessary". But just because things are better than before or even good, does not mean they can't be improved further  I also get that you don't understand what it could look like, a very easy to ignore highlight, but that's partly my fault since I did not provide any pics so far. Of course that part clipping will lead to more interesting design. Of course that using a wide diameter below a small one can form a support for interesting shapes and "out of the box" aesthetic. Thanks, I have something like 7000h in the VAB and SPH and I play only Stock because I love to reinvent based on a given common part base. This is not the subject : I, as an experienced / expert player, still want some streamline identification for parts. Simply the good battery/tank/IRW/whatever diameters based on what I just used. Yes, KSP2 does it way better already. But it can be even better. Especially for beginners.

Suggestions are not a place to only drop first priority fix and bug hunting. But also ideas and suggestions. And if it happens to be a good enough idea that are not taxing too much time and fits the actual ongoing development, well, at least it's registered !

Edited November 22, 2023 by Dakitess

[Bej Kerman]

6 minutes ago, Dakitess said:

The tutorial definitely won't enter in that details so far, or it will be for a specific "your first rocket" and that's it.

  If the tutorials have that problem, then the suggestion should be that tutorials need fleshing out.

6 minutes ago, Dakitess said:

Afterward, no help for the beginners to figure out what would / should go in this place, what is the correct size at a glance, etc.

Your suggestion doesn't teach them anything. It just makes them dependant on the game spoonfeeding them information.

6 minutes ago, Dakitess said:

I get that you don't feel this necessary : it's not "necessary". But just because things are better than before or even good, does not mean they can't be improved further

Just to make it 100% clear, I'm saying this is not an improvement. It's a downgrade from just adding tutorials and teaching beginners how to use their own judgement.

Edited November 22, 2023 by Bej Kerman

[Dakitess]

So you really prefer separated and dedicated tutorial rather than contextual help ?

You really prefer to have a tutorial that teach you how to assemble "that" specific rocket and which you can do and redo, rather than having some highlight to guide your choices about simple diameters compatibility, while being totally free to do otherwise ?

Open non-rethoric question, you may ! But I clearly don't. Actually this is what I dislike in tutorial : they are very specific. They are an "how-to" that won't resist much to any change. Just like most of the first KSP1 tutorial by the community, which were good enough to reproduce exactly the steps but lead to so many people don't understanding AT ALL where that orbital drift came and why they kept being pushed away from their target even if each time they would properly cancel their relative speed and push toward the station.

I don't see how this slight highlight will make them dependent of anything, how it's spoonfeeding, it's quite an hyperbolic exaggeration here. It will just help them to identify the part which fits the diameter, that's it. Same goes for expert players. Then you're free to use the one just below, which is bigger, because... because you're free to do it. It substract nothing to the judgment, the decision, really nothing, or you still did not get what I'm speaking about.

Anyway, thanks for you feedback about it, I can get that it's not necessary by any mean, even less a priority, but I keep thinking that it would a cool, convenient and subtle QoL improvement for about any players

Edited November 22, 2023 by Dakitess

[Superfluous J]

I like the idea, especially if it concentrates on the most recently placed parts.

I wonder if a reverse idea would work: As you're hovering over parts in the list, little areas on the rocket that are the same diameter as it would highlight.

I agree that it should be restricted to size and not context. Making the process too "smart" could easily become more confusing than not to a new player.

 

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, Dakitess said:

You really prefer to have a tutorial that teach you how to assemble "that" specific rocket

You're making tutorials out to be less helpful than they are. They're supposed to help you figure out what each part does, how they combine is up to you. You're criticising tutorials for being too linear then suggesting a UI element that forces beginners into a linear way of thinking. Your suggestion does this: it tells you "put one of these specific parts there" instead of giving beginners a feel for how different cross sections can be used to create more interesting structures.

1 hour ago, Dakitess said:

I don't see how this slight highlight will make them dependent of anything, how it's spoonfeeding

Because it is quite literally spoonfeeding part options instead of leaving them with just their judgement.

1 hour ago, Dakitess said:

Open non-rethoric question, you may ! But I clearly don't. Actually this is what I dislike in tutorial : they are very specific. They are an "how-to" that won't resist much to any change.

And your part assistant is resistant to the idea that just because two cross sections match, that doesn't mean that's the only way to build.

1 hour ago, Dakitess said:

It will just help them to identify the part which fits the diameter, that's it

That's what the size labels are for.

 

[GluttonyReaper]

33 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

wonder if a reverse idea would work: As you're hovering over parts in the list, little areas on the rocket that are the same diameter as it would highlight.

This actually would be really neat. Like having a highlighted 'ring' around the attach node that shows up when you pick up a part that corresponds to highlighted rings on open nodes of the same diameter would be neat too, just as a bit of extra visual feedback.

33 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

I agree that it should be restricted to size and not context. Making the process too "smart" could easily become more confusing than not to a new player.

Even just a small indicator next to parts that have the same node(s) size as the part you've just placed would go a long way - now that I think about it, having a coloured ring around the last placed open node that corresponds to the diameter indicator colour in the parts list would work. If it's subtle enough, it won't confuse new players, but could be an extra visual shorthand to knowing exactly what diameter you've placed, to help speed up construction for more experienced players.

Edited November 22, 2023 by GluttonyReaper

[Dakitess]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

[...] Your suggestion does this: it tells you "put one of these specific parts there" instead of giving beginners a feel for how different cross sections can be used to create more interesting structures.

No, it looks like you're not reading me and you're injecting your idea of the suggestion inside mine.

I repeated multiple times that all that matters, the whole core of the suggestion is ONLY the ability to highlight parts according to their diameters, based on the one that had just been added before. That's it. The contextual help for beginners is another thing that I find interesting and which is still completely not what you've described, but in any case, the very basis that is more worth debating about is the diameter thing.

So there is NO "put one of these specific parts here". The whole parts library remains the same, exactly the same, there is nothing being filtering out, there is no new classification, there is no drastic selection : the same catalog. With only some light and non invasive highlight that shows, among the IRW, which one is the good diameter one. Among the various nose cone, which one is the good diameter one. You still have to look for them in the different tabs. You still have to scroll down if they are... well... down. That's it, I insist.

I won't elaborate any further about it with you except if you have new elements, I respect your opinion but I got it and we are drawing circle right now.

Regarding the reverse idea, i'm not sure I understand the circumstance it would be benefitable : most of the time, I guess, you're building a rocket, a satellite, a rover, and because you used "That Part", you'll chose next "This Part" to go with it, like, the choice of a next part mainly comes from what you have in mind and what you've assembled so far. I am not sure that you will look for a part in the library, to select it and see where it could fit, do you ?

If it's a stackable part, like a tank, you are actually looking for a tank with the correct diameter, you're not selecting one tank to see where it would fit. Same for engines I guess, and for all the others parts, except the one that are not stacked vertically with the green nodes and which would not give any result regarding possible placement, since it's free ?

Edited November 22, 2023 by Dakitess

[GluttonyReaper]

21 minutes ago, Dakitess said:

Regarding the reverse idea, i'm not sure I understand the circumstance it would be benefitable : most of the time, I guess, you're building a rocket, a satellite, a rover, and because you used "That Part", you'll chose next "This Part" to go with it, like, the choice of a next part mainly comes from what you have in mind and what you've assembled so far. I am not sure that you will look for a part in the library, to select it and see where it could fit, do you ?

It's just a little bit of extra feedback - another way of the game telling you "yep these two parts are definitely the same diameter, good job". 

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, Dakitess said:

Regarding the reverse idea, i'm not sure I understand the circumstance it would be benefitable : most of the time, I guess, you're building a rocket, a satellite, a rover, and because you used "That Part", you'll chose next "This Part" to go with it, like, the choice of a next part mainly comes from what you have in mind and what you've assembled so far. I am not sure that you will look for a part in the library, to select it and see where it could fit, do you ?

Well take your example. You place an engine under a fuel tank and then switch to decouplers, and the decoupler and stack separator that will fit nicely on that engine are highlit.

What if that engine was placed 45 parts, 3 saves, and an exit/reload of the game ago? Are you still expecting the game to highlight those 2 decouplers? I wouldn't. But hovering over decouplers, you could then grab the one that makes the engine glow a bit (or whatever).

[Dakitess]

Haaaa I see ! Yep, good idea indeed, quite like the hovering on the stage tree will highlight the actual part in the craft

[Bej Kerman]

10 hours ago, Dakitess said:

So there is NO "put one of these specific parts here". The whole parts library remains the same, exactly the same, there is nothing being filtering out, there is no new classification, there is no drastic selection : the same catalog. With only some light and non invasive highlight that shows, among the IRW, which one is the good diameter one. Among the various nose cone, which one is the good diameter one. You still have to look for them in the different tabs. You still have to scroll down if they are... well... down. That's it, I insist.

That's why the labels exist.

[Dakitess]

Already addressed : you don't necessarily know which diameter you just used. I know that sounds very very minor, it is, except when theses labels are not easily readable, depending on viewing disability or generally speaking a UI not perfectly suited for anyone. Again, that slight highlight would just... slightly highlight a direct compatibility and that's it, it won't put you into jail of you use another part. It won't break any kind of accessibility of generic ergonomics. It's just a very minor non invasive UI addition that might help more than one player, quasi guaranteed. 

Just open your game and think about it in action. And feel free to disagree if it truly sounds silly / counterproductive. No need to repeat that it's by no mean a priority, since we already all agree about that, this is not the question. Would it add to the ease of use ? Be neutral / without added value ? Degrade the situation ?

Be honest, I get it about your feeling that it would lead players to not think about part choices by themselves, that's valid to some extent, even if I don't agree and don't find any situation that suits this scenario, as someone who use KSP as an expert Stock designer and in the same time doing many workshops in school, high school, for people that never used the game before and need a 4h introduction to be autonomous with it : part choice is a nightmare, a real, tough, one. KSP2 is way better, but we are repeating ourselves again, it does not mean it's perfect yet and that it cannot be improved, with this suggestion for instance. Yes, it has label and proper classification now, but new players don't even know there is multiple diameters, they don't know what the label refers to, they can't read it at all on a vide projector during a demonstration in class, they can't follow the logic. Yeah students are sometimes a bit brain-lazy  Just... an highlight to help it out during the first hours that are crucial to help no leaving the game by frustration. We know it happens a lot with KSP, everything that can help in that sense might be good to consider. And again, as an experimented player, I would deeeeefinitely use it, no doubt about it, and I'll manage to ignore it to use another part, promises :p

 

[The Aziz]

Wait wait. How do you NOT KNOW what part did you just use? If you don't remember where you clicked 5 seconds ago, you're suffering from short time memory loss.

[cocoscacao]

All of this would become pointless if they just decided to put a single part and fixed-step sliders for height and diameter... I still don't know why they didn't choose that approach.

Edited November 24, 2023 by cocoscacao

[Dakitess]

On 11/24/2023 at 8:23 AM, The Aziz said:

Wait wait. How do you NOT KNOW what part did you just use? If you don't remember where you clicked 5 seconds ago, you're suffering from short time memory loss.

Like, when you're building quite quickly with muscular memories, you always know that you've used the X200-32 Medium Diameter, and now that you've moved toward the battery section without really paying attention, you're 100% confident that you'll remember that you're looking for Medium Diameter, that you'll be able to read it (and other will), etc ?

Cool. I'd rather have so very easy-to-ignore highlight of the good battery diameter. I'm 10/10 and 12/10 in visual acuity, so totally fine, and my memory is OK-ish if I pay attention, but I would actually use that feature a lot rather than mistaking AGAIN with that damn decoupler which is not the good diameter because I swear I though I used the MD and not the big one. Again, at least KSP2 now shows well more conveniently the diameters, but it's not hat easy to read depending on screen resolution, visual acuity, etc. 

I really struggle to see the point here. I'm fine debating about suggestions, but there is a little tone of bad faith and weird irrelevant resistance, I may be wrong though, I respect others opinions. Just respect mine, especially when I try to be constructive about it.

[Bej Kerman]

4 minutes ago, Dakitess said:

easy-to-ignore

That's not the point. When things are highlighted, it means the UI is trying to say something. You can ignore it but it's still there regardless. Highlighting things in the manner you describe tends to mean "you can only pick these for that" in UI design, and that's the wrong message to send to players.

[Dakitess]

Do you really feel it as "you can only pick these for that" ? If its behavior would be to "grey out" other options, I would agree, but a slight highlight ? A light contouring ? And again it would be plenty obvious that it's just an help regarding diameter, nothing else. You would scroll and explore tabs as usual, but when diameter is relevant, such as for a decoupler, a battery, a heat shield, you would have that slight highlight / whatever emphasis to immediately know it will fit the previous diameter, and that's it.

The easy-to-ignore actually feels important as it mitigate a lot your points. It's just... an aid. That you're totally free to ignore, non invasive (because designed and integrated accordingly, of course). And it could totally be togglable as an option. I don't understand how it would send a wrong, non-creative message to players, and I'm speaking as a huge legit-clipping player that use a lot of non-conventional parts at non-conventional places ^^

I don't know, I have the feeling that we've seen this multiple time in game (or maybe software ?) but I might be wrong, I'm trying to find back where / in which context.

Edited November 28, 2023 by Dakitess

[The Aziz]

Yeah, in tutorials. Put the highlighted thing down or the tutorial won't progress.

The whole thing for new player may be just "why are those things highlighted? Is it part of the tutorial?" The intention is not clear and that's where the problem is.

[Bej Kerman]

22 minutes ago, Dakitess said:

If its behavior would be to "grey out" other options, I would agree, but a slight highlight ? A light contouring ?

...can mean the exact same.

23 minutes ago, Dakitess said:

The easy-to-ignore actually feels important as it mitigate a lot your points. It's just... an aid. That you're totally free to ignore

Just a polite heads up, I'm going to completely ignore "you can just ignore it" points from now on since it completely sidelines the very real impact this has on how the UI is interpreted (for example, what Aziz said: new players think they need to place a highlighted part down. They won't just ignore this). I've got a gut feeling "people can just ignore it" is not a point that's raised in the industry.