Just a random person

I agree, car infrastructure doesn't make any sense. KSP is about rockets and everybody is going to be flying to places, so I think it would be smarter if the KSC invested in some rocket launching, landing and refueling infrastructure instead. Perhaps some runways too, for winged aircraft and such. Idk, might be a bit far fetched now that I think about it

I bought it!

Thank you everyone, it's posts like these that let me cling to the hope that I can still use my ancient potato and won't have to spend 1000+€ on a new rig just to play the funny space frog game To be honest, I might still do that unless the devs really fudged the game up and I refuse to believe that for now

Seriously though, I think this looks great

Does that rover have a terrier on it's back?

Considering how the prachute spaghettifies for a frame, it looks like the chute animation could be dynamic?

The 90⁰ rotated Duna was in an animated trailer (and we know Duna has ice caps anyways), but we have seen Puf's ice caps in actual renders although a tidally locked planet should not have polar caps at all. I don't think the devs would have put ice caps on the planet, regardless of the rotation, if it was known they would be removed later. Also iirc it was confirmed that the eyeball shape is a large impact scar, so there isn't really any strong evidence for it being tidally locked

Puf has polar ice caps, suggesting it isn't tidally locked to it's star.

Something like this was mentioned here: https://youtu.be/wnQP5dhxlKU?t=83 Technically he didn't say it will be in KSP2 tho.

At least it's on a friday

Could you consider adding this one to the list of to-be-supported mods? Right now it says "hatch obstructed" when trying to go through a docking port from this mod

I think those should be a mod, not in the core game. KSP1 and 2 are games about rockets and space exploration and imo the tech tree should start at about 60's tech or equivalent (propably later in KSP2). Also, electric propellers are useful on atmospheric worlds without oxygen, air-breathing ones are not. Don't get me wrong, I love building propeller planes in KSP, but because they don't really have a place in space exploration (unlike electric ones) I believe they should stay in mod territory

A mod for KSP1 called Internal RCS exists that does exactly that. The transparent cavities also work with something called a depth mask (please don't ask me what it is and how it works, I'm not a coder) that iirc at least restock and internal rcs use, so it's actually not a reach at all.

I kinda doubt the lithobraking too, although it would definitely fit the kerbal spirit. Aerobraking could be possible tho

In a tailsitter, forward is the nose or top of the craft, generally pointing towards the sky, and is represented in the navball by the orange marker in the center. Dorsal ("up" if the craft was sitting horizontally like a plane) is the side with the hatch on all pods and lander cans, and is the top of the navball (the part with the velocity readout). Pitching up makes the nose move up "towards" the hatch, or dorsal side if you want to use the fancy terms. On the navball, this looks like the dorsal side (top of the navball) is moving towards your nose. Right or left side of the navball. Like this: Arrows show the direction of the navball's rotation, crosses show the points around which it rotates, and the orange is the path that the nose marker is going to trace on the ball (the bottom of the ball will move towards the nose). Simply put, the ball will move vertically from your perspective. Same with yawing: like pitching but rotated 90 degrees. The ball will move horizontally from your perspective. Finally, rolling left (pressing Q): Navball rotates around the nose, direction of the ship doesn't change. This I agree with, numerical readouts would be nice. However I think it would be easy to confuse the pitch coordinate (angular distance from horizon) with the pitch axis of the craft, which are different things (and in this particular case would be perpendicular to each other). This again comes back to your original problem of the UI being hard to read if you aren't familiar with it. In the example, your heading is P+46, Y+91, R-90. What direction do you have to turn to change your pitch to 0? If you're not familiar with angular coordiantes, you'd initially think to pitch down to reduce the pitch number. Actually you have to yaw right, because here the pitch coordinate is not the same as your pitch axis. If you then accept that you have to learn to read a display in a certain way to efficiently use it, there is no real problem with a navball either. All the important information is there, you just have to know how to read it. It's the same with all displays and UI formats and whatnot, the navball is just arguably the most efficient one for spacecraft.