on the Maneuver Panel in 1.7

[OHara]

The new stock maneuver-node adjuster is going to be very useful for new players, experienced players don't like it as much as the mod Precise Maneuver, and the most efficient time to improve a feature is while it is still fresh in the programmers' minds.  Therefore, lets say what we want in the 'Maneuver Mode'. 
The first thread I can find to suggest this tool is here https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/107592-maneuver-node-gizmo-20/

 

 

Bigger text, less text.  The new panel fits more information in the height of the staging panel.  (Setting "Mode Control Scale" to 130% makes the text match that on the nav-ball.)

The delete-maneuver button on the orbit selector seems out of place.   It might be easier to recognize the three map-view icons (delete/ next-orbit/ previous-orbit) above the maneuver adjuster.
If the selector could be "Current Orbit," "After Maneuver 1" etc., it would be more clear why the selector servers as a title to the orbital data (but the extra words don't fit very well).
Now that we can see the result of a maneuver in flight-view as well as map-view, it would be great if we could select a maneuver on this panel in flight view.
Warp-to-maneuver would not need a button, if all time-warps stop at the next maneuver of the active vessel.

We have space to show orbital period to the millisecond, which KSP has the accuracy to simulate, and which invites new players to discover how to keep things from drifting apart in orbit as they assemble their space stations, etc.

In the "advanced orbital info" tab it is more logical to group eccentricity with argument-of-periapsis.
Ejection angle is a standard but strange term, because it is the angle of the burn, not of the ejection direction, and I always forget where it measures from; so maybe label it "relative to prograde". (Edit: The displayed number, at the moment is something different.)

We should not need so many significant figures on the distances at orbit-intersections, so could make the numbers larger.  The 'phase angle' is another strange term, so maybe label it "ahead of target".  (Similarly to the ejection angle, the phase angle should really report the position of the maneuver relative to the target at the time of the maneuver; that is, the phase angle of a maneuver should not change in time, as we wait for the maneuver)

Using the adjuster tool requires a lot of switching between tabs.  Even though the size is limited, I think the tabs could be combined into one, by placing the pull-handles alongside the numerical entry-boxes.  It is nice the way the six-pointed gizmo matches the map-view gizmo, but having the standard symbols on the handles is enough.  The step-size selector could be a smaller discrete control. 

The time-of-maneuver should be the UT format used in map-view; then it doesn't need the 'UT' label.  The time-display could switch between YY/MM/DD,HH:MM:SS and SSSS upon pressing the indicator (like the altimeter).  However, we might be better to always display in calendar format, always take text entry in seconds-since-epoch.  (There is currently an off-by-one bug in the type-in entry of years and days, but I think no-one will want to type a maneuver time in calendar format.)

Edited April 29, 2019 by OHara
link to original suggestion from 2015

[Challyss]

Agreed.

I love the new pannel but I think it needs to be adjusted over the next updates.

[Laie]

I've made a point of not installing MechJeb until now, and after some getting used to it I find the stock solution very useful.

I, too, wish that I could have the numbers and the pulley on the screen at the same time. Not sure of my motives here, maybe that's only because I'm used to it being that way. Still, I wouldn't mind if it could be made wider to accommodate both.

Surprisingly, I don't really miss the "snap node to AP/PE/AN/..." buttons. They were convenient, but I find that I can do without.

I've never loved the pull handles and, insofar as I interacted with them at all, I preferred the mouse wheel. On the pulley-in-the-box, pulling seems to work even worse and feels out of place on top of that. I'd prefer a repeater if you click-and-hold.

I very much don't like how the node editor closes itself on the slightest provocation.

 

[OHara]

The reason that I want the numbers and control-widget on-screen at the same time, is to see the size of burn as I adjust the second or later maneuver. 

Now I am thinking that the raise/lower controls beside the numerical fields do not need to be pull-handles; they could be simple buttons, with auto-repeat, and we still have the pull handles on the map-view gizmo.  There is some reason the pull-handles in the new panel don't work very well; if it is a stubborn reason, maybe simple buttons will work better overall.

Folks on the Precise Maneuver thread mention how they miss the 'node-at-Ap' and 'circularize' buttons, so they will keep Precise Maneuver, which seems a fine solution.  For every in-game purpose I can think of, very roughly circular is good enough, [edit: so I see no reason to add 'circularize', etc. to stock.]

Edited May 6, 2019 by OHara

[Laie]

On 4/26/2019 at 7:11 AM, OHara said:

Folks on the Precise Maneuver thread mention how they miss the 'node-at-Ap' and 'circularize' buttons

Oh, I miss them too -- but I found them to be not *that* important. The old maeuver thingy was and is a PITA, I totally need a node editor. Now that I have it, manually moving a node to AP/PE/DN/... isn't that bad. I'd use that button if it was there, but don't miss it so much that I'd install a mod for it.

Setting up a node to circularize is always the same steps in the same order and, refusing to install MJ or precise node, I made a krpc script to circularize. I still need to interact with the stock solution for everything else and - see above - find it good enough even without a "snap to" function.