Xentax

I have been waiting for the science update to really sink my teeth into KSP2, having played just over 1500 hours of KSP1 (lightly modded, mostly QoL features like the alarm clock). First, the positives: I really like the style of the Mission Control experience. The VAB improvements are great - being able to work with disconnected parts of the vehicle really helps compared to the "root-connected or GTFO" constraint in KSP1. Vehicle rigidity hasn't been a problem (so far, granted I've not hit the L+ size parts yet), even relative to my expectation for KSP1 for similar sizes. Procedural wings have me actually interested in planes again. The science interaction took some getting used to, but I don't think I could go back now, the reduction in tedium even as new activities light up is great. Now, some struggles - I try to include a suggested improvement where possible, but I know it's important to express the problem rather than lead with a solution. I found myself often wanting to jump back to Mission Control from the VAB to re-check objectives, and didn't see a low-friction way to do so. Alternatively, being able to see the objectives directly (like the tracker mid-flight) would help a lot here. Window positions/sizes reset frequently - e.g. when opening/closing the map in particular, that's jarring. On an aero flight I needed to open the map regularly to adjust my navigation, and then had to re-open and resize/re-position the part tracker again so I could monitor the air-sniffing science part. Several possible improvements here - maintain those window sizes/positions (and state), give me the ability to see science parts in a separate display, probably other options. Related note, this may be intentional, but you can't see mission waypoints on the navball. For those early sight-seeing missions, you only see the indicator in-world when you're close (<50km?). Being able to see the marker on the navball either all the time or when further out would make taking on a long flight more enjoyable. Adding custom markers (especially if marker range isn't infinite) would be a fun way to "plot your course" to a distant objective, especially if you want to visit or even overfly biomes along the way. The precision for planning a docking operation is much worse than KSP1 - I routinely aimed for <0.5km closest approach in KSP1 and even down to 0.1km when intercept speed wasn't too high. With KSP2, I don't get a numerical indication at all, that I can see. When attempting a dock in KSP1, the "target's relative velocity vector indicator" on the NavBall was crucial, making it straightforward to get close, nullify relative motion, then fine-tune approach. In KSP2 I'm struggling to transition from "plan a burn to get nearby" to "ready to use RCS for final approach". We get a target pro/retro indicator, but I really need that velocity indicator as well. If this is intended to be unlockable, it probably should arrive at or shortly after the first docking port unlock. The burn timer still feels too imprecise (start/stop) relative to what I'm used to for KSP1. I'm _always_ making a correction burn in KSP2, instead of only sometimes needing to do so in KSP1. One simple change that might go a long way here is to have the dV indicator in the burn timer count down instead of staying on the planned total (much like the current stage shows remaining rather than original dV). Secondary mission objectives relative to their science reward seem to vary considerably. I had some fairly easy, early missions awarded as much as 400 science, and on the other end I'm sitting on a mission to land _200 tons_ on Minmus for... 35 science? This one may actually be a bug, but my main feedback here is that mission difficulty and reward should generally scale relative to each other, granted that scale probably slides around as you move deeper into the tech tree. 200 tons on Minmus when I hadn't even unlocked the Mainsail yet felt...beyond daunting. Overall, KSP2 feels like a real game now with Exploration Mode. I miss the challenge aspect of budget constraints, but not the tedium - hoping some of those other progression elements can find a way into the game in the future but only if the fun can show through without the toil. If it helps, the part of that I most enjoyed was trying to make more of my vehicles recoverable (imagining they'd be reused, like SpaceX has proven is viable), so getting at that challenge with some other mechanic would also be rewarding. I know there are more major features coming down the line and I'm especially excited for colonies and multiplayer (interstellar too).

I am still working on my design, but I've been able to capture a ~1600t Class E with it. It needs more torque mainly (multiple SAS near the claw, or some small RCS/SAS pods as suggested above - I'll probably try that). Also, I'm going to upgrade to the larger refinery, the small one is too slow and inefficient. http://imgur.com/a/t9Tku Also, I right click the asteroid when I'm close and "target center of mass" and grab that (as close as possible). I never rotate the claw. I've had SOME offset from that, but rarely a lot vs. just how painful it is to change rotation in general.

Thanks everyone for the help! I combined parts of several suggestions and built a lander with a rover section and enough d/v to return home. The design was a pain to drive - ended up using RCS as much as the rover wheels to steer. But trying to grab a lander can on the surface made me want to be able to 'drop the nose' and hence an unorthodox design. The Minmus mission section Touched down about 350m away - you can see the prior attempt's vehicle and just barely see the target itself. Time to arm the claw and lower the nose... Gotcha! Homeward bound.

Yeah - I thought I had enough RCS thrust, I'll fix that for next time. @Sharpy: I'm definitely 'just short' on clearance but now that I know what's there I can dial it in for the next flight.

Well that was the plan! Turns out there's not quite enough clearance so I'm doing little thrust hops and coming back down on it (about one try in 5 - the RCS thrust over 1.0 TWR so I have to use the main engines some too - often to hilarious results). I may have to send another ship with the one-size-smaller legs (they seem to lower more smoothly) and adjust the clearance. Now that I know what's there I can practice on Kerbin - in theory. I'd been avoiding KAS but maybe I should bite the bullet...

Hi everyone. I've got a contract to rescue a Kerbal and his craft from the surface of Minmus. I've managed to get a lander in position but can't seem to get the Grabbing Unit to actually latch on. Here's a screenshot showing my setup - I know it won't grab in the current position but I've managed to pogo the ship directly onto the can a couple times and it still won't grab. Is this fixable or do I need to try another approach? I couldn't figure out a good way (with stock parts) to adjust the height of the grabbing unit on the fly - should I be using some other approach (e.g. a cargo bay instead of the grabber)?