Flush Foot

Somehow it wasn't one I'd previously upvoted (though I imagine it was the one I was thinking about when I resorted to using Google as a KSP-forum search engine, given how awful searching is on here ) But I have upvoted it now

You might get away with 'just' the Undock via action group, but I will be curious to find out how it goes

Out of curiosity, were either of the crafts' ports covered by decouplers prior to your docking attempt? (I'm almost certain I've read bug reports along those lines... but I will look for it and reply back / edit this comment with such a link) What if you try mapping an action group for each craft where a number-press specifically runs "Undock" (and do so in command of each craft) and try again? Not the post / report I was looking for, but it'll do:

Off Quora: Weight, bulk, mechanical breakdown. Tank treads are great when they have access to regular repair facilities. They are also far heavier than wheels. Tank treads give you 2 places of mechanical breakdown. 4–6 independent wheels made of lightweight material are just fine for a rover exploring a planet or moon with less than half the gravity of earth. 6 wheels, means 2 or 3 can fail and the rover can still maneuver around. Also from Quora (though perhaps 'a bot/AI' of some kind?): NASA and other space agencies opted for wheels instead of tank treads on lunar and Mars rovers for several reasons. Wheels are generally lighter and more compact than tank treads, which is important for space missions where weight and volume are at a premium. Additionally, wheels are more efficient for traveling long distances on relatively smooth surfaces, which is often the case on planetary bodies. While tank treads provide better traction over rough and uneven terrain, they also have more complex moving parts and are generally heavier, making them less practical for space missions. The Curiosity rover did experience some challenges with its wheels getting stuck in loose Martian soil, but engineers were able to adapt its driving techniques to minimize the impact of this issue. Overall, the choice of wheels over tank treads for planetary rovers is a balance between weight, complexity, and the specific terrain conditions the rovers are expected to encounter. So sadly, commenters might be right (best left for a mod), assuming of course the devs

Also around Gilly (I definitely encountered it frequently around various Joolian moons but I only thought 'quickly' enough to do it around Gilly, given how much time I had to think about it):

I came across something very similar but "more organically"... I had a very low TWR (forget if it was a weak engine or if I'd decreased performance for more precision) and when I tried to make an escape-maneuver, it was going to have me burning through multiple orbits and I wound up with a trajectory like "OP's". My theory then is because a burn was already plotted (back when the game believed the craft had thrust and a dV budget), it then showed that 'nonsensical trajectory' because it was going to last 'forever'. This is especially my theory as the plotted trajectory was logical once the game knew it had fuel to play with.

Steam's F12 screenshots don't SHOW the Steam FPS-overlay Video footage of basically the same observation (but around Eve instead of Joolian moons) -- I zoomed into the upper-right corner of my captured footage to make the FPS counter easier to see

I’m sure it would be less maneuverable than wheels, but I’m confident tanks can change direction while rolling (differential tread-speeds should induce rotation, right?)

Slower than tires/wheels, more durable (I'd imagine), and (fingers-crossed) more torque / traction?

I'd guess so too (as I've also experienced "weird Ap/Pe indications in flight-widget" when in Kerbolar orbit. Not 0's, mind you, but 'weird'

Tell me about it! v0.2.1 is 'getting somewhat stale' (ready for v0.2.2 , if not fully v0.3 ) Please give us a new version ahead a bit of the next KERB so we can fill it with new and exciting bugs!

Especially on those humongous legs, I think that would be awesome! Maybe even show in the VAB pre-launch "given the legs' placement and the size of the engine-bell, the craft can hold itself vertical on terrain with slopes of up to X-degrees". (of course assuming a reasonably-vertical landing) I forget if it was stock KSP 1 (or a mod I began to play with between KSP 2's announcement and EA-release) but it'd also be splendid if once on the surface, legs could secure themselves to the ground, preventing sliding or tipping. (even if this was a 3-5 second action that would fail if there was too much movement, being able to hold steady, "plant the anchors", then shut down SAS [recharge batteries} and safely go on EVA would be excellent!)

Update: last night I was running my same craft around another Joolian moon when I observed that the mini-lab actually wasn’t “the end of the world” on performance nearly as much as transmitting science back home. Craft on (low) orbit / sciencing: pretty close to 30 fps Craft on (low) orbit / transmitting: under 10 fps (I took a screenshot both during transmission and immediately afterwards that I’ll try to remember to find tonight and include here)

I expect that the ‘Base Editor’ mode (Colony’s self-editing VAB-like function) will allow new parts to be ‘welded’ onto the existing structure which would mean expansions don’t require docking ports to link them together (unlike when building out a station today in KSP 1 or 2) but as was pointed out below you would likely still put docking ports on an orbital colony (I suppose unless they have some kind of magical ‘docking bay’ planned where you just nose-in / get close-ish and the craft is suddenly connected to the colony)

I’m sure you’ve caught / been sufficiently bothered to report on other bugs that I’ve overlooked or been too lazy to report

Did that a long time ago … Probably around the time I commented on it, if not earlier.

Probably not so high on the list, but how about either ‘more capable’ sample-arms or some kind of warning / clearer indication of when the arm is mounted “illegally”?

Would you consider signing over your 'winnings' so IG can hire another CM and 1-2 more devs?

That footage predates Intercept Games... @GGG-GoodGuyGreg you can probably hold onto that money for now

That is one thing KSP 1 did better... only showing portraits for Kerbals in the craft (not empty seats). Sure, you'd still need to 'be aware' of their presence, but at least they can't be hiding from you.

KSP or KSP2? (I thought it was HarvesteR or something?)

As much as I also like the challenge of setting up reliable comms everywhere, I must regrettably concede this point; enough relays for good coverage would probably tank performance on even the beefiest rigs (at least at this point in the game's development).

I vote April 2... first non-holiday in April

I've been noticing this intermittently too (5900X CPU, 4070 Ti-Super GPU)... my best guess/observation is that it seems to happen most reliably when I am in low-orbit around a body [it was particularly brutal around Tylo] and have the mini-lab running. Could it be that the game doing the check "is this the proper biome to run the scan?" is dragging down the FPS?