s_gamer101

That slounds like a design problem And expect Eve and probably Tylo

Didn't know that, thanks. But they should update automatically. Like it did in KSP 1

The CoM indicator currently shows the CoM that you would have with full fuel tanks - but the CoM can move a lot when fuel is being burned, so this is really bad. When you remove fuel from the tanks in the VAB, the CoM indicator will just display you wrong informations. I really don't know how I'm supposed to make more complex spaceplanes like this. And this is such a basic feature, I really don't understand why this isn't implemented yet. And this isn't beginner friendly either. Please fix that as soon as possible.

Edit: For clarification: I do not want the procedural wings to be replaced, I just want other wings in addition to them Yes, the procedural wings have some potential, but for me they can't replace the KSP 1 wings. They are supposed to give creative freedom to the player, but they are limiting in their own way. And in fact, it really ruins the fun of building stuff with wings for me. I want wing connectors like the Wing Connector Type A, they were essential part of many beautifuly KSP 1 crafts that I've seen or even built myself. Wing connectors could be used for so much more than just to generate lift. They all have a wing profile that looks like a low-speed airfoil that isn't made for supersonic planes or even airliners (see below) and it bothers me a lot. It is just not fitting for like 90% of the stuff that players will build I just can't make something that looks like the Big-S Delta Wing from KSP 1 For the two reasons mentioned above, space shuttle replicas in KSP 2 tend to look ugly in my opinion When I needed, as an example, delta wings, I was able to just grab some delta wings in KSP 1. Now I have to grab some procedural default-wings mess with the settings to turn them into delta wings

Why is there even a lake in a vacuum? Stuff isn't fluid in a vacuum...

I doubt that. But once you deployed the fairing, your drag problem will be even worse. That's another reason tu use a cargobay instead. I also noticed now that you placed them in a weird way: For pitch and yaw movements, you only need RCS trusters facing in 4 directions: Up, down, left and right (Roll movements aren't possible with your current RCS trusters configuration from what I can tell from the screenshots) Also, they become more efficient the further away from the CoM or rotation axis they are because they can apply more torque. With your current design, you could place some at the wingtips and some at the front of the plane. Poland getting to the left side? What do you mean? You could practice with a small airplane on Kerbin, it's not that difficult to learn. Are your parachutes even sufficient for Duna landing? Planes not taking off can have other reasons than not enough lifting surfaces

Here are some things I notice on the screenshot of the second craft: Why is your fairing so long and yet so little inside of it? Is this supposed to be space for payload? If you have a fairing anyways and you want to reduce drag, why not put some batteries inside into the fairing instead of using those big batteries? And the excessive number of wings - why? Wings have a lot of drag. You should have just enough wings to have sufficient lift and not much more. Maybe just put all the mining stuff in a Mk 3 cargo bay What are those parachutes for? It's a plane after all... Is that a tricoupler with 3 engines at the back? There's absolutely no reason to not use a quadcoupler with 4 engines and have less radial engines instead If you're already using a command seat to save weight, it seems contradictory that you added a big, heavy, unmanned control unit when you could have just as well attached a lighter one. The same applies for the ore tank: The purpose of this plane isn't to carry large amounts of ore around. You do require an ore tank for the mining stuff, but the smallest variant of it will do the job Are you sure you need this many RCS trusters? Also some advice for designing spaceplanes: Don't put all the fuel and engines at the back. Because when you burn all the fuel, the center of mass moves very far with such designs, which also makes the behaviour of the plane change a lot during the mission and generally makes the desinging harder. And here are some pro tips about the aerodynamic model of KSP: Construction nodes that aren't in a cargobay or fairing and don't have anything attached to them cause drag When they are facing forward into the flight direction, they cause the most drag When they are facing backwards, they cause the least drag Therefore the drag of a RAPIER-engine can be reduced by attaching a small 0.5-Meter-nosecone on the construction node at the back of the engine (and it also looks cool). It makes only a small difference, but it is a difference

Lower gravity means higher TWR, not lower TWR

I'm just gonna make a space dragon, just wait for my submission and you'll see what dragons have to do with space

A TWR of exactly 1 doesn't get you anywhere because having a TWR of 1 means that the weight and the trust of your ship ar equal and therefore cancel each other out. This challenge is physically impossible

Normal is the standard. If a challenge doesn't state anything else, I always assume it's normal. Playing KSP on a difficulty that doesn't allow quickloads and revert flights is just a bad experience and no fun at all, because on complex missions there's almost always a point where you have to quickload or restart the entire mission (which would be really annoying if you already spent weeks on the mission). I don't really understand why difficulty modes without quicksaver even exist or why anyone would play them (unless one really wants to suffer for some reason). How did you do that? When I try to make foldable wings, they are always too whobbly or even fall of completely. Maybe that could be fixed, I've seen other players use fairings as containers to land something on Eve and safely deploying it at the surface.

Well, you can't just magically reduce the drag of the fuselage (without cheating). You'd have to remove parts from it to reduce it's drag. But I need screenshots, otherwise I can't help you. (you can upload screenshots to imgur.com and then add them to your forum post)

Are you referring to a KSP 1 Kraken drive here? If so, I want to point out that I'm pretty sure engine exhaust didn't interact with wings in such a way in KSP 1 and I've never heard of KSP 2 having such a feature and I would be surprised if it has such a complex physics simulation.

I don't know how it is in KSP 2, but in KSP 1, SAS should stay on. Or do you mean with "SAS is disabled" that SAS is just set to stability assist instead of whatever-you-wanted? Because that would be normal: If you point Vehicle 1 to normal or antinormal direction and it doesn't rotate in any direction (Timewarping should stop rotation, at least it does in KSP 1), it will keep it's heading even without SAS. Otherwise it just keeps it's direction relative to the center of mass of the body it is orbiting (as far as I know), which isn't what you want (you want it to keep it's heading relative to the spot on the planet's surface that is below the ship) during timewarp and while it isn't loaded. Summary: Pointing Ship 1 towards normal or antinormal will probably solve your problem

Doesn't the KSP 2 mission failure screen spit out some informations? Yes, try less fuel maybe, but that shouldn't be the problem since your plane being heavy shouldn't be the sole reason for it to explode on touchdown. If I have time I'll try to make a heavy plane in KSP 2 and do some testing of my own.

Was the explosion actually one of the largest man-made non-nuclear explosions or was too much fuel burned before the explosion for that?

I assume it isn't supposed to pitch. You have to remember that S is both the button for pitching down and the button for driving backwards. And if your rover has any active reaction wheels or even RCS (for whatever reason), it will pitch down when driving backwards. You can fix it by disabling those systems (that is possible in KSP 2, right???) For the other stuff: Without screenshots it's hard to help To answer your title question: the default controls are indeed WASD as far as I know

Well given the informations you provided I can only make some speculations: I can't see a front wheel on the screenshot you provided - if your ship actually doesn't have one, then that's the problem Maybe your vertical speed is just much too high Maybe it's just KSP 2 being the broken buggy early acces game that it is right now, but I'm really not sure about that because I haven't triedt to land anything on a runway in KSP 2 yet, my knowledge and experience is primarly from KSP 1. Maybe it would help if you could find out if it's always the same part that explodes first and if yes, which one

Is this just whobbling or a bug? (Is the ship under acceleration?)

Aso long as you have a connection, I don't really see a problem with it being red. Of course the signal can be blocked by the moon, but you can just have your probes land on that side of the moon that isn't blocked. (But make sure to quicksave regularly for the case you end up being in a suborbital trajectory without a signal.

Did you attach them first and then rotated them upside down with the rotate tool or did you rotate them first and then actually attach them upside down? Because that makes a difference.

Yes, autostruts or just struts in general. If you put a long, heavy construction in a cargobay you should always use some (auto)struts, otherwise it won't be very stable.

That's weird, this shouldn't cause issues. I put parachutes in their own stage all the time and it works perfectly fine.

In KSP 1, I once found a way to make a rover that can drive up 90 Degrees slopes using an uppwards-facing engine that pushed the rover to the surface. This should work in KSP 2 as well. That's why you should always test your stuff before you send it anywhere. In KSP 1, I always used cheats to teleport the vehicle to the destination for test runs and then reverted the flight once I was done with testing. That way I made sure everything works in advance. And then I flew the actual mission without cheats.

I think there is a staging lock that can be toggled with Alt + L, but I'm not sure since I never use staging lock. But you could try it with Alt + L