AngryBaer

Because this is subjective. It's a very common thing to receive complaints about UI just because the user's muscle memory doesn't apply after an update. Personally I find the update was worth it in this case, the new UI is better, with some kinks to iron out and pending more customizability. I say this after nearly 5000h of KSP1 muscle memory.

My impression is that compared to real life all of the KSP parachutes are much too good. Take the Soyuz... Look at the size of the chute compared to the tiny capsule. And it still does a rocket engine powered soft landing in the end. Landing on Earth is kind of a hassle too. That being said, KSP is kind of a cartoonish representation of spaceflight. If you want a challenge, perhaps what might work is adding parachute drag to the realism sliders, like how you can adjust docking tolarance or could adjust how much heating would destroy parts in KSP1 .

KSP1 solved this with name priorities. Another way to do this could be keeping a docking order history or having parts grouped automatically by what's between docking ports. instead of essentially fusing the added pieces into a new craft. I'd also love to have a "dock manager" where you could select the craft/group you want to undock or transfer resources to instead of relying on staging or part-by-part selection. How many times have I undocked from the wrong side of the node and ended up having to cycle through to the craft I just detached... While this is a reasonable method I wonder how that would work if there are eventually grabbing units that "dock" with asteroids and debris. Now your craft is named after the piece of rock you grabbed or the part you want to recover?

I find some small amount of flexing helps give a feeling for how heavy a craft is. If you've ever looked out the window while flying in an airplane it's often surprising how much the wings bend. It makes sense because they were built for that purpose, rocket stacks perhaps not so much. So a lot of this would have to include some kind of material science for each part. I think poorly built wobbly rockets should just tear themselves apart violently much quicker instead of turning into noodles. Or perhaps stay connected just long enough to be funny before failing.

That sounds very reasonable. I'm wondering if the excessive wobble on large rocket builds is also a result of this behaviour, rather than purely joint strength. I imagine joystick inputs would give a lot better results by having a gradient rather than jumping to 100% deflection like the keyboard. I'm sure the build can be tweaked to perform better in these high speed situations but what would really help there is the robotics controller so you can scale multiple values at once.

How interesting and unintuitive. Turning off SAS entirely in these situations makes it quite a bit more stable for me. I wonder if it would make sense to then take the control surfaces off of SAS and only let the reaction wheels stabilise. Though I suppose jets don't usually have those in reality.

When flying smaller craft I have the impression that the control surfaces move much too quickly. This could be the cause of excessive over-compensation by the SAS. Here is my craft with SAS after a climbing maneuver without any inputs. While I could reduce the Authority Limiter I wish there were a "Dampening" or "Rotation Speed" slider as well . Looking through the Forum I found that this topic has already been asked in KSP1 and I believe this may be a very similar issue: I considered a bug report such as this one, but perhaps this could be solved by simply having the control surfaces rotate slower.

This happened to me today, but on the vessel I was controlling. This was on an Apollo style craft controlling the lander at circular 45k around the Mun. Upon selecting undock from the clamp-o-tron my own side of the craft shot away had an escape trajectory. KSP Version: 0.1.2.0.22258