Pecan

Did you make the docking-port on the lander the root part?

The unmodded way is to deactivate SAS, manoeuvre, re-activate SAS. Using 'A' for example, either press T, A, T or press F-A. Manoeuvring while SAS is engaged, you'd expect deflection in the other dimensions; that's it's job.

Drone spaceplane

Smaller is better but there isn't much scope below 2.5m. Bigger than that is ok for heavy launches but not needed in space. Mk2 is just soooo boring - it's like thinking you're a cool, different, rebel because you got the same tattoo as everyone else. Mk3 only exists to look like the shuttle, doesn't it? If it didn't exist, there'd be no need to invent it.

Part clipping would be my prime suspect.

Funky! (I was joking of course, although using parachutes to land once you've flown 'close' is not a bad way of doing things. Don't think I've ever managed a soft vertical landing on jets alone, because of the spool time).

Need more information. Do you have electricity, will the drills deploy, are you using mods? Etc. etc. etc.

The main issue - new settings for the parachute - seems to have been addressed. There have been a couple of threads on this; note that the tutorials have not been updated either so Mun 2 is a killer. For sub-orbital and tourists, I use this. It includes science and goo because if you're doing suborbital you can presumably still use the science from wherever you land. Nice and simple, balanced so it comes down sideways and lands gently on the legs if you give it a SAS-nudge (legs shown deployed so you can see them, but launch retracted).

Hence "iv) Fairly academic, since 1/4 of a year later that orbit will give you maximum darktime, same as equatorial." in my post. There was a thread about this very subject some months ago.

Physics - all the parts act on all the other parts, or do they? Welding certainly helps but exactly how the welding works can give 'odd' results itself. Rendering - is based on the number of polygons making-up the object or objects; how complex it is. Welding really doesn't do anything for that although there is some scope for hidden-face removel (eg; where fuel tanks connect end-to-end you can just forget the faces that can't be seen).

Hard work still. Pack and re-pack parachutes for the landing ^^.

Welcome to the forums. Where have you been since February?! Sounds like you've worked it all out well and carefully but, yes, I'd agree that something is assymmetric on your fully-assembled ship, putting the thrust-axis below the CoM and forcing the vehicle to pitch up. Your only solution is going to be adding something beneath the ship or removing something on top of it to bring the CoM inline with the thrust. Handy tip for the future - build it ALL in the VAB, as one piece so you can check this. Then separate and save the various parts you're actually going to launch.

So, consensus would be, "VTOLs can be easy to build OR easy to fly"? Hehe - sounds about right; you can build a VTOL easily, but it won't be easy to fly. If you want a VTOL that's easy to fly, it'll be hard to build. Which answers the OP's question.

Yep, it can all get complicated for darkness. i) Kerbin-synchronous is 6 hours, as Sharpy says. ii) You can do that on a polar orbit (it's different to Kerbin-stationary, which has to be equatorial). iii) If your polar orbit is parallel to the sun, darktime = zero. iv) Fairly academic, since 1/4 of a year later that orbit will give you maximum darktime, same as equatorial.

SSTO = Single Stage To Orbit. VTOL = Vertical Take-Off and Landing. Spaceplane = Using wing/body lift during atmospheric flight. Different but related things. Most spaceplanes, for instance, are HTOL, while rocket-only SSTOs are nearly always VTOL. So which are you really interested in? For now, your question, "Are VTOL's difficult ..." = Not if you use a rocket design. VTOL airbreathing designs that essentially follow a standard 'rocket' ascent-path are the same as rockets. HTOL spaceplanes are harder because you need to worry about all the time you'll spent in atmospheric flight plus all the excess mass you need for wings, etc. VTOL spaceplanes are especially hard because you not only need the HTOL capabilities but you need to add extra engines, mass, etc. etc. for VTOL and this is especially hard to balance too (without the mods mentioned).

Held-up for legal reasons. Squad have not even bothered to respond to my requests to use screenshots. In fact, they haven't even bothered to provide the attribution ("...is copyright of Squad", etc.) text that is normal publishing practice. No big deal. I'll use line-art rather than screenshots. The only question now is whether it's worth publishing before version 1.1

I wouldn't recommend any part-mods for making SSTOs unless you just like the look of the stuff they give you. Essential mods for designing anything are MJ or KER for all the stats that KSP doesn't show you. All my early SSTOs use the T-45 engine, with the appropriate launch engine taking over as the builds get bigger. For spaceplanes I almost exclusively use the rapier and, of course, don't go flying them through space or to other planets and moons. Engines and intakes are different parts - it's safe to assume any air-breathing engines you see on spacecraft are turbojets or rapiers. Non-airbreathing engines don't need intakes, of course.

It is indeed excellent and the one I use because it's so minimal and unobtrusive but I don't think it corrects for target docking-ports that are not inline with the target's root. On the other hand, Navyfish's docking mod - from which the navball indicator comes - has been updated to do so, IIRC. As an alternative with better visuals, any of several mods which adds a docking-port camera is very cool. At any distance just use the navball indicator because it's "close enough", then align with precision using the docking cam.

1680 x 1050

My advice is usually "this is the easy or straightforward way". When it differs from Val there are probably one or two reasons i) he's tried way more than I have, ii) I didn't even know that! It is safe to assume my guidelines will not be as good (although, I hope, generally easier to abide by).

With the 'start' technology counted as tier 0, tier 2 lets you get to Mun and land/return from Minmus really easily. Think about what it's possible to do with much, much, less of a ship than you have there - such as a demo-version Mun-return lander, which has even fewer parts than you do. Fun, isn't it :-) (PS: Seriously, science mode is probably the best way to learn KSP if you don't want all the sandbox parts from the start, but really, really, concentrate on getting the most from what you have, and thinking what you need to do more; ig anything)

Try rotating your vehicle :-)

What't it for?

Cooked my AMD, replaced with nVidia.

The only people who could mention AS/400s (or any other commercial IBM machine) in a supercomputer thread are the salesmen - they are specially trained to keep a straight face. Realistically it's nothing more than a mini-computer and in a lot of ways less than a micro-computer. [Yeah, I worked for IBM for a short time, although it was one of the three I said I never would. Still holding out against the other two.]