So the purpose of Mk2 Landing can...

[Jestersage]

For those that does not have DLC, Mk2 Landing can is still good. However, for those that does have it -- aside from aesthetic, what is the point of Mk2 Landing can? It's heavier, it does not offer anything the MEM does not have, it's more expensive, it does nto have much more internal resource... it's pretty much relegate to base construction purpose!

[magnemoe]

Just now, Jestersage said:

For those that does not have DLC, Mk2 Landing can is still good. However, for those that does have it -- aside from aesthetic, what is the point of Mk2 Landing can? It's heavier, it does not offer anything the MEM does not have, it's more expensive, it does nto have much more internal resource... it's pretty much relegate to base construction purpose!

MK2 can make an nice bridge for ships with an 2.5 meter frame, often an 2.5 meter front docking port. 

Here its simply to put the huge heat shield on top. but without the heat shield it would still be nice with an 2.5 meter front docking port.

For an lander the LEM is obviously better. 

[Temeter]

3 hours ago, Jestersage said:

For those that does not have DLC, Mk2 Landing can is still good. However, for those that does have it -- aside from aesthetic, what is the point of Mk2 Landing can? It's heavier, it does not offer anything the MEM does not have, it's more expensive, it does nto have much more internal resource... it's pretty much relegate to base construction purpose!

I can think of a few things. Landing can has a cockpit with very really good visibility, the DLC dual landing cabin is suprisingly poor in that regard. Well, maybe not that surprising because the thing was designed for humans and Kerbals got eyes on what would be chest level for humans. Also is special in that it's a in stack 2.5m cockpit, and is better at fitting heat shields.

Honestly though, I rarely use that thing. Looks too ugly for my taste, and the windows has ugly reflections blocking sight.

Edited March 14, 2018 by Temeter