Renegrade

(ancient thread is ancient btw guys) Sure, it's hard to land on a surface, but why not just leave it in orbit? That's what I do when I'm trying to skip the stock science tree heh. Orbital rendezvous and docking is pretty easy.

From that self-same copyright.gov site, which, by the way, you linked from a Steam link: It is also important to check the terms of sale or license agreement of the original copy of software in case any special conditions have been put in place by the copyright owner that might affect your ability or right under section 117 to make a backup copy. There is no other provision in the Copyright Act that specifically authorizes the making of backup copies of works other than computer programs even if those works are distributed as digital copies. Note that music and video are NOT covered as "computer programs", and you might find that 3D models and other related assets aren't "computer programs" either. And a scary thought occurs to me - KSP is a C#/mono project, which means that it turns into bytecode, like Java does, not actual executable code (the CLR/mono does that dynamically at runtime), and could very well also not be a "computer program" in some contexts. Also, be advised that great deals of the US's copyright law have been superseded and/or rendered moot by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which more or less prohibits the doing of ANYTHING. Also, that's all about "Fair use", which is this nebulous thing that's often failed people at the worst possible moment. Consider too, this scenario: the police raid your place and seize your equipment, totally in error, but then discover that you have illegal backups. They're going to want to prove wrongdoing at that point to justify their raid and seizure.... From the Wikipedia article you linked (again, from a steam link): Whether shrink-wrap licenses are legally binding differs between jurisdictions, though a majority of jurisdictions hold such licenses to be enforceable. Whoops. By the way, are you an attorney, offering this as free legal advice? Before answering this question, remember that answering in the affirmative might open you up to damages should it result in convictions etc. I'll maintain that while the more paranoid people are being a bit "chicken little" about this, but the EULA is not a reassuring one. It's the sort of we-own-you-now crap you'd see out of EA or Ubisoft. I'd rather not. Developers NEVER, and I mean NEVER look at that info unless it's attached by hand to a well-written bug report (and then ALMOST NEVER look at that bug report anyhow). And that opens you to man-in-the-middle attacks, and/or poor security on the opposite end. Hey, what's this? There's this weird .csproj file in the mod I made a ways back: <ItemGroup> <Reference Include="System" /> <Reference Include="Assembly-CSharp"> <HintPath>..\..\..\KSP_1.0.4\KSP_Data\Managed\Assembly-CSharp.dll</HintPath> </Reference> <Reference Include="UnityEngine"> <HintPath>..\..\..\KSP_1.0.4\KSP_Data\Managed\UnityEngine.dll</HintPath> </Reference> </ItemGroup> I suspect this is a lot like linking. Linking with software with various licenses has proven problematic in the past, which is why stuff like this exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception (and the GPL is a friendly, lets-all-share-and-be-kind-to-each-other license, not the we-own-you-now BS that exists at http://www.take2games.com/eula/ ) Are YOU now offering this as free legal advice, by the way?

Oh yeah, 1.4 has some of the changes in it. Just beware that there are some other issues with tanks at present. So it's possible the new tank values might be wrong

Eh, I'm used to working. I have a 49k line tech demo that never saw the light of day, and a 35k line complete game that's literally for me only. Making a public release would have a whole bunch of extra motivation above those programs. The game would be Linux-only at this point, although GPL would allow other people (who have patience for this crap) to port it to DirectLag or *BSD or Macs etc. I really only have it at this point because MS gave out Win10 licenses for free back in the day and the GPU drivers are all closed-source / trade secret BS, meaning you typically have to use the crappy reference driver (written by moronic chimpanzees, very nasty closed-source stuff) to get 'good' performance and up to date support.... Ah no, I mean I'm a programmer of the serious vein. Although I'm extremely conservative, I can "get 'er done". As in make a GPL-based space simulator that's accessible. If I started instantly, it would be C99 / Fixed-pipeline OpenGL (1.2-era) and not have sound.. so gotta brush up on some of the stuff (OpenGL 1.2 wasn't any sort of stumbling block for Minecraft, heh) like sound, and maybe adopt a 3D model format as the 'native' format for the software, and learn how to use Blender. Anyhow, Squad, or rather, Take-Two, is on a Performance Improvement Plan from hereon in. If they do any spying shenanigans or get liquidy about my multiple installs, they can consider themselves terminated with cause. I guess you could instead put a firewall rule in to block outbound connections from the KSP process. The vanilla firewall does tie in with the process list. I have no idea how reliable it is though. Unplugging my network is not feasible here as I use a Linux (debian) based fileserver (which used to back up to another fileserver, currently just to some external drives) that stores all my critical data. Watching NT crunch up an NTFS drive at one point in the past convinced me that wasn't safe, so I keep all the good stuff off-box.

They are extracting it from a Scott Manley video. I haven't seen it yet, but I'm sure he hovers over the stat panes for a moment to look at the engines or such and they scribbled the numbers down...

I do, but it's getting harder and harder on MS's trash platform of garbageness. The process list is still there, but now it's deeper than before, and there's a lot more to watch. My desktop is my last non-Linux system I have, probably gettin' close to it's end now. I am going to be monitoring KSP a lot more closely nowadays than I did previously... The paranoid types are overreacting, but I share their concerns and will be taking security steps. Anyhow, maybe it's time to brush off my OpenGL skills. How does GNU Space Program sound?

My purchase date says 2013-12-21. I can't remember very much from that far back, but I do remember that I had heard about it from various sources, but for some reason it was described to me in a manner that made me think it was like a .. spreadsheet simulator (no, not Eve). Later on, I saw a live video (don't remember which one) and realized it was more about flying rockets than allocating funds and stuff. Since then, I've landed on everything that can be landed on (well, that I'd expect to be landable; I've never tried a Jool or Sun/Kerbol landing), and returned.

Awesometon? Sir Schmoopy, is that you:?

You're missing out on edge cases there, man. You could be in Minmus or Mun orbit, and have more than enough delta-v to escape and return to Kerbin and then parachute in. There's no easy solution that isn't silly in some way or caught by some edge case. On the other hand, don't worry, typical human EVA packs use cold gas thrusters. Usually some inert gas like compressed nitrogen. It won't set anything on fire. Mind you a human EVA suit like the MMU only has 24 m/s delta-v, vs the Kerbonaut Ultra-Deep-Space-Long-Range-Runs-Almost-Forever-Suit packs a walloping 600 m/s.

For a moment I was all "what the hell are you talking about? Squad's progression is a placeholder at best! You'll never see anything 'carefully crafted' in KSP stock". Then I remembered the main thrust of the expansion is actually the mission creator. Ah. User-created missions..which definitely could be carefully crafted. (I voted "Parts" as I've always felt the stock parts to be a bit sparse, and the pictures we've seen have implied we're getting intermediate sizes, which is great for stock AND mods) Also...speaking of the DLC, where is it? They were a little vague on the time of the release, it's already March 13th in many places (and less than an hour away here). (I feel safe from the 'asking about the release date' as they've already mentioned it and I'm asking about time)

Yep, should be. The Mk1 LF tank is 400 units / 2 t = 200/t.

I used to watch a Youtuber who managed to crash into the Mun. He was wondering why his capsule's parachute didn't work. D'oh!

By the way, an alternative to @GoSlash27's system for LF/O tanks is to add up JUST the liquid fuel portion and divide by 90 for tons of LF/O. That'll getcha your total fuel mass as well, assuming you have the normal 9:11 ratio of LF:O.

That might be a platform difference between Windohs and Linux Steam then. For whatever reason though, it did NOT ask the first time, ran out of memory a few hours in (despite being completely unmodded aside from my silly doge flag), and crashed.. and then starting asking when I relaunched. I'm just running the regular stable edition, I don't think they currently have an experimental, do they? No, she said it runs the 32-bit one by default. Traditionally in KSP, that was the one you wanted. Unity's 64-bit support was even spottier and crappier than usual Unity stuff back in the day. The crappiness has leveled out of late, so it's actually a valid choice, but prior, the 32-bit default was the safe choice.

Count me in for the "KAC functionality in stock" concept. I love overlapping missions. KAC makes those so much easier to manage.

It didn't ask me the first time I ran 1.4.0, and launched the 32-bit edition, but the second time, it put up a dialog about which one to run. Dunno if that's a regular thing or not, as I normally run the store edition of the game...

There's no need for KSP to undergo visual improvements...but the new and old parts do NOT match each other. It would be nice for them all to be consistent, and I too wonder why Porkjet's rocket parts weren't included. I tried them out, they looked good, were a better match for the plane parts, and didn't seem to cause any issues so.. why not?

That would be totally cool, but I'm afraid that they have this 9:1 guideline etched into some crazy stone tablet. I pushed them on this very same issue some time ago (1.0? 0.90?) when they started doing the 9:1 thing, but the answer was pretty much "nine-to-one, or be done!". I think the main topic was actually RCS back then, but the 9:1 thing came out somehow. Anyhow, I've fixed the reversal in my config files, and I'll go back to the other posts now and fix 'em up too. Thanks for pointing that out.

I've computed some 9:1 values, in the event that Squad is maintaining their 9:1-for-everybody plan. This uses RuBisCo's dry mass values (which have a good feel to them), but reduces the fuel to make it a 9:1 ratio. externalTankToroid mass = 0.025 amount = 20.25 // LF amount = 24.75 // O externalTankCapsule mass = 0.0375 amount = 30.375 // LF amount = 37.125 // O externalTankRound mass = 0.0125 amount = 10.125 // LF amount = 12.375 // O YOU get a 9:1 ratio, and YOU get a 9:1 ratio, and YOU get a 9:1 ratio...

The EULA makes me hostile and aggressive, but I'm still going to go ahead with the DLC for two reasons: it predates that Bravo Sierra, and I have a strong interest in the historical missions and extended stock(ish) parts. If they abuse the EULA, or even attempt to use it for anything even remotely inappropriate, it will be the last thing I buy from them. Ever. Yes, but would you download a car? Personally though, I'd rather have free car insurance. The car part is actually the cheap part. At least in these parts..

Normally I'd agree here as that would add some interest and variety to different tank models, aside from size. Heck, I'd love to be able to right-click and configure a tank with different hull options (more heat resistance, more strength, at the cost of mass, or vice versa, etc). However, Squad decided to unify tanks to a 9:1 ratio for some reason, and the official game files should probably follow that standard for consistency. Unfortunately. A side note: I'm VERY alarmed that the fuel/ox ratios were wrong. I had assumed they were correct (it's hard to get that stuff wrong, whereas dry mass/wet mass/fuel mass can get a bit complicated at times). What the heck? Yet another side note: I only checked a handful of tanks. I hope nothing else has changed...

I've noticed the fuel mass ratio on some of the new tanks seems off. The little R-4 has a terrible ratio (and is incredibly huge for it's 10 liquid fuel) of 1.33:1 The R-11 is much better, but a bit off at 8.18:1 The R-12 donut is a spectacular 31:1 The classic tanks are 9:1 still it seems (full mass:dry mass) The RCS values are also all over the place, although that's the way it's always been (the R-10 is 5:1, the R-25 is 7:1 and the FL-R1 is 8.5).... I only mention this as I recall something about them being updated with new consistent values. Much data entry. Such error. Much ratio. Wow!

That happened to me initially. A few attempts later and I got to the "you don't have permission to access this directory" thing. Fortunately I also have the Steam edition... chown -R :www-data /var/www ; chmod g+rw -R /var/www; ?

I've had that EXACT same issue as well. Nearly bought the farm as I didn't see the message in sufficient time to read it. Fortunately my landing technique involves watching from under the plane, and I noticed the missing gear and was able to abort the landing and enable that option in-flight. The gear in question was attached to the outside of the 1.25m service bay (which makes a great backing to a shock cone on the nose, very heat tolerant). I hadn't adjusted it's position at all either (aside from using keyboard controls to turn it around so the wheel was closer to the front of the plane). The wording is definitely rather iffy on that button..

Actually I play Pathfinder, so it's just gold to me