cpast

As others have said, x64 is not the 'proper' name for anything; the proper name for the most common 64-bit instruction set is x86-64 or AMD64 (or Intel 64, but that can be confused with IA-64, which is an entirely different and incompatible 64-bit instruction set). Technically speaking, there are other 32-bit and 64-bit instruction sets, but the 32-bit instruction set which is most common is IA-32 ("Intel Architecture, 32-bit"), also known as i386 or x86 (both referring to the Intel 80386/i386 processor, which was the first one to use it). x86 is because it's an extension of the 16-bit instruction set on previous Intel processors ending in 86 (i.e. 8086, 80186, 80286), which IA-32 is backwards compatible with (x86 can properly refer to anything which is compatible with the original 16-bit instruction set). When it was extended to 64-bit (by AMD, not Intel), it was frequently called AMD64 (Intel had a not-backwards-compatible 64-bit architecture called IA-64, which is used on Itanium chips); the vendor-neutral name is x86-64. Incidentally, there's no inherent reason x86 can't refer to the 64-bit version like it could refer to the 16-bit or 32-bit versions; it just doesn't.

Even that isn't done on real rockets - in a proper gravity turn, the only time that thrust is used to control direction is at the very beginning, during initial pitchover. Once the initial pitchover maneuver happens, the rockets are gimballed to point straight through the CoM (i.e. not gimballed to turn the rocket), so thrust is straight prograde. The trajectory flattens out due to gravity, not due to steering.

Proper gravity turns are at an angle of attack of zero. Air drag really isn't that big a problem for real rockets; gravity drag is a bigger factor by far (plus, in reality, you cannot really fly at an angle of attack of 45 degrees; the rocket will break apart).

Indeed I have

I suppose technically, the S-1C was built by Boeing, the S-II by North American, and the S-IVB by Douglas (incidentally, all are now part of Boeing) with designs from NASA and on contracts from NASA. That's pretty pedantic, though.

NASA developed a rocket very much like the Saturn V; it was so good that one might say it was indistinguishable from a Saturn V. It was named for some planet, I think the sixth one from the sun? And it was the fifth iteration, so it was named something along the lines of "Saturn V". No, the LM was near the top as well. Lots of fire comes out of the bottom, so it's a bad place to put things you don't want to be burned. The LM was behind the CSM though, again, exactly like on a Saturn V, because it was a Saturn V.

ClairaLyrae was also hired by Squad; I don't know of any mods that have been taken into stock essentially as-is (as opposed to Squad re-implementing the idea) that didn't involve the developers being hired by Squad (i.e. C7, Claira).

You are assuming that modders are doing their work because they want users. While this is the case for commercial software development, it is very frequently not the case for modding, where incomes do not depend on number of users. Modding frequently happens because a modder feels like making something for their own game; releasing it is a side effect, and doesn't have to happen (a modder can decide "this is too much of a hassle to release, I'll just use it in my game"). For that matter, not everyone cares if their mod gets buried, because not everyone cares that as many people as humanly possible see their mod.

Overwhelming defenses is something that missiles are FAR better at than any manned craft - missiles have less complex hardware than a fighter (no life support, no controls, no trained pilot), so are generally cheaper (software can be complex, but software cost is fixed, so it doesn't affect the cost to replace fired missiles), and are lighter as well. A ship with a given percentage mass being fighter can carry fewer fighters than a ship with the same mass of missile. First, it's not the end of the world if that happens. You can't have all of them getting taken down by shrapnel, but if 3 get taken down, you're still likely better off than if you had lost a single fighter. Fighters. Not even close - the fighters need just as advanced sensors as the missiles, plus life support and controls, plus a trained pilot (which is expensive). And the number of fighters can't be that small a fraction of the number of missiles you'd need; if a certain number of fighters can overwhelm point defenses, several times that number of missiles could as well. Keep in mind, too, that fighters have to survive through the end of their mission -- a fighter that successfully attacks a target but is destroyed on the way back is a lost fighter. Missile software might cost money, but that cost is irrelevant once the missile goes into production - replacing a missile just requires replacing the hardware of the missile, while replacing a fighter just requires replacing the hardware (plus trained pilot) of the fighter. Even if development costs are lower for the fighter (really, really unlikely), it still works out in favor of the missile when you consider replacement costs (which matter, a lot, in wars), plus replacement time (humans take longer to train than software takes to load onto a missile). Fighters also have the risk of damage (depending on what weapons everyone is using), which then involves repair. Missiles don't need to be repaired after going into combat. Also, what would these fighters be armed with? Unless you're ramming, you need a separate weapon system, which also drives up the cost of a fighter. Specific technology: uncertain, as it's all speculative. Delta-v and TWR are both likely far superior to any fighter - a missile is light, can have much higher propellant mass, and doesn't have to have the delta-V to maneuver, fire, maneuver away (avoiding point defenses all the while) and then return.

But it works in other sections (e.g. in this section), so why would a technical issue (what "forum updates" seems to imply) affect only some sections?

The Forum FAQ suggests that it's intentional that you're allowed to delete your own post.

No, the EULA says no such rights are granted by the EULA -- as the copyright owners, Squad can give permission to use Kerbal content, and even though the EULA doesn't give permission Squad can give it through other means, and seems to have done just that. It's not copyright infringement if you have permission from the copyright owner, because part of copyright is the right to give permission to do things with copyrighted work to whoever you want.

Yes, it is. Ascent guidance is near the end of the tech tree.

You did hit "unblock", correct?

But the initial distribution *is* generally within a mod folder, instead of in its own folder (compare to how, say, Firespitter is distributed, which is in a separate Firespitter folder under GameData, making it easier to find all copies).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this happens if and only if you specifically enable auto-updating, in the dialog box that pops up. ModStatistics does not download anything from Majir's site unless you enable autoupdates. It says so in a popup when starting the game for the first time with ModStats installed. Your description of what happens is not accurate, as it implies that it downloads without checking, which is false.

You can disable this in the debug menu, I think (Alt+F12).

No they aren't. Mods are compiled for any CPU; plugin DLLs do not have either x86 or x86-64 instructions, and instead have CIL/MSIL (which is then run by Mono). While it is possible to put in the header of a .NET/Mono program that it only targets 32-bit or 64-bit, it is normally only done for executables, not DLLs. Even then, it's not that it actually uses native instructions, it's that the header says "always run as 32-bit" or "only run as 64-bit" (Any CPU is "run as 32-bit on a 32-bit system, 64-bit on a 64-bit system); this is just because loading native code libraries (which *do* have to be compiled for x86 only or x86-64 only) only works on a process of the same type. Furthermore, any mod that did use x86 or x86-64 instructions (as opposed to CIL/MSIL) would already be incompatible with any operating system other than the one for which it was compiled. Any plugin for which that is not the case uses an intermediate language, and then there's pretty much no reason whatsoever to compile a DLL to anything other than "Any CPU" (the executable file is different, but plugins don't have that).

Sorry, I meant "would 'community's hands' be better than 'modder's hands'", not "is this what it says?"

Admin-enforced proper categorization is one of those things that it's easier to start with and back off if it turns into too much worth, than to not start with and then have to recategorize lots of things because the uploaders categorized them wrong. On the redesign mockup: I don't really like the current UI, but the mockup redesign looks great. On the intro text: Is "modder's hands" right, or should it be "community's hands"?

Changing the price doesn't really count as a "buff", because the price before 0.24 was completely irrelevant -- "buff" sort of implies they're shifting balance somewhere, but 0.24 is a first attempt at a balance.

Kerbol's has no SOI limit, nor can the game support a craft not in the SOI of some body (orbits of craft are stored based on the orbital parameters and the body being orbited; it's *not* stored as "position" and "velocity", so everything has to be being affected by the gravity of one body), nor does it even make sense as a concept (SOI means "the area in which the dominant gravitational influence is this body"; for something to be outside a Kerbol SOI, something else would have to be the dominant gravitational influence, and there is no such something else).

You don't "need" to do anything. If you're the sort of person who'd do that if they added this mod, you aren't the target audience. The target audience is presumably those who want to actually force themselves to *do* things, instead of letting themselves timewarp to launch windows and interplanetary arrivals.

I don't think any template more detailed than something like "[0.xx.x] Mod Name Ver.sion.number (date/of/release)" would be needed, and that's already fairly common.

For hacking: That's why you program the bomb to "do this and explode" - no need for any sort of remote control (in fact, many missiles have zero remote control capability - they are fired, and guide themselves to the target). A system that can't receive wireless command signals can't really be hacked. For dogfighting - Nothing whatsoever in aerial dogfighting is the least bit applicable to any space environment. Dogfighting is driven by concerns of atmospheric flight - for instance, that a fighter must be flying in the direction its guns are shooting, that altitude is a thing, that changing direction involves rotating, etc.