cpast

That's where particular instances are; I assume what he's looking for is modifying the contract generation and contract types, which you cannot do in persistent.sfs.

You can fork. That doesn't mean you can do anything with the fork. Of course, you could make a decent case something this simple isn't subject to copyright. So there's that.

Where is it located?

Why does the ratio of engine thrust to engine mass matter at all? The relevant criteria is engine thrust to *vessel* mass. Or is there something I'm missing?

For experimental parts, they seem to have gotten rid of the originally proposed constraint that you only got a limited supply. It'd be nice if that were added back in, to make it so you only got, say, 10 of the parts -- that would make it so you had to either test them or be very very careful. Launch stabilizers will never be given a testing contract when not landed (absent bugs). The part module that makes it subject to tests (ModuleTestSubject) has 4 location categories - surface, ocean, atmosphere, and space. The clamp is only eligible for surface test contracts; that particular part can't be tested anywhere but on Kerbin's surface in particular, but it's the only such part. It's set to never be assigned for test contracts in ocean, atmosphere, or space.

Contracts are only addable using plugins.

...and now this happens on all threads, so the only thing that "read" means is "hasn't been updated since 10 minutes after you last refreshed any page".

How does that work with refunds? I thought resources were refunded 100%, in which case it's not ideal (though may well be the best you can do until Squad makes the needed changes).

I don't think so; launch clamps can't fly. That's kind of a special case, though; every other part can fly with the ship, so can in principle be tested anywhere.

Certainly. Military transport aircraft often use the same kinds of airframes as civilian passenger planes.

No, because it doesn't. I just tested (launched an SRB over 2.5 km from the KSC, switched to a craft on the launchpad, and switched back), and there was no throttle jump. It only moves the throttle to 50% if the craft is in the pre-launch state. EDIT: Oh, I was on the wrong page; you'd already answered it

For me, the whole *point* of contracts is to get me to do things I wouldn't have otherwise done. I don't need encouragement to play the way I've always played; contracts work well when I would *not* have done what they're asking normally.

Source? From what I know of copyright law, this is only if the logo creators explicitly transferred copyright, or if the contest specified that submissions would have copyright transferred to Squad or were works for hire (it doesn't look like it did either). The wording of the terms suggests the exact opposite: submitters authorize Squad to do things with the logos, but copyright transfer means you don't have to authorize them to do anything with the work, because you no longer have control. There's a reason for those contracts people are asked to sign transferring IP; it's because the transfer does not happen automatically. The main reason it matters is just for how we're allowed to use the logos - for instance, who can permit someone to put a logo in the texture of a part. It's unlikely that anyone's getting sued over it, more a "who do you have to ask".

The main advantage of air launch is flexibility - the rocket can fly to almost any launch site, without having to build the expensive ground infrastructure there. The downside is very limited payload.

You could always just disable quick*loading*, quicksave frequently, and only re-enable quickloads for Kraken attacks.

Yup. Staging costs money. It's cheaper to minimize staging. What's the issue with that?

It seems like the devs had all switched to using the article system anyways, though.

Squad apparently got in touch with all winning logo designers via email, and presumably worked out details then. They also made a post on the website listing winning logos and who designed them. EDIT: ninja'd

RCS acted the same way any parts moved in the tech tree work - the game decides what parts to show based on whether or not their tech node is researched, and if it is researched, decides whether to select them or not based on whether they're researched in that tech node. For them to be able to move parts around in the tree without making them disappear if researched in the old node, they'd have to change how the tech tree checks is implemented. The new spot makes more sense for RCS (in flight control, instead of under "fuel"), and while a change in how the tech tree works to make rearranging it work better would be nice, I wouldn't hold my breath. For funds and contracts: It's not a ridiculous idea to imagine that people playing career in 0.23.5 would like to take advantage of the career additions in 0.24. There's always science mode if you don't want to use them, but career now includes contracts (if you don't want budget or contracts, it's not career). If you want to use your save in the new science mode, try opening the persistent.sfs in a text editor and changing mode from CAREER to SCIENCE (and the thing in parentheses after the name, also change to SCIENCE).

The warning was, I believe, only for people who hadn't even gotten into orbit.

The mod creator, ClairaLyrae, no longer maintains it. Its current maintainer is stupid_chris, but his maintenance is limited to fixing bugs and removing parts that get added to stock (many of the updates he's done have, in fact, been removing stock'd parts). That said, pretty sure he's intentionally *not* removed the KSPX tower: while most removed parts were put into stock largely as-is (Claira now works for Squad, so they can simply use her exact parts), some had significant changes to their appearance (e.g. cupola, which went from thick 3 kerbal to thin 1 kerbal). The stock escape tower has both performance and visual differences from the KSPX one, so I think stupid_chris decided to keep the KSPX one in for people who prefer it.

It means you've accepted a part test contract for them, but have not researched them in R&D. HarvesteR had said that those parts have a limited supply, so you can fail the test contract if you lose them without completing it; not sure if this is still the case, but if it is, it means any use of them that does *not* fulfill the contract you have them for must end in their recovery.

That might no longer be possible, given that contracts a) often supply science and are procedural.

Some are: one of the five categories of procedural contract is testing a specific part under specific conditions.

In 0.24, the game seems to make little distinction between those Kerbals who have been launched, and those who have sat on a launchpad before walking back to the Astronaut Complex. I shouldn't be able to improve my reputation by rolling a Kerbal out to the launchpad and then immediately recovering the craft. The game knows "pre-launch" as a possible state; maybe require vehicles to not be in that state before they can be recovered for rep? It wouldn't stop people from setting throttle to zero and staging, or something like that, but it would prevent me using up the diminishing recovery rep on non-missions.