swjr-swis

Good question. Look at the top right corner of the screenshots - you'll notice it shows 'EVA Propellant' in the resource tab. This only happens when you have a Kerbal on EVA or in a command seat.

Note: there is a difference between regular clipping (placing parts as the game normally allows, then offsetting them into each other) and 'part-clipping' (a very confusing term for stack-attaching multiple parts to the same node, which is only possible after enabling a cheat menu option). There's been some heavily clipped entries accepted on the board (including my own), but no part-clipped ones. Hmm. If tank clipping is considered off-limits, much the same arguments can be made against engine clipping - and I do realize that invalidates my own entry. Just saying. Ultimately, you set the rules for your challenge.

I've been away for a while, something was changed in the interim because I seem to remember it simply said '<someone> liked your post', which was pretty clear as a notification I didn't need to do anything with. The new wording (combined with insomniac forum browsing) had me expecting and searching for actual messages, and i didn't recognize it for what it was. I'm all up to date now. I'm only seeing a thumbs up icon - maybe that's a customizable thing? It's fine either way though - I'm now (again?) aware of what the notification means and I stopped looking for imaginary messages.

Edit: never mind, I spoilered my booboo. I noticed the post right before mine in this thread has a '<person> reacted to this' in the bottom right corner and only then realized this must be some new phrasing for the 'like' thing of this forum. Reminder to self: I really need to stop participating in a forum after 3am. Suggestion to mods: perhaps 'react' is not the best choice of words for this feature... it can be confusing.

1.3.1 too, and some 1.2.2, for the foreseeable future. I would have stuck with 1.2.2 entirely to avoid some of the bugs introduced by 1.3, but the noticeably longer load time (even on SSD and without mods), the quicker time-to-failure, and a few quality-of-life improvements sorely missing from 1.2.2 ended up outweighing the irritations and I started to use 1.3.1 more. There was also still the lingering hope that we were getting close to 'just one more patch or two' away from a reasonably definitive version... but then the 1.3.x patches stopped, way too soon. I would've really liked to have a 1.3.x version that didn't get null ref exceptions at almost every scene or craft load/exit, for one, but mostly the game moves on so I just ignore it. Then the long-awaited 1.4 came around ridden with a list of regressions and new bugs, and between those and other things I really don't want to rehash, it frankly squashed my hope for a definitive version. There is a bit of performance improvement and a few nice small additions, but none of those (nor the expansion) have tempted me to move away from 1.3.1. Indeed. I could've said those words, almost verbatim. So... it is looking like 1.4 will be a complete skip - I'll stick with the 'lesser evils' of 1.3.1 and 1.2.2 for the time being. We'll see what 1.5 brings. One can hope.

I have updated the JunoSpeeder-3c - it now sports 25 Junos compared to the 13 of the 3b model, and is now capable of flying right up to the flame-out limit of the Juno engines at sea level (820 m/s, Mach 2.31). Full album: https://imgur.com/a/JSeBmaJ This appears to be the maximum we can expect to reach - diving causes Junos to flame-out faster than level flight, and as this top speed was reached at a mere 5m above the ocean surface and right before flaming out, the Juno power envelope has no more room to squeeze out another m/s. Edit: I did some additional tests to see how hard that limit is. Turns out that even with the absolute minimum of drag/mass/parts encumbering the Junos, they still flame-out at 820 m/s.

This has been done before: That said, since it has been a while (and somehow those craft don't seem to perform quite as well in 1.3.1), a new attempt is warranted. I present the JunoSpeeder-3b, a manned aircraft with a recorded max speed of 808.3m/s in level (slightly climbing) flight. Edit: the craft has been upgraded, the share link now offers the 820 m/s 3c model.

Apologies, and duly corrected.

FMRS, now maintained by @linuxgurugamer. KaptainsLog may be what you're looking for. Not so coincidentally, also maintained (even originally authored) by the same person.

A 5 second search for Firefox add-ons for 'eBay' yielded 197 results. A 2 second search on Youtube for 'How to use eBay' yielded 8630000 results. Do you want to know more?

Why would it need to be so specific? Do texture PNG fies fall under different copyright provisions than picture/photo/art PNG files? Are 'Dropbox user files' or 'Twitter user videos' going to be treated differently in court than 'Take Two user files/videos'? Is that seriously what you are suggesting?

Good question. I don't know for sure, and because they don't retain (or link?) older edits, we can't really check. But the gist of that article has been posted by mods before.

A few examples, which may or may not convince anyone that it is quite possible for even multinationals to add plain text explanations or summaries of the terms. If they can do so without undue legal pitfalls, mayhaps smaller companies with much less legal exposure could do so as well. Dropbox ToS: "When you use our Services, you provide us with things like your files, content, messages, contacts and so on ("Your Stuff"). Your Stuff is yours. These Terms don't give us any rights to Your Stuff except for the limited rights that enable us to offer the Services." Holymoly it doesn't get any more plain text than that. And that isn't even a summary or explanation - it's the actual main text of the terms. LinkedIn User Agreement: "You own all of the content, feedback, and personal information you provide to us, but you also grant us a non-exclusive license to it." An example of the side-by-side plain text summary form. eBay Privacy Policy: example of the tl;dr format giving plain(er) text summaries at the top that link to the full text of the policy articles. Twitter ToS: "You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. What’s yours is yours — you own your Content (and your photos and videos are part of the Content)." Main body of the text. Funny how even this company can manage to be clear and concise without legalese about something as simple as 'who owns or retains rights to what you post here'.

Interesting then that other companies see more and more fit to add 'plain text' or 'tl;dr' explanations along-side their terms to communicate with their customers. Apparently, it is in fact possible to clearly state the interpretation intended without necessarily running a legal risk.

That's the thing though: what people are asking for are decidedly not legal answers - that would just result in more of that unintelligible vague and overarching legalese the terms are already filled with and cause of all the questions and speculation. What we are asking for is plain text.

And similarly without any evidence that they won't change their practices. Leaving us to interpret and fear, or not, as we will, based on the fact that the new and improved terms have dropped some of the wording that actually offered content authors some modicum of trust. People have asked very simple questions, from the very moment the announcement was made. No one deemed the community worthy of response (* not discounting @JPLRepo's posts, which were courteous but essentially a redirect to /dev/null). The community reacted by speculating and making decisions based on said speculation. How surprising and unexpected. Because historically speaking, T2 is not known for doing things that put them 'at the center of a giant PR firestorm'... right?

Dear @SQUAD (in lieu of Take Two, since we don't seem to have anyone from them to address here), You forgot to add a link, referral, or the actual text of the new EULA you warned us we would need to accept to keep using this forum and the game. Sincerely, Someone with zero legal sense but whose common sense is screaming that the new EULA may not have any legal power whatsoever unless actually referred to in some way in said acceptance form...

They don't need to, do they? Add one of the many rootkit/surveillance types of DRM they keep coming up with to a next 'patch', a right they explicitly assert for themselves in these terms, or change the game so it requires online activation/registration every time it is started, another right they grant themselves in these terms, and voilá.. absolutely no need to 'investigate each and every one of their customers'; the customer will simply be unable to use the software anymore when out of compliance (and regularly enough, even when in compliance, but that's another discussion). Yes, a very weak position indeed. Which are virtual non-issues from a legal cost/risk standpoint since only a handful of those customers will ever be willing or financially capable to do anything but begrudgingly abdicate as soon as they receive the first notice or threat of legal action. How many individuals, of all those millions, do you know that would actually cause a company to do more than just send a take-down notice or a legal threat letter? And as soon as a few cases of such action get into the media, how many would immediately cease and desist just to prevent being the next one? I mean, just look at what's happened here in this forum, and not a single person has yet received a threatening letter. Without spending a dime more than what they needed to post a message in the forum, they've already preemptively caused several people to change their mode of operation just to avoid becoming a legal target. Now that's a pretty comprehensive show of power in my book, in any context. I'm really not, for the simple reason that I have no mods. I don't even use them. I think I posted exactly one snippet of ModuleManager code in this forum in all these years, to which I promptly disavowed any ownership or rights. Which does not stop me from considering what the effect of these new terms may be for those that have spent a lot of personal time and effort on various free game-enriching content. But here's another position of power T2 has over the content creators: whereas mod authors are bound to terms that obligate them to publish source code of plugins, so that everyone can examine and see the code, allowing said code to be tested for copyright infringements... T2's product is closed-source, they do not publish the code or allow it to be examined for the same - they even expressly prohibit any attempt at reverse engineering. Which lays an additional burden on anyone suspecting their code to have somehow ended up in the product, something that many would not even attempt unless T2 was so stupid as to make the code visibly and functionally identical to what they 'stole'. And the thing is, it's not even about whether this current incarnation of T2 would be so intrepid to enact their terms in those most doomtastic ways. It's about the fact that they already build in the potential for doing so if and when someone decides to do so later on. Corporate take-overs happen every now and then. CEOs are replaced sometimes. And for all the assurances that we may receive (or think we have) from the current representatives of this company, what keeps the next one in power from enacting those terms in another way? I can tell you about the only thing that would keep it from happening: not having such terms to begin with. But that would be too much to ask, right? No game company ever has worked without crazy boilerplate EULAs... I was interrupted in this typing by an acceptance form. interestingly, this form does not in any way quote, refer to, or link the new EULA we were supposed to agree with - it is as far as I could tell the identical one this forum had before T2 ever came into the KSP scene. Which just makes me smash my head into my desk. Are you freggling kidding me? After all this, they manage to forget to link the actual new EULA itself in the acceptance form???

This sounds interesting and I would love it to be true, but reading the old EULA I don't see where it states that. On the contrary, it seems very similarly worded to the T2 EULA on that aspect: That last statement is interesting in a whole different way: it seems valid to interpret that as granting us the right to apply the old EULA to any future versions or patches of KSP.. So now we have two agreements that apply, and we get to pick which one we apply to our convenience?

Can you elaborate on this?

Again, a key difference being that content creators do not state in their terms that they can completely revoke your license to use their work at any point in time, leaving you as only recourse to completely delete it from your system; in fact, many of the licenses used by mod creators specifically protects the user from such a thing. Whereas the other party says things like:

Yes, very different, because you are leaving out one key change between the two: the part where the old terms specifically recognised and granted content creators rights, whereas the new ones are conspicuously silent about it all and only discuss the rights of the company over said content. It's been quoted before, but for you once more: (How generous to grant us rights over our own created content! But that's beside the point.) Can you find something even remotely similar in the new terms?

Fair enough. Just as soon as T2 finishes grouping all their terms into one place.

Seeing as the actions of the latter wouldn't have been triggered had the former not decided to impose new terms unilaterally and refused to answer the expressed concerns before the deadline, it's a bit of a limp comparison, no? That's even completely beside the fact that content creators have never been paid for the work they volunteered, and as such had literally zero support/maintenance responsibility towards anyone at any point in time. If there are players that have enough invested in a mod to feel 'harmed' if the mod ceases to exist or be maintained for any reason, they only have themselves to blame. They should've made backups, downloaded the source, learned to code/model.

I am absolutely in 'it', my work contracts, for the money. Absolutely 100% without shame or remorse. If I didn't need or want that money, I would absolutely 100% be spending my time on entirely different ventures. Which is why I have zero shame or remorse at pointing out that the one main all-overriding concern and motivation corporations have in just about everything they do is exactly that - money. The only differences being that I only do it for me - I have no shareholders, market analysts or boards of directors to appease, and of course the sheer scale difference - my financials would be less than a petty cash entry on the average corporation's ledger. You got yourself triggered into arguing a point absolutely no one in this thread has come anywhere near to questioning, least of all me in the part you quoted. No one has said that it's a bad thing to earn a living. That's ok though. I'll reword that last paragraph with a little less irony: Of course corporations are in it for the money - making profit is rather the whole point of a corporation. So maybe, just maybe, that might also be somewhat of a significant motivator behind their actions and choices. Just maybe. On the other hand we have content/mod creators, a tiny subset of all consumers, who almost always do it without expectation or hope of any monetary profit. Even for those very few who do make or accept a bit of money, the scale of money they could ever hope to gain from it is... almost insignificantly small, compared to the financial streams of corporations. Now, without even questioning whether profit is inherently evil, good, or something in between or above such qualifiers.... which one of the two do you think is most likely to plan and act with monetary profit in mind? Which one of the two is most likely to lose a legal battle even before it begins, simply due to being unable to pay for the required legal representation? Given this, does it seem realistic to consider the corporations the weaker party in a financial and legal context, to the point of justifying heavy-handed and unbalanced protections from the consumer? Let's ponder that. Does my choice of words make a bit more sense now?