swjr-swis

It is interesting, isn't it? Those poor innocent unprotected sweet darlings of companies and corporations should be given ample leeway and not be judged for the 0.1% risk that they may at some point in time abuse their unilaterally imposed terms to do 'bad things' out of malice (or simple stupidity). Apparently, this is one of those fringe benefits that us lowly regular folk cannot possibly be accorded: since we consumers are in such incredibly untouchable power position compared to them, naturally, we instead should be judged by the lowest common denominator and slammed into thick iron-barred legalese prisons, because after all, there is that arch-evil 0.1% of us who are constantly causing them oh so 'terribly bad things' affecting their bottom line that requires impeccable containment. Oh Goliath, if only we had imposed a EULA on that scoundrel David, you might still be alive now. Because maintaining a relationship on completely unbalanced terms has worked so well in the past, right? Let's see, how did that work out for the protection of our personally identifiable details? I mean, how stupid and paranoid and conspirational is it to worry about Big Responsible Corporations and Governments causing our data to fall into the wrong hands, haha, yes. Oh yes, of course, like, NOT. We are still trying to put that one back into the bottle... But sure, let's keep giving those poor little innocent and defenseless companies alllll the benefits of the doubt, despite them continuing to make their terms worse with every iteration. After all, it's not like corporations are in it for the money or anything (unlike most modders and content creators, am I rite?). Yes, call me the cynical paranoid unreasonable one. Anyway, it's all moot now. I am disappointed, but I'll live. It's a game. If they ever decide to go full-on stupid/evil, I have 1001 other games to waste my time on if I must, and I can spend my money elsewhere. Here's hoping (since we certainly aren't getting any assurances) that the work and effort of all the amazing community-created content and mods continues to be respected. Oh and the terms can go where no Kerbal has gone before.

Keep in mind that with a light tiny craft like that, drag tends to have a relatively big effect. You will probably expend more dV than expected even on an optimal trajectory.

It applied according to the old EULA, something they seem to have overlooked with the new one. The old one says this: This in essence places PartTools under the same terms as the game itself, so anything created through the use of PartTools falls/fell under 'user created content' for the purposes of the EULA. This may however no longer be the case, since I can't find anything similar in the new terms. Not in the EULA itself, but it does state: Which means we have to include the text of the ToS as well, they can't be seen/used separately. And that one states: You will find no such words in TTI's version of the same, where all they talk about is how they assign all-encompassing licenses and rights to themselves (and third parties of their choosing).

Creo que MJ2 en modo carrera empieza con ciertas limitaciones, que se levantan gradualmente según va avanzando la carrera dependiendo del nivel tecnológico y del nivel de las instalaciones. Aparte de eso, tiene una pieza (AR202) que se puede/tiene que añadir a la nave para habilitar las funciones.

I think that's the engine's EFFECTS{ engage{ AUDIO{} } } sound you're hearing, which is used whenever an engine is enabled (this is why it plays when staging the engine, even if the engine throttle is at zero). I've seen a soft and a medium variant (sound_vent_soft, sound_vent_medium) in the stock files, and the entry allows specifying the sound file, volume and pitch, which is how it's made to sound slightly different for some engines despite using the same file. There may be some default value of this pre-loaded for all engines, because not all stock engine cfg files have that entry. The reason it can sound so loud sometimes is that it is played simultaneously for every single engine that is staged together. Given all the above, I think a ModuleManager patch could be made to adapt this for all engines, eg. by lowering the volume (volume = x.x) or specifying a different sound file (clip = xxxx).

You are comparing what you feel is the reasonable or expected interpretation with what is actually in words in the terms. What is a reasonable interpretation or expected outcome if tried in court is irrelevant when most of us would not even be able to start said court case if they ever decided to apply what their terms say they feel entitled to do.

Which effectively means we lose, since very few of us can afford to even start a legal battle with a corporate law team. 'Losing' in this case meaning that they get to disregard our terms/rights, and freely do as they wish in accordance to their terms, regardless of whether it would stand up to scrutiny in court.

I don't know, but they do link directly to it from the top of this forum (the 'Get Mods!' tab at the top).

Curse(forge) probably falls under that interpretation though.

1. Many mods consist of MM patches, part cfg files, and/or code and are regularly quoted verbatim in forum posts. Think also of translation/localization text added by forum members. These are not linked, they literally reside in the forum posts when quoted, and so the content becomes governed by the terms. 2. The ToS is worded very ambiguously on the definition of 'Online Services' as governed by the terms: Are the two 'including' clauses applying to 'internet-capable hardware platforms' or to 'certain products, services and websites'? Based on the second interpretation, they could argue that it is irrelevant where the files are actually hosted, since the very last term is inclusive of everything that isn't even owned by them. The new terms do not seem to have specific provision for it, but the old EULA does include them in the software in an indirect manner:

I like it. Small and to the point. One tiny comment though: it's not stock. There's a part on the craft called 'AES.Outrigger' that prevents it from loading in a pure stock game. I don't know what that part is or does, but it has the docking port surface attached to it, so when I edited the file manually to remove it, the craft also lost the docking port.

I mean... heeeeey!

The front page of the store now has an extra link at the bottom called 'New Privacy Policy' that wasn't there before, warning about the new terms coming March 6th. I haven't noticed any other changes.

Clicking any of the download links in the spoiler just redirects you to the frontpage of the store. It 'hinders' the download since there is no download anymore... at all. They either removed the files entirely, or the host for those files is malfunctioning.

We're all just practicing armchair law here, and until tried in court, no one can known for sure. The new terms state the following: So I'd say that is 'everything, period'. It is not excluding anything already created before. In fact, both the forum announcement and the link on the store page now warn that to even keep access to your account, and by extension to anything posted previously through that account, acceptance of the new agreement is required. If it was once on their forum, and they made a backup/copy of it at any point, they still reserve themselves a perpetual right to it, according to this agreement. Note that neither the terms nor the EULA have any article in it clarifying how to terminate THEIR rights... only ours.

I haven't seen one either. Considerng that the PartTools fall within the definition given for 'Add-on' (they don't limit it just to KSP), this ironically creates the interesting situation in which Squad is in breach of their own 'add-on posting rules' by at least two counts: they have not posted a license for it, nor have they published the source code. Legalese - gotta love it.

Let's check the actual wording and see how it is "spelled out in very carefully chosen language with specific legal meaning": They are very carefully and specifically telling us that acceptance of the new terms is, in fact, required, to retain access to purchases already made and very generally, to play the game. Nothing in this phrasing excludes any earlier purchased or downloaded versions of the software. This is not simply a matter of my personal interpretation, the EULA is even more specific about this: Notice the very carefully added and specific word 'continued' in that phrase, which is there to very specifically include the ex post facto case. In fact, if you decide you no longer agree with updated terms, and thus are terminating the agreement, you have already agreed in advance to give up the right to use the software you 'purchased' before: And why can they do/say that? Because of the way software 'purchases' are defined by this industry, as quoted from the EULA again: I think people have a right to be a bit worried and not 'rest easy' when it is worded specifically to retroactively make it illegal continuing to use a legally purchased copy of the software already residing on their computers. Whether it is enforceable or not in court is a side issue; the intention/potential is already in the words, and the fact any party I have dealings with feels they can corner me into 'agreeing' with such terms is what disappoints me.

There is a startup parameter '-adapter X' one can add on the command line or in a shortcut, with X being an integer number starting from 1, which allows to force a specific monitor. You may need to experiment with the number, as it doesn't seem to have a logical connection to your settings. In my configuration, I have to use '-adapter 3' to get KSP to reliably start on my primary monitor.

Yes please. I've seen the other suggestions/requests before, but this particular one speaks to me.

If you are referring to the solid boosters (the pic is too small to distinguish anything other than the vectors and boosters): those cannot be throttled/limited in-flight anyway. You can only set the thrust limiter of boosters once - before using them; then it's fire and forget until they're either empty or (very riskily) decoupled prematurely. Which means you can safely use the throttle for adjusting just the thrust of the three LFO Vectors - it won't have any effect at all on the boosters.

I believe the common term for such a device is a 'throttle', and in stock (on PC) you can do it with Left-Ctrl for lower and Left-Shift for higher. (you may be overthinking this?)

Thank you for showing these. The list seems incomplete though; does this include achievements not yet earned by anyone? Is there really just one achievement for 'landing' on a body other than Kerbin (Moho, apparently)? Or has literally no console player yet landed anywhere else? The reason I think it may be an oversight is that I see Flag/EVA/Rover Mun, but no landing... and no landing on Minmus either. If only for this reason (getting an idea of how many players visit certain bodies etc), I'd love to see a form of achievements implemented for the PC version of KSP. These probably don't say a whole lot about PC percentages, since console players have had to deal with bugs and control/UI issues up to now and don't have mods to play with (something many players consider 'essential' to even try for interplanetary goals).

I know this is not exactly what you asked, but keep in mind that in highly eccentric orbits like these, it really doesn't matter much if the two sats gets out of sync with each other: the time they spend anywhere near the planet is so small it will have very little impact on your relay coverage.

Yes, you could. You could use the ion engine, remove the need for Xenon so it only uses EC, and add a high heatProduction value, turning it into an electric heater (place two facing away from each other so the tiny thrust cancels out, or remove thrust altogether). A second option may be to basically negate the values for the radiators and turn them into 'heatsoakers' - I'm not 100% sure about this one without having tried it, but I think with some judicious use of minus signs and making the sunAllignmentOffset face the sun instead of going edge-on, they could be made to soak heat and conduct it into the core instead of the other way around. I am writing this as I am getting ready to go out the door, or I would try it myself. Hmm, yes and no. Kerbals inside command pods or crew compartments do not respond to heat, because as far as the physics simulation goes, the Kerbals 'disappear' as soon as they enter the craft. So they can be in a command pod and survive 1000+ K core temps, as long as the part itself doesn't blow up. But Kerbals do have a temp limit of just under 1000 K, and will disintegrate into a grey puff of ash when they surpass that limit. Case in point - try reentry with a Kerbal in an external command seat and keep it exposed to the heat.

No, KerbalX does not (currently) detect this. To be able to detect such a thing, KerbalX would have to keep a record of valid stock values and ranges for every possible variable of parts and modules, which would make the scanning prohibitive. A very simplistic example: it would need to check every LFO fuel tank for the amount of fuel in the tank, against a valid stock max and min value for that specific tank (min too, because some cheats are based on negative values), and then mark as modded anything that had been edited outside of those values. Now do that times every possible variable, for every possible module of a part, and for every possible stock part, times however many parts the craft has. As I understand it, and its impact on the server performance, that would basically freeze up the server while scanning in a craft file for an unacceptable amount of time. Technically possible, maybe; but at a huge coding and performance cost, so not something we can expect anytime soon, if at all. And to remove any confusion from you or anyone: config editing is the exact same thing as if you made that same change through ModuleManager - in other words, it's a mod, whether automatically recognised or not... the edit is just done by a different method. So for challenge purposes, such a craft would end up in the modded or disqualified pile, depending on the rules.