softweir

This is standard archaeological, palaeontological, geological and astronomical notation which has been around for decades now. Generally only astronomers and a few geologists use BYA! EDIT:- Ninjaed!

MYA = Million Years Ago BYA = Billion Years Ago

Moderator Note: This is something of a necro-bump. The thread has been silent for three months and - unless the O.P. revives it - one can assume it is dead. Therefore, can I ask that people use more discrimination when choosing which threads to add to. It serves little purpose to add to a thread that is more than a month or so old, and when it was a fairly low-content thread it serves even less purpose! I'll close this thread. If the O.P. decides to add to it then he can P.M. me or any other moderator and ask to have it re-opened. Many thanks!

Please go to The Support Forum and repeat your question there. Please also be sure to say which email didn't come!

Use Shift+WASD to adjust the default angle of engines while placing them! It operates in multiples of 10degrees which is a limitation, but with careful design it should get you close enough.

Flying_Brick, that is, so far as I understand it, a pretty good guess as to how the fuel-line logic works. If you do a search for posts by HarvesteR using the key word "fuel" then you will find a few mentions of it - none are complete, but they give you the idea. Fuel-tank drainage is being adjusted (yet again!) for release 0.17, so with luck this "feature" will change.

You could have edited your O.P. to ask for suggestions - no need to bump your own thread! Also, can I suggest that if you have any more videos that you add them to the O.P. on this thread? If it drops off the second page then you are OK to bump the thread when and only when you post a new video - add a post at the end saying "O.P. updated with a new video". That way, those people who are interested in your series will have one easy-to-use place to see them all, and you won't create a stream of threads that irritate those other people who aren't interested.

Moderator Comment: For once, this necro-bump was excusable. The download link was broken and it is quite in order to request that it be mended. It would have been better to P.M. the O.P., but a request in the thread is acceptable.

Ah, there things get harder. Simply creating enemy Kerbals and having them shoot at you is very hard work that would take away from the rest of the game OR make it so expensive nobody buys it. And once you've written that basic code, making the "enemy" shoot at you in a balanced and enjoyable fashion takes a huge amount of work. One of the constant criticisms of RTS games is that the balance is wrong - get it right and the enemy are defeated too quickly and easily, get it wrong and they are impossible to defeat - and the difference can be down to a slight imbalance of units or a slight territorial advantage. And these are purpose-built RTS games, not sims with RTS tacked on!

So you'd be shooting at your own ships? Wouldn't that get stale pretty quickly?

Maro linked to it in the post just above yours.

I was a fool to read that at 3am - I nearly died trying to laugh silently!

They want to concentrate on all the other stuff! There is quite enough scope for a purely peaceful KSP as it is. To make a full-blown war simulation would at least double the effort (and final sale price), and to make a half-baked war simulation would add nothing except make it slightly easier for movie makers. If anything a half-baked war simulation would reduce the sales of KSP - war-sim enthusiasts would deride it for being crap, and space-sim enthusiasts would deride it for being war-like. It would please nobody, and it would fail. And finally, it's not what the developers want to do.

Planets. Planets and moons according to HarvesteR's announcement. Plus lots more, some confirmed, some not yet confirmed.

Congratulations! And welcome to the forums.

There's very little to stop you having a separate install for every game version, except convenience and disc space!

Sir, you are prescient! Moderator Comment: Do not post Release Date speculation! It has been said so many times, and we have had to remove so many posts. It will be out when it is out.

Indeed, and I am well aware of that. I should have made it plain I was talking generally, not making suggestions for KSP landers! What I forgot to say (because I started considering making a suggestion that 5x symmetry be added as an option) was that 6 legs is as close to 5 as we can get.

Three won't rock, but a tripod can be pretty easy to tip over unless it is very widely spaced. Also, three legs have absolutely no redundancy in the case of a leg failing! Five legs are vastly less likely to tip over, and can remain stable even if one fails. This is why swivel-chairs these days have five legs - it's just that bit safer. NASA wanted to put five legs on the moon landers, but had to compromise with four due to weight considerations.

Indeed! You've done a great deal for the community and very much helped make the forums the safe, enjoyable place they are!

Everything. Can I vote 5 times?

Steam is a whole different subject, and there have been many threads about it. The Developers have said that they will sell KSP on Steam at some point. However, they won't be putting it on Steam Greenlight, and they will be asking Steam to take down any copies put up by overenthusiastic fans.

Got it! You have to have the image tags IN CAPS! EDIT: And you mustn't use punctuation in the title. It was the apostrophe in the title that was giving me grief the first time. Grief! I spoilered the first image in your post as an example!

[noparse] spoilered stuff [/noparse] You need the Title! Since you already give your images titles, you can use those. EDIT: Scratch that. I tried to spoiler your first image and it refused to open.