Superfluous J

April 30th. I said that the day Experimentals was announced, felt no need to revise it when Experimentals was announced a second time, and still feel no need to revise it now that Maxmaps announced that they're dropping features to get it out in time. Though honestly that last one gave me pause, making me think maybe they're going for some time in the next week or two.

Ah. So you want to force creators to give their stuff up for free when they don't otherwise want to. Then we ARE arguing different points. Yes. I agree that that is perfectly possible. I disagree that it's a problem. I would also suggest to anybody whose favorite YouTuber puts all their stuff behind a paywall to look for someone who is not doing that. Like, for instance, me!

I do not see anywhere where it says this will be a thing. I see "Allow your video to be seen by paying customers or nobody can see it" which is - as I said - heavy handed but it in no way says or even implies that there will ever be a situation where a viewer cannot watch a video for free without ads if both the viewer and creator agree that that is what they want.

That seems completely reasonable to me. I want my viewers to have as many choices as they can, especially if it doesn't mean I have to do anything extra for it. I'll worry about that when it happens. Well, actually I won't unless that percent is 100, as the vast majority of my videos have ads. I only disable advertising for the really short ones, of which I make scant few.

I've had this happen twice or three times, on video. It happened going to both Eve and Duna. Your proposed explanation doesn't seem likely considering how unlikely it is to hit a SOI twice in 2 orbits like that.

As a YouTube video creator who has ads in his videos, I don't see what the problem is. If I did not have ads, I still don't think I'd have a problem with it. YouTube is offering viewers a legit way to see YouTube videos without ads, for about what Netflix costs. I watch YouTube more than Netflix, so this is intriguing to me as a viewer. They are requiring creators to allow these viewers to see their videos with this new service, possibly giving the creators money for it (the article didn't say). If you don't want people who are paying for YouTube to see your stuff (why wouldn't you?) then they're going to make your stuff private. Unless I misread and somewhere it's saying that YouTube is going to force creators to force their viewers to watch their stuff with ads or a paywall, I just don't see the problem.

The Saturn 5 is just a firework with some extra fuel and maybe some metal.

I just love the boundless optimism of the "Currently Unofficial" in this thread's title. It's like the Little Engine That Could. It thinks it can it thinks it can it thinks it can.

My "smallest roundabout" is 4 offramp pieces, each a 90 degree curve, so the center area is a little 2x2 square. You can easily fit 4 of the simplest roads to it and can technically fit the larger ones but it looks funny and I doubt traffic would flow very well. My bigger one I just built, and didn't test. I think it broke itself because I can't edit it in the asset editor anymore. I can demolish the stuff on the ground but not the elevated stuff. It may be a bug.

The runway DOES have weight limits, just like the launchpad has. Just to be clear, I do not like the starting runway either. I just have no problem spending the very low cost to upgrade it before ever using it to take off or land, and I have no problem turning my planes around if I somehow unlock landing gear before I've upgraded it. I also dislike the idea concept of playing ultra hardcore mode and then getting mad at anything that causes you to fail. That includes bugs and design decisions you don't agree with. Bugs are WHY I won't play with no reverts or quicksaves.

Just turn your plane around in the hangar before you send it to the runway. Also? You set up the game so if you fail once you lose, and you're mad that failing once has caused you to lose? If it wasn't the runway it'd have been something else.

I've stopped playing this game. Because I've fallen in love with the asset editor. I've made several roundabouts I'm proud/ashamed/scared of, including the smallest practical one (It's 6x6 squares) and an 8-entry/exit point, 3-lane behemoth with internal entry points to help utilize the center and inner lanes.

Like chocolate, meat doubles beta electrolytes (don't take diet advice from this thread) xyfzqlua

They voted 'Yes'.

Nope, this next update is the real deal. 0.90 was the first and last Beta update.

I don't think it CAN be tested. The game would eat the whole planet before you could get something that big. But if you COULD in theory get something 42km long attached to the surface of Gilly, and you COULD get a ship in orbit near it, would it load? Currently OR with the expanded physics bubble?

Try to keep it that way. There have been bad movies based on video games and there have been... Actually that's just it. Bad movies based on video games. Though I will admit I like the RE movie franchise and don't care for the games. - - - Updated - - - TRON was not based on a video game, but set within a world where video games were real. Hence why it can be both one of the great movies of all time AND be about video games. EDIT: Okay that's stretching it, but it's a surprisingly good movie for its subject matter, age, and SFX budget.

A ponytail, I believe.

You two have similar problems but I believe they have different causes. I don't know what your problem is, sorry Hopefully taniwah can help. You can't just open the window, you must be controlling a vessel with a Rocket Workshop or some other thing that can actually construct rockets. The big blue thing, for example, or the orbital dock. There may be others but those are the two I know work offhand.

You know what? I actually screwed up. The bubble is 22.5km not 12.5km. So TECHNICALLY you could build something 21km long and attach it upright to Gilly, then build something else 21km long and attach it to the top of that thing, and then ... ... watch the Kraken eat it alive. Let's be serious. But in theory it would all fit in the physics bubble.

Never doubt, Lisa, that nobody rides bikes inside. ikqwsiyw

I hadn't thought of that. Sadly, Gilly's synchronous orbit is the tightest of all worlds' and it's over 3x farther than the bubble at 42km. So you couldn't even build a space elevator and be in the middle of it (to use the entire 25km stretch). And even if it was, you'd only accomplish a Krakening.

It's not THAT implausible. Once you have an evolutionary reason to have the detector, you have a reason to evolve the transmitter. Especially if said transmitter could be used to woo a potential mate.

Flapjacks 'n applesauce for zany breakfast repast! gbdfpufw

I will only bring with me my knowledge, and even that is suspect. I expect everything I build to be different, what with the changes to aero and part balancing that (I hope) will include Isp, TWR, masses, and costs.