HeadHunter67

For those who are claiming they should be allowed to pick up others' discontinued mods, this is a very weak excuse. If you don't know how to use GitHub, chances are you're not the sort of person who'd be any good keeping an old mod alive anyhow.

In this scenario, perhaps the author would have the right to do so... but is never under the obligation to do so. That is to say, the author "reserves" the right to permit or limit use as he or she sees fit, and indeed even on a case-by-case basis. As for a mod author being stuck with a license irrevocably, I don't see why that would be the case. Software publishers modify their licenses all the time - the terms change and the user has two choices: accept the new terms, or stop using the product. I'm not sure why this should be any different. If I create something, and later decide the terms of the license are too restrictive (or not restrictive enough to avoid unintended abuse), it should be my prerogative to change the license and notify users. Perhaps such changes could only be implemented with updated versions - after all, there's nothing to stop a user from continuing to use a version under the terms of the license provided therein - but even something as simple as posting notice on the thread and/or Spaceport page my be acceptable. tl,dr: "Reserved" is the most important part of "all rights reserved" and there's no reason licenses should be permanent and immutable.

To each his own, but if I wanted to play "Unmanned Space Program", I'd just launch Take On Mars instead. Give me something for my Kerbals to do! Probes in KSP are for people that are too scared to risk the lives of astronauts.

Thanks for the advice and the pictures. If I'm understanding this, you have an inverted fairing base as part of the structure of your command/service module? In other words, it's an integrated part that isn't discarded. I'm not sure I want that, as I'm trying to go for an authentic look to the CSM, but I'll experiment with it. As for the fairing dimension, I don't want to bulge it out beyond the normal 3.5m diameter of the rocket just to accommodate the lack of a slope on the fairing. If I could just get 3.5m walls that went straight up from the interstage base and then sloped in at a given point, that would work fine. Using the R key doesn't seem to adjust anything on an interstage base - the N is for the bottom radius and Y for the top. I wonder if it might be possible in future versions for a hotkey to adjust the point at which the fairing slopes inward. [EDIT: In the meantime, I tried your suggestion and it appears to work in terms of allowing adjustment of the point at which the fairing begins its slope. With the standard fairing ring on the CSM, it doesn't even look too bad! Thanks for the suggestion. Now we'll see how it works in flight.]

Kasper, I have yet to mod for KSP, but have done so for other games - and I feel the policy of requiring some sort of license is fine, providing that the author is permitted to choose the terms of the license. This protects the rights of authors while clearly delineating what the end user is permitted to do. There's a reason that all commercially available software comes with a license, however open or restrictive it may be. I think that the current policy is good - but it would perhaps help if recommendations were made as to what the license should explicitly cover so as to avoid omissions and ambiguity. "All rights reserved" is a simple and explicit license that leaves no room for misinterpretation, and on the other hand a license that says the user is free to modify and redistribute as they see fit is also pretty explicit. Confusion comes when an author may with to allow or protect certain forms of use but does not explicitly address them. It still wouldn't be a problem if not for the general misconceptions and, dare I say, legal ignorance of the average forum pundit - but in my experience, the concept that "omission of the explicit does not equal implicit permission" seems to be an alien concept in discussion of IP rights on any game forum.

What "SQUAD wants" is to protect the rights of mod creators. You make the mistaken assumption that they want what you want, which sounds like the unfettered ability to use other people's work if they decide to stop developing it. You talk about the "best interest of the community" without remembering that the community includes mod authors. Some of those authors would be disinclined to start a mod at all if it means that others could arbitrarily pick it up and change it. It's no different than writing a book and having someone else pick up your characters and your setting just because you haven't written a sequel in some given amount of time. SQUAD has made their intent on mod authorship and rights very clear - your confusion comes from trying to impose your desires and values onto the situation. Contrary to your belief, it is not in SQUAD's interest to "have some control over mods", and they feel no need to control how modder's rights are managed because they are aware of something you overlook: In games such as this, the less control a publisher exerts over how the game may be modified, the healthier the modding community will be. You don't have to take my word for it, you need only look at The Sims, Minecraft, Battlefield 1942, and Half-Life as examples. And yes, each of them has had its share of mods that burned brightly and faded - yet it's clear that none of that "made the game look bad". If I make something and decide to share it with others, that in no way determines or limits my rights to it. It doesn't obligate me to do anything - it doesn't mean I must continue to update, it doesn't mean I must let others modify or continue it. I'm perfectly within my rights to stop whenever I want, and to take my work with me if I so choose. Modders aren't "working for hire" here, moreso because you're not paying for the mods in the first place. What you get out of it is the ability to enjoy their work for as long as they choose to continue to develop and share it. An expectation that this situation should be any different, that it should favor the desires of the user rather than the rights of the author, is historically proven to discourage creativity more than enhance it. You're right, this is not a "free market" - because you're not buying anything. You're not even paying for the "right" to use it, let alone modify it. You're being permitted to share something that another has created - and in my upbringing, it's been my understanding that if someone chooses to share something with you, that doesn't give you any say in how they do so.

OK, what I was originally doing was putting a 3.5m fairing base below my LM, an inverted 2.5m fairing base above it, and then the interstage on top to provide fairings around the CSM engine (for some reason, the decoupler wasn't sheathing the Service Propulsion System engine I was using). For some reason, this wasn't working - blowing the fairings would separate the CSM engine from the LM payload stage - but the fairing bases would stay attached to the LM... which was now unmanned and uncontrollable. I checked all my staging and there were no errors. So, this time I considered just putting the CSM engine against the LM docking port, to decouple manually after blowing the fairings. This way, I only need to use an interstage fairing at the base (because a regular fairing will cover the command module completely - including the escape tower!). The only problem I have now is that the interstage fairing sides are a straight slope from the base to the top radius - meaning the lander that would fit inside a 3.5m cylinder clips through the fairing walls about halfway up. What I need is a fairing wall that goes straight up for most of the way, then tapers to the smaller diameter. I'm sure such parts exist in a variety of mods like KW, NP and AIES - but of course I deleted those parts for space on the conventional wisdom that PF can do all that by itself. Perhaps it can - but if so, could anyone please tell me exactly how?

You're playing a game - have you forgotten that? I was unaware that there was someone to whom my fun is accountable. aside from myself. What do you say to the people who contend that video games "encourage lazy behavior"? I beg to differ - I learned quite a bit about the game by watching how MJ did it. And during that time, I wasn't gated by my inability to do them unassisted, so the learning curve didn't stand in the way of having fun. That's a possible outcome - but it says more about the mindset of the player than the mod. Some people would rather build things, and leave the flying to the computer. They're unlikely to lose interest just because of an autopilot. In fact, they may be less likely to quit in frustration because they have to do all that other stuff to make their station or moonbase. Other people might decide "I want to learn how to do that myself" and make the effort to learn the skills - and in the meantime they can continue playing. Your last sentence says all that needs to be said on the matter - "to each, his own". I don't think anyone should worry about what others think about how they choose to play their own game. This is a single-player sandbox, not a competitive multiplayer game.

Let me ask you (and those who share your sentiment) one simple question: How many games did you used to play that you no longer play any more? I'm sure there are many - some, I'm sure, you participated in to a considerable extent - but months or years later, you haven't played them in a long time. Now, imagine for a moment that you had made mods for some of those games. Should you be required to stay active in a game just because others feel you owe it to them to continue those mods? Should you be forced to relinquish any control or authority over what you've created just because others have become so dependent upon your work that they cannot fathom doing it themselves? Greys and Regex have very valid points. If there's a mod out there that is no longer being updated, create a new one that does the same thing. You'll be able to do it your own way - and you'll learn soon enough just how annoying it is when others tell you how it "should" be done or pester you for updates or demand that you hand over all your work to them because they've arbitrarily decided that it's been too long since your last update. Watch how fast this game starts to look like a job. For those of you who feel things should be handled differently but can't write your own mods? Too bad - if you can't do it yourself, that doesn't entitle you to determine how others must hand over their work for your convenience. This is a hobby - no one here owes anyone anything, least of which is rights to use or modify their work. Consider this: Even SQUAD is under no obligation to continue development of KSP, and not one of you would dare to claim that we'd have the right to modify and distribute it if they stopped doing so. Why should a mod shared freely have fewer intellectual property rights than something you had to pay to get?

I agree with your general sentiment, but if I understand correctly, Squad hasn't done anything like this before. They're not a game developer or publisher; they are a marketing company.

Indeed. I have read a number of excerpts from Jim Lovell's time on Geminin VII with Frank Borman. The two of them were at the end of the rope, physically and emotionally, by the end of two weeks. Even simple things like toileting and changing clothing became trying. A lunar mission in a Gemini craft might have been possible, but an interplanetary trip would have required some serious modifications to the capsule and the payload.

HOME was updated for 0.21 about a month ago... http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/0-18-1-h-o-m-e-start-kit/

I know it's not exactly a sound aerodynamic principle, but even in real life it's true: With sufficient thrust, lift is not a concern. There are real aircraft that only stay aloft because of the ridiculous thrust behind them.

It would at least be a good way for me to get rid of sub-par applicants, since I can't just reject them and get better ones in the Astronaut Complex...

I will do SCIENCE to it! I plan on adding laboratory capability to my existing stations, and probably building dedicated orbital scientific platforms. I will launch survey expeditions to Mün and Minmus and this will probably be the thing that gets me to start looking into interplanetary missions.

You may have solved my problem, here - though it will be a couple days before I can test it. I was having some problems at that point of the mission profile. I'll post pics if I can't sort it out.

But it didn't have the wicked blue ground-effect lights and stadium seating for nine. (But yes, the Gemini was awesome too. I just wouldn't want to have to try and use it for anything but low-orbit uses).

It is a much needed thing, for me.

Are you kidding? While Jebediah is alive, no one is "safe"...

This is how heavy lifters should be - I appreciate that they have low parts count and actually look like rockets, rather than dozens of jumbos in a pancake formation. However, I do find it confusing that the version numbers don't relate to payload capacity in any way - with the Zenith launchers, for instance, the higher the model number, the greater the capacity. It makes it easier to know which one I need without some form of reference.

I'm not sure how anyone can have a strong opinion on a feature that doesn't even exist yet, but the nice thing is, you only have to play in Career mode if you choose to. Complaining about one's choice to participate in something they claim not to like, in spite of it not existing yet, seems absurd and ridiculous.

Thanks, I will give that a try! I'm certainly glad for a high-capacity lifter with such a low part count - much more streamlined than the monstrosities most people recommend for that kind of payload.

I was trying to do a design just like that yesterday - but it gyrated like a hula girl on the way up, until I jettisoned the lower stage. Not sure what I did wrong...

They're not missing, but it's not "just you"... it's everyone who doesn't read the FAQ on the first page. That's where you'll find the missing parts.

I think my favorite part of this is the OAM - it's allowed me to do away with a cumbersome tug. It's a very elegant solution to station assembly and can even be used by itself to adjust a station's orbit. I tried the Munshine VII to loft a new one-piece station yesterday but it didn't look like it was going to get anywhere close to breaking atmo, let alone making orbit. Can it really take 75 tons to 75km? If so, what did I do wrong?