Kerbart

I've seen some good streams, and I've seen some bad streams. And yes, more bad than good, but failure is part of the game too, and seeing "well this used to work just fine" fail is, in my eyes, very educational and sets my expectations for 1.0 (as being a tremendous rediscovering journey again. Joy!) What does annoy me though, is the tremendous lack in presentation skills. "Well this is KSP, what do you expect?" Well, it's KSP streaming so part of that is presenting. People just staring at their screen and not at the camera and only mumbling things like "let's raise the apoapsis" without really talking to the public... is not good. I'd rather would have enjoyed two one-hour videos that were well edited, scripted and presented than the current 48h marathon with a lot of... not so good video.

I guess that ends the discussion. The amount of arguments you show is overwhelming and hard to counter.

1) Yes, they can do something about it. Not about the crawling itself. But the "incentive" for crawling is monetizing it through advertising it (as Sumghai mentioned, likely AdSense) and reporting him to AdSense and other services will quickly put an end to his income and thus his actions. 2) I'm pretty sure the TOS of the forum contains some boilerplate that prohibits this behavior.

I'm always amused by the entitlement of the gaming community that everything should be free. Because somehow, people getting compensated for the effort they put into things makes them dirty. Those of you who feel that way, please PM me, we're looking for tons of people at our office to do all kinds of job, and we love having you on board as you think money is dirty and you don't want any of it! These monetizing schemes have a tendency to sort themselves out. You will see quality publishers who have a stellar reputation. Then you'll see the rest who produce crap. My prediction is that the quality producers who want money for their mods will put out free versions with limited functionality or limited parts, to get a feel for what you'd be paying for, and after getting burned two or three times by paying good money for a bad mod the consumers will quickly "demand" (or not buy) trial versions of new publishers. I've seen this before with FS9. The vast majority of the mods would be free and varying in quality. And then there would be the airplanes and scenery you'd buy for $25-$30 (with FS9 selling for $20), and boy are they worth it. And don't you think the forum would get a review section for mods if this model persists?

Oooh. Is this why my list of completed contracts resets to zero from time to time?

The title of this thread is a bit misleading. It suggests that Steam would charge us for having access to (free) mods. "Steam will allow mod creators to charge for their mods, if they want" It's not mandatory and the price is set by the mod creator, not by steam Depending on the game this might not be a bad thing People making money for the work they do is not always a bad thing Would people only stick to free mods? Remember if you're going to charge for a mod it better be fiddling awesome. Look at the modding industry around Microsoft Flight Simulator; the high quality mods easily sell for twice to three times the price of the game alone. Of course these are mods with hundreds of hours if not more of development behind them. It also creates an ecosystem that is very much alive long after Microsoft abandoned FlightSimulator. I don't see it as a bad thing. It doesn't mean the end of free mods. It does mean that the good mods we have now can become even better, with a very attractive incentive for continuous development and with less chances of mods being abandoned or even withdrawn.

Let's not forget that the track record of said experts is not squeaky clean either. Time and time again we see "experts" claiming that things are perfectly safe (Fukushima is a good example) only to learn that those claims were hollow phrases. Why would the public trust experts if there's a track record of lies and deceit?

I'll likely update my "Vanilla" version on Tuesday or Wednesday, and play it to see how it looks. And then update my "play" version a week later once all the mods have been updated and don't give their "we're not working anymore" error messages.

Oooh. Looks a bit like "Action Stations" but then multiplayer and in space. Action Stations. Am I showing my age here?

Define best? For me, the best is gif movie gear. Of course my definition of "best" is "can squeeze a masthead or skyscraper ad into a 35kb file to meet publisher requirements," ymmv.

The best way to get boots on the ground on Venus is to stick them to a robot lander.

Try minimizing it after pausing. That works for me at least as it stops rendering the screen it seems.

Wait until you've tried notepad++. You will never go back.

So, if I understand correctly, you can have all the numbers (not just Ap and Pe, but also inclination, longitude of the ascending node and argument of the periapsis) match and still go in the wrong direction?

"One point Oh, Just Say No?"

The good news is this is only a beta version. Like good sane developers, Squad will test all these new features with their userbase before implementing this pretty much untested with the public, so they'll have it right for their 1.0 version, right? Guys? Guys?

I think we're talking about two different things here. There's testing 25 parts in a single mission. That's absolutely fine. And then there's delivering a satellite in a certain orbit, and then moving that satellite to a different orbit to cash in on that contract. Same thing with recycling the same craft to cash in on a mission to orbit a station around Kerbin, then around Mun, and then land it as surface base on Mun. To use the Fedex analogy: they'd deliver a laptop to the front door of your house. Then they pick it up, (after succesfully delivering it and getting paid for it) and deliver the same laptop at my house. Would you be happy with that? Would you consider that cheating by Fedex? I would. You'd have to assume that someone wants a space station of surface base and do things with it; not that they're paying you to see if you're able to put it there and then don't care that you pick it up. The missions where you have to put something in orbit should have a mechanism in place (removing the craft from the game, specially marked parts, whatever) to prevent this from happening and it doesn't. Until then I will be happy to abuse that mechanism, as I see it a a challenge to maximize contract income, but I do find it, in a way, cheating.

Part of the reason that A-380 is so expensive is because it is designed to be used for multiple decades. The useage profile is also different. If airlines were tasked with "get my cargo up to 35'000 feet and you don't have to worry what happens with it after that, and let's do that only four times per year" they might decide to use an entirely different design that indeed features one-time useage, just because it fits their business better. The reality is that NASA is a large, schizophrenic government organization. At the very top (congress) decisions are not made based on rational business decisions (the business being getting as much Science possible with available Funds <-- see what I did there?) but based on congressmen who want to be re-elected and want to get some of that juicy tax money to land in their state. And then at a lower level you have day-to-day management who has to pick up the pieces and is left with a set of ever-changing long-term goals ("let's go to moon! NO! Mars! NO! ARM! NO! the moon! Mars! Mars! Mars!"), discouragement of succesful long running missions ("it's eating up our budget") and because this is all tax money "failure is not an option" leading to conservative overdesigned missions that take forever to get off the ground. And then there's SpaceX with clear fixed goals and a different mindset as they don't have answer to congress. Failure is an option and SpaceX can afford what NASA can't: the time tested approach of "throw spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks." Which short turn gives you failures, but longer term gives you tons of data and the ability to avoid your mistakes. The only way NASA can trust their engines is by expensive certification and overengineering. The way SpaceX will trust their engines is by having a track record of dozens and dozens of launches. To go back to an airplane analogy: do you want a SpaceX pilot with 15,000 hours of actual experience, or do you want the NASA pilot who has never flown before but can show he's up to the task with an impressive portfolio of written tests he passed?

Some consider it cheating, but it's more using loopholes that may or may not be against the spirit of career mode: fulfulling multiple missions with the same vessel. This is not the same as the "piggyback" contracts that El Coyoto mentioned, but a bit more devious: Combining a surface base contract with a space station contract. Make sure your contraption meets both requirements. Then for instance, your contractual Mun base can first fulfill a "put a space station in Kerbin orbit" contract, before you send it of to Mun Combining multiple "put a satellite in a specific orbit" contract. Again, check at the launch pad that you fulfill all requirements (some contracts require a goo container or materials bay), determine a wise order (increasing semi-major axis and/or inclination for instance, watch out for retrograde orbit contracts) Also, and you may already know this, read your contracts carefully: space station and surface base contracts only require space for x Kerbals. You don't have to put them actually on board. Just as in real life, your mission profile gets a whole lot cheaper when you can plan one-way missions.

While these are marketing blunders of the first order, it's important to keep in mind that Squad is a software company and has no background in marke.... ooooh, wait...

There is never a dull moment; keeping up with station-keeping will be quite the challenge.

And boosters. Don't forget the boosters.

I think it's safe to assume that "the rotation takes place in the plane that contains both vectors A and B" making this automatically a rotation in a two-dimensional plane (but not necesarilly and in fact highly unlikely, a plane perpendicular to the x, y or z-axis.)

Yeah, originally the photo was just a big black rectangle. They added the two dots (using large soft brushes in photoshop) later.

That reminds me of the classic coders joke/sad reality. Rookie coder writes a routiine for a shopping cart, storing the items in a fixed sized array for a maximum of 10 items. “But what if someone wants to order eleven items?†The next day he returns with his updated code: the array is now sized for a maximum of 11 items. Show this example and someone will write code to make it work. For this specific example.