Pecan

Well yes, Sharpy - look at all the caveats and the fact the second case lost. Also note that what constitutes 'fair use' is very variable and it's not even a recognised defence anyway in some jurisdictions. For the record, I still intend to publish - and mention both the name and owner of KSP. Lot less interested in doing so than I was a couple of years ago though.

Welcome. Do you make mods as well as using them?

Hehe, about right. To be clear-ish (different jurisdictions and all that, IANAL), you can mention or refer to other works - such as using the title "Kerbal Space Program" - as long as you make it clear yours is in no way officially connected to it or endorsed by its owners. You must also be very careful about how much of their work you include. Screenshots are a no-no according to Squad but it's moot as to whether you dare mention the names of the parts, let alone quote their descriptions, etc. Different companies vary in their attitude; JK Rowling and Bloomsbury probably wouldn't worry if one of your characters was said, in passing, to be reading 'Harry Potter' whereas Disney - who are famously litigious - would have you in court before the ink on 'Mickey Mouse' was dry.

In exactly the same place - in my case C:\Program Files\KSP_win\saves KSP is a well-behaved application that doesn't sprinkle files all over the folder structure.

You just missed it half-price on Steam.

That bunch have been taking 'pre-orders' for their book for at least 2 years. When I wrote my KSP book I checked what was already out there - at the time the were planning to publish on Amazon in 'Nov 2014'.

I edited my original answer but, yes, if you want to completely uninstall that version then just delete that folder. Everything is contained within it, except your original download.

C:\Program Files\KSP_win Unless you installed it somewhere else. It's a good idea to keep your original downloaded .zip file or installer so you can revert to a previous version if you want to. Rather than uninstall you can just rename the folder instead, eg; C:\Program Files\KSP_old, or something. That way you can have multiple installs of the same or different versions. Squad have repeatedly said they're fine with that. For people who downloaded from Steam instead of the KSP store the folder is C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\KSP_win. You may similarly move or copy this folder for multiple versions/installs - Steam will only maintain the one within its folder.

As Vanamonde has said, you need permission from Squad - and you won't get it unless you are doing it for free. As well as copyright on the game, etc. they have trademarks on various words and phrases so you can't even mention them, the game's name or use the word 'Kerbal' at all. They also refuse permission to use any screenshots from the game - although you can create your own artwork "inspired by a game I'm not allowed to mention because it's owned by some people who I can't mention". I know - after the success (>100,000 downloads) of my Exploring The System guide I wanted to publish the new version as an ebook. Best way to do that was Amazon and you can't publish there free, so a nominal fee was going to be charged. It took months and several emails to get Squad to even say 'no' to screenshots (I originally intended to have some explaining the settings, etc.). They completely failed to ever come up with attribution text, or even to agree the boilerplate version I sent them ("Squad have asserted their right to be identified as the authors of Kerbal Space Program"). No notice was taken whatsoever of suggestions of them employing me to write an official manual or of me paying them a licence fee. If you might make some money it's a no, end of story. On the other hand; if it's free, they're usually pretty relaxed about things. Just make sure you do check with them.

"SSTO"? Do I have to say anything more?

Exactly. So when someone mentions SSTO <celestial body> why should people not assume they are talking about a Single Stage between the surface and Orbit of <that body>. A "Dres SSTO" means nothhing more than a vehicle that can go from the surface To Orbit of Dres in a Single Stage. "SSTO" doesn't even say anything about being reusable or being able to complete a round-trip. You would not expect from the designation that the vehicle would, in fact, be designed for travel to Kerbin (or anywhere else) or to be a spaceplane (the mission being all in vacuum). As per my original post; all my Dres landers are SSTOs, with the additional features of being reusable and capable of a round-trip (down and back up). To describe them as "SSTO"s is not enough - how much more does a reusable vehicle designed to launch from Kerbin and complete a Dres round-trip deserve a better name than "SSTO". Such a design would be complicated and inefficient just for the sake of it but, in any case, still makes no mention of 'spaceplane'. My whole point here is that saying such a vehicle is Single Stage To Orbit says nothing useful but several misleading things about its design. "Reusable Single Stage Kerbin Surface To Dres Surface And Back" does it (without mentioning spaceplane) but is rather a mouthful. Thing is, "Reusable" implies "Single Stage" and "And Back", while the opposite implication is falacious (making a pedant like me shake his stick). How does "RSS K-D" suit everyone (Reusable Surface-Surface, Kerbin-Dres)? Add 'spaceplane' if you feel the need.

Welcome back. And your specialist subject is ... ? (Go on, you know you want to tell us, it's interaction. We do want to hear too *grin*)

Like nascarlaser1 said - print it and pin it to your wall. You got bragging rights :-)

Still learning. Thanks RIC

"Delivered it to Ike's surface by using fuel from that same stage" leaves room for a) First of all I'd assume that meant from LKO to Ike surface with a single stage, after jettisoning stuff once you'd reached LKO in the first place, b) jettisoning stuff once you'd re-reached Ike orbit either time or c) not coming back at all. None of those restatements are very interesting, per my original post in this thread - a Dres trip is trivial compared to an Eve return. You didn't claim any return or reusable component so that's moot but without that a Kerbin SSTO is a vehicle that's "complicated just for the point of it", much more so for something that goes beyond LKO. Per my reply to Firemetal; please don't think I'm trying to get at you except for the use of terms. If you want to make it a "Single Stage To Dres And Back" I have no problem with it. If you want to make it a Kerbin SSTO that melts in the sunlight after reaching orbit I have no problem with it. If you want to make it a spaceplane ... well that's fine too. Just don't say "SSTO" when you mean something else.

No, of course I haven't been watching his videos, why would I? If someone asks a question I hope it provides the information necessary to answer it - possibly referencing the videos needed to understand their mis-use of jargon. I also hope it doesn't abuse terms like Single Stage 'To Orbit' to mean 'To Dres', otherwise how is anyone meant to know? Unless this thread is just about promoting a disinformation video channel, what would be the point? What's a VSSTO got to do with anything? Why would anyone make any sort of interplanetary SSTO? If you talk about SSTO <celestial body> why should people not think you mean about using a Single Stage To <that> Orbit? Why should we even consider 'reusable', let alone 'from Kerbin'? PS: Before answering you should know I've annoyed lots of people by being pedantic about this point. (Hint: don't let me annoy you - just consider what 'Single Stage To Orbit' means, what 'spaceplane' and 'reusable' mean and then use those terms any damn way you please; if you think I'm trolling the only correct response is "don't feed the troll" ^^). I'm sticking with 'pedantic until proved wrong'. [Yes, you can take this as self-reporting. No-one should be upset by this or any other posts I make. I'm not getting-at anyone, just pointing out what 'SSTO' means]

I see no mention of spaceplane. I see no mention of Single Stage beyond (Kerbin?) Orbit. I see no mention of 'and back'. From where do you derive your information?

You're not the first person that has reported this but I've just tested and 'L' works fine. It makes sense that the icon on the UI doesn't work as that's linked to 'U' for vehicle lights. So, not a common problem but one that has affected other people. You are not alone ^^. ETA: Might be useful to know which build number you have (bottom-right of the main menu screen)

All my Dres landers are SSTO, it takes less than 1km/s dV. Just getting to Eve is three times harder than a Dres landing and reorbit. So, I don't understand the question. Do you mean you intend to launch your Dres lander/transfer vehicle(s) with a SSTO? Even that's easy unless you also make the SSTO recoverable and, preferably, reusable. ... Ooooh, were you thinking of a reusable SSTO launcher? Surely you weren't thinking of taking it all the way to Dres? Reusable, interplanetary, Dres lander? Riiiight ... ok, one of these missions is complicated just for the sake of it and misuses the term 'SSTO', the other is something people might find useful. Question kind of answers itself after all.

Welcome to the forums and your KSP addiction. Your fellow psychologists may find you an interesting case study ;-0 When I started there was only sandbox but I think you've done the right thing going for science. Career is far too complicated to be a good introduction for new players, with all the concerns about costs and reputation as well as contract, strategy, building and astronaut management. You are probably also wise to not mod much on a 32-bit machine; it is very hard to resist adding one or two (... and then three or four) though. Have fun.

If you look at the options under difficulty there is actually one that would affect ship performance - re-entry heating. A ship that survives with that maxed should be far more robust at 'normal' levels but, conversly, would be higher-mass and more expensive in the first place, as it would have to have more/heavier heat-shielding. Accordingly it would perform worse in all other situations where cost, dV and TWR are the major concerns. All the other difficulty options just make it harder to get things in the first place (higher costs, lower rewards) or magnify the cost of failure (permadeath, no quicksaves, no reverts, etc.) ETA: If you want to build good ships, stick to sandbox where you have all the parts available and can use the optimal ones for the design requirements.

I was too late (at version 0.23) to get the Steam offer but I got the impression that it was time-limited anyway, Do you still even have the option? Coincidentally, I've just been on Steam and was wondering whether to buy a second version of KSP there as it's so cheap. In the end I couldn't think why I'd want to, apart from being able to write a review (which are currently only at 94% positive - which reminds me, I must throw a banana at @Alshain, even if he is right *grin*).

Greetings alien. What is a president and why whould we give Val to it? PS: Did the airforce not teach you to avoid runways at all costs? Everyone can see you there ^^

Awhh, the point is it's not that 'bad'. It's more a 'brave' or 'interesting' thing to try, as Sir Humphrey would tell the minister. That other people have found something a bad idea does not make it bad for someone else to try. It just shows how 'brave' they are being in trying to make something work where others have failed. Similarly, it is more 'interesting' than copying the many alternatives that have been shown to work. What I hope is still true of the community here though is that we can celebrate newbies first orbits and moon-landings, even while we think 'I can do it in a tenth of the mass/for a hundredth of the cost' ... "Can I do it in a tenth of the mass? Oh, how can I shave 10k funds off this vehicle?".

Launching things like that is a nightmare so construct them in orbit, with docking ports, or hyper-edit them up there once built on the ground. Once in space any old thing will manoeuvre fine (within TWR limits) as long as the axis of thrust passes through the CoM, otherwise it will spin and be uncontrollable. For something like the ST Enterprise, with high-mounted engine nacelles, that means angling them aft-up/fore-down to get the thrust right. Alternatively, add another balancing engine in 'whatever-that-bottom-keel-hull-bit-is-called'