Search the Community

You have to use Youtubes dispute system, and good luck with that. Google has no Live customer support for any of their sites or services. Unless your like a multimillion dollar company .. then you can talk to someone. You being a "Nobody" as google see's it have to just deal with them through Email. Be very very clear on the videos content. Don't say anything that could be taken as a admission of guilt. When dealing with any of google's services you have to think like a lawyer. Otherwise you're screwed. I found this out the hard way. Google banned my adsense account last year claiming fraud. They wouldn't tell me what had occurred, or on which my my sites, either my blogspot account or youtube. Also note, Google's policies on Adsense use, if your site or videos are viewed by a bot or series of them that interact with the ads, Google will use that as a excuse to claim fraud, even if you had no responsibility for the Bot or its actions. This is what happened to me after a LOT of digging through my sites activity logs. Bot swarmed on my blogspot site, and google banned my adsense account and refused to reinstate it even after I showed them evidence of what happened. You get 1 and only 1 appeal with any issue on a google site, if that appeal is denied your just out of luck Google won't respond to further inquires.

I had only one Sim City video. All other videos were KSP. Just one simcity video and it was flagged for copyright music, the music was the background music of the game. I didnt upload more simcity because of it. All music I used for KSP was free to use. I was very careful to find content that was allowed so this didn't happen. I also posted the license and copyright to all my video descriptions. It's the Kevin guy Kurt Jmac uses and other popular you tubers use. You tube does not tell you why and I've tried the appeals system. The only take your email. There is no one to appeal to or contact that I can find. I think it's EA too but I don't know who to talk to resolve it.

Hey, Gillbald found it and decided to use it. See the smile? He's very happy about finding such an amazing "just lying around" part to slap on his rocket. You'll have to take it up with the little green feller. I tried to talk him out of it...

Well, in KSP, asparagus staging works good, at least, it depends about the rocket. However, when we talk about real, earth drag, then it become a total other story. So, asparagus staging can help a lot in some cases, but in some other cases, it don't really helping anything.

That makes sense to me. People talk about how a decent drag model would kill asparagus, but I'm far from convinced. We're only that concerned with drag for the first 8-10,000 metres anyway, and to a first approximation an asparagus rocket is just a load of individual rockets flying in formation.

Sure, why not. Brace yourself for nostalgia and photo-avalanches! I went to Duna. It looked in phase, and I had a very successful Mun rescuer. I rebuilt it into an interplanetary lander, with satellites, cart-mod rover probes, the lot. I tested it extensively on Kerbin, and found it could land with only the derouges, and a little engine thrust, so I assumed I'd be good for Duna. Enough talk. Here are the pics: (Yeah, this was before I knew about F1) They've been there for about two years. I needed to send them some extra stuff so they had the Delta V to get home. That extra stuff: Those are arms to grab the command module. Not a sail.

Flying, discovery, mining - okay, thats some pretty noble goals. But first, someone has to fly the ship, make the discovery and use the resources. It all starts with little, green guys So, kerbonaut training is the thing i chose to vote on. Currently Bill, Bob and Jeb are known to everyone - they are icons of space program, and rightly so. But the rest? They are literally "the other guys" - we talk about them only if one has unique name, or survived a huge disaster. With personal stats and training allowing to customise them even further, every single kerbonaut will be distinct and important. And will add another major layer of management of hum...errr, kerbal resources to the game.

About 1-2 minutes under Linux, 3 minutes under Windows (identical hardware -- dual-boot system). Which is really odd when you consider the Windows hard drive has a faster seek time than the Linux one -- literally the one aspect where their hardware differs, and Windows has the upper hand yet comes out on bottom!! (We won't talk about my laptop, where I really can't even fly ships in excess of 4 or 5 parts and yet I try to fly my 400-500-part ships on it anyway!!) Only mod installed is Subassembly Loader. I do use symlinks and Dropbox to keep everything in sync between my various computers.

That would be Skykooler. He is indeed on the forums, except that I believe he's dropped the project. I intend to talk to him about getting the source code so I can clean it up and release it (with credit of course!).

When I talk to others I tend to call them Rockets, when alone in the VAB I give them alot of different names, dependant on Function, Target, my mood, a lot of things, for example my first Jool Mission was named Julia I tend to give my spaceships female names, for ships are always female, and spaceships they are (and Rockets, and orbiter, and stations, and drones, and catastrophees and ... well I like to refer to them as space ships and give them fancy names )

KSP is great because: It has given my something to totally let my inner nerd shine. It's great because I can talk orbital babble and have my friends give me sideways glances. It's great because it is one of the coolest feelings to see someone who says they would NEVER play this kind of game find their way to the Mun in awe of their subtle yet grand accomplishment.

Since the forums have been knocked out and this thread no longer exists, we need a new one Talk about anything in Minecraft, share stuff you built, just have it INVOLVE MINECRAFT! I build my houses into large caves on the surface. I shape it how I need it to be, fence off the top, and then add rooms for all my needs.

This is pretty close to the limit of my understanding, too; a satisfactory answer here really requires a quantum gravity theory. Part of the problem is that we always talk about gravitons as perturbations around a background metric - but in the black hole case Schwarzschild (or Kerr, etc.) is the background metric, which means that the information regarding the propagation of gravity away from the black hole is already contained in the background. Attempting to describe the singularity itself perturbatively runs into renormalization issues and generally fails. You can consider propagation of gravity waves due to a change in the position of the black hole - this is the subject of the numerical relativists working on binary black hole mergers in conjunction with LIGO on the experimental side - but even those calculations are considering perturbations well away from the two black holes and the event horizons; the collision itself is handled non-perturbatively. However, K^2 is correct that virtual particles are not confined to behavior on the mass shell. This is one of the ways to think about Hawking radiation - you have correlations between virtual particles on either side of the horizon which result in an energy flux across the horizon. Gravitons can be approximated by a massless, minimally coupled scalar field which certainly obeys the properties K^2 describes. Now, if we want to get speculative and start talking quantum gravity, things change. There's some indication, based on generic properties of candidate quantum gravity theories (and supported by some of my own, soon-to-be-published research in stochastic gravity) that spacetime is not four dimensional on small scales, but rather two-dimensional. The geometry may be something like a 2-complex (to understand what a 2-complex is, think of an arbitrary graph in 3 dimensions - containing vertices connected by edges - and allow that graph to evolve in time such that each vertex traces out a world line and each edge a world sheet, but also vertices are allowed to merge and split so that the graph changes shape from time slice to time slice). If this is the case, then (on a given time slice) a black hole would look like a graph where every vertex has many connections leading towards the singularity and only a few leading away, such that any particle random walking the graph has an overwhelming probability of falling towards the singularity. "Gravitons" in this picture are the connections in the graph itself, so the singularity is still gravitationally connected to the outside universe. Of course, this is only on such picture (one suggested by the Loop Quantum Gravity approach, but also not incompatible with several others); it is by no means the only picture, nor is there any reason yet to believe that this is the way things really are.

Howdi, I now have some of the various programs to model things, and animate...it seems to be actually more involved than I want to get into; complex; talk about learning curve...but KSP is one of the few programs I can do this in...indeed thanks for making the videos... My problem is which way to go and why... Some videos seem to have figured out a good seemless workflow; I also intend to make video shorts...kind of adds to the mix. My 2 big things are to make buildings that Kerbals can work in, and make the Kerbals themselves actually working in the buildings; this is actually beyond me cause I cant code the AI stuff even though I can program some C+; I just dont have the time and am not fluent. I also dont want to 'really' learn how to do much of this; but hey; the option is there and I am scratching the surfaces here. For animation I am using Poser; also for animating Kerbals and maybe buildings/parts ? I didnt know Blender does animation. Poser sems to fit my bill; I only need simple animations and can seem to setup key frames etc; that and adding voice/sounds to the animations; more learning curve but hey right !!!? I will check out the vids - in fact I may even go live stream (see my stream posts!) on it from scratch and see what transpires !!! If I can learn Blender anyone can right !! If I dont do so well thats just me; I am fairly technical so that does help. I also have 3ds max, unity 4, blender, lightwave, aurora 3d... I also may just make the building parts then just add them as parts for the game; lots of work. Wish me luck ! Cdr Zeta

I think it's to soon to talk about other stars. It will be more important when the kerbol system is finished and thats still a long way to go maybe you will be satisfied with it when its like the dev's want it. Altought something like in the space engine would be even more awesome its a freakin' overkill!

That is so far down the road that I don't think they've done anything more than spitball ideas, though there was some talk of making this solar system a binary or trinary with planets around each.

Sex is quite an embarrassing subject for biologists, because we don't know why it evolved, and more importantly, we don't know why it is maintained. Sexual reproduction is a massive cost to the organism because they not only need to find mates, but half of their offspring (males) do not directly contribute to growing the population. There are theories on why sex is maintained based on who you talk to. For example, parasitologists will point you to immunological models showing that more genetically diverse populations have greater resistance to, and smaller loads of parasites. As for the mushrooms, they're known as mating types, rather than sexes.

This one took me a while! It's also somewhat likely that I missed a rule somewhere... But, I've finally fulfilled Jeb's final wish! I attempted to do this manually, no MechJeb or other mods (other than a few blinking green and red navlights because... well... blinking green and red navlights). I was unclear if I could use "pauses" in my staging or if it had to be one constant stream of blazing glory straight into Kerbol, but I had to line things up manually on the final three stages, including a loooong trip to the solar apoapsis. Disqualified or not, it made for a fun challenge! But enough talk... I give you, The Suncoffin! The Suncoffin's launcher went through several... sub-functional designs... Until, finally, The Suncoffin Mk5 was born! The final count: 94 RT-10 Solid Fuel Boosters, only 8 of which were used outside of Kerbin's atmosphere (Pictured missing one final rocket booster added to the top later) Attempt #437 was going surprisingly smoothly. I achieved a ridiculously high solar apoapsis (almost to Jool's orbit), and had two boosters left with just enough power to burn retrograde and send the craft into a 53,000,000 km freefall. But then... That would be an ASAS unit... Not my fault, of course. Clearly, one of the Kerbal engineers had the blueprint upsidedown when installing that decoupler. Funny thing is, if you try to fire a booster directly into a corked-up passage, it goes NOWHERE! Well... not until overheating occurs, at least. So, naturally... I don't know if that counted as a firework, but Jeb woulda been proud! Surprisingly, that last booster actually had more than enough juice in it, even after spending almost half of it to cause the explosion. A little extra maneuver up and away to burn off the extra fuel (and add two months to the flight time...), and catastrophic success! The journey took 402 days... just 382 more than scheduled! Edit: Almost forgot the weight! I slapped a MechJeb on it to test: 362.76t

I just wanted to chime in to say that the reason I do my best to stay out of military aviation discussions on the internet is because 95% of people involved in them have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Nibb31 is not one of them. Thank you for this post. I personally really like the F-35 itself. The program is inarguably a mess, but to deny that the F-35 is far and away one of the most advanced and capable multi-role fighters out there is wrong. The weirdest part about it is that even though it's still coming out to be very expensive, when you look at the hard numbers it's not really much more expensive than say a Eurofighter or Rafale. There is one specific issue I want to bring up though, and it was mentioned previously in the thread. I hear the Harrier brought up many times and how its so great. People often forget the human factor. When a pilot is lost, for whatever reason, that's somebody who is now gone forever, and a family that is now missing a person. Safety is a very big deal. Whether it comes from the fact that the plane can get around the battlefield much easier using stealth, or the inherent difficulty of flying the plane. I personally know and work with a former Harrier pilot. He is glowingly proud that he's only had to eject from a Harrier once, and that he's still around to talk about it. The F-35 is an astoundingly easy plane to fly. You could teach a middle schooler how to fly the plane if they were willing to learn. Landing the jet vertically is so easy, helicopter pilots are upset about it because they had to do it the hard way.

You could probably fit Jeb inside and he would enjoy the ride but not the landing. As for stealth, you could shoot it down with an good air defense system, however the speed helps as if you can not detect it from decent distance it will pass fast. Stealth is just to make you harder to see on radar. And yes hopeless to talk about passenger planes, first use is missiles, then this work you start to think of space launches. Then this is economical and safe you start to think of passenger planes.

You need to understand something. It was not HarvesteR and I proved him wrong VERY easily. I mentioned a 24 live stream that xxleGoldFishxx did and I was live with him, Chad Jenkins, HarvesteR and I said what did my sponsors promise at the end of the live stream. If he would of know, he would have answered. But he rambled and tried changing the topic and then giving stupid responses. HarvesteR is a smart man, and he knows who I am, this fool did not. We arent stupid people, we know how to find things out, that is one of the good things about being on the interest and having a wide variety of knowledge in finding things out. Don't play us, we just want to play some Kerbal Space Program and TALK TO SOME PEOPLE. Not deal with this CHILDISH BULL like EVERYWHERE ELSE!

Ya'huh, now it's time to talk about MY RABBIT. *stuffs Carl Sagan McFluffles into your face* DEATH BY DIABETES!!! I've given up trying to make estimates on when I'll get an image done, so I'll just start using BobCat's "Soon" Hopefully that soon really means soon

They way they talk reminds me of some species in the game Spore. Excellent mod I have to say.

Now get to every moon, with a satellite orbiting it and land a rover on each planet/moon then we'll talk.

Not explicitly, but you listed preferring the challenge of stock KSP as your number one reason for avoiding mods. Not as your reason for avoiding overpowered or imbalanced mods, but all mods. And the other reasons are things I can get behind. I even mentioned something very close to one of your other reasons in my own post. And did I tell you that I thought you said any of those things? No, I didn't, and I apologize if it sounded like I was implying that. I went after one logical fallacy, and I should have done a better, less flippant, job of that. I'd rather you disagree with me because of sound reasoning than agree with me because of a logical fallacy. I'm not immune to that, so I don't mind it when people point it out in myself. I'm very much a "find the fun wherever you find it" kind of person/player, even when where you found it confuses the heck out of me. The only reason I'm (overly?) sensitive on this is because it colors the opinions of people that don't have any facts to form an opinion on. Most of the new KSP players I talk with fall into two categories (note: the proportions don't mean anything, as this could be viewed as a bit of a self-selecting survey). There's the players that load up on mods, sometimes to excess. There's the players that avoid mods like the plague, despite never having tried them, just because they've heard that mods take the challenge out of the game. Yes, there are players that try mods and find they like vanilla better, and I'm fine with that, since it's an informed opinion. The whole "I'm better than you because I play the game the way it was meant to be played," while sometimes annoying, is a separate issue and one that I would rather not stir up, other than pointing out that it exists in response to the "or anyone else" part of that third quote. Noone's said it explicitly in this thread, but I can assure you that I could point to several examples of that prior to the great forum oops, including one person going so far as to advocate that the devs should remove the ability to mod the game altogether. Trust me, I get why you went off when you felt like you were being attacked. While your post didn't feel like an attack, there have been posts that felt like a personal attack that basically read that all my efforts mean nothing because I use mods, despite the fact that I make an effort to avoid out of balance mods and parts. Most of the time, I just let it roll off, another uninformed opinion. But some times, you just want to stomp the logical fallacy flat before it infects yet more players. If the developers had enough time to do everything that the users could possibly want as soon as they wanted it, you MIGHT have a point. We don't live in that universe. In the case of not-unlimited developer resources, there will always be something that the devs haven't had time for. You're saying that I shouldn't be able to play with moving parts because the devs haven't had time to do their own robotics functions? Even if it's something that the devs plan on doing, having the modding community do it first gives the devs a look at what kinds of things worked and what didn't, reducing their development time. And this is a bad thing in your mind? I have to disagree.