Bej Kerman

I think he said he was working on something Kerbal-esque. We now know this is KSA.

SCANsat

You don't? It's not like high planetary densities break the laws of physics (in case you missed it in my original reply, you can get similarly dense things in real life), and patched conics were good enough for the Apollo program. It's dishonest to say that's the same as littering the system with literal black holes and labelling them "lagrange points". My point being people don't understand why this isn't the obvious, simple solution they make it out to be. Dense 1/10th planets and Kepler orbits give people a good enough idea of how rockets launch and travel through space - black holes don't give people a good idea of how lagrange points behave. It's only me and Squad in agreement.

Yes, for someone who doesn't mind their lagrange points acting like black holes. I've nothing against players who want that, but I do want to debunk the idea of this being an obvious solution that Squad somehow missed for so many years. Kepler's rules do a good enough job of estimating slingshot maneuvers and the like, but having black holes sitting at the L1-2 points is simply a bad approximation, one that Squad wasn't able to justify enough to actually implement. The KSP planets are dense but it's nothing that breaks any laws of physics. There are things in real life with densities that compete with Kerbal, like white dwarves. Principia mostly agrees with the stock patched conics over how a vessel in a low orbit around Kerbin or Jool should behave. The planets being a bit dense isn't as bad realism-wise as having black holes sitting at each L1/2 point which have no effect on the planets - in which case, if Squad implemented that into stock, it would give newcomers a bad idea of how lagrange points behave.

My condolences.

Low priority, hopefully. Then RW can focus on Windows where all the gamers are, and Linux where all the power users are.

Funny that, character A is called a moron for trusting steam statistics, character B will happily trust steam statistics in many of their posts and be esteemed for it.

A niche game like KSP, and not something as widely popular as The Outer Worlds?

I also love arguments built around the strawman fallacy, because replying to the actual argument is too difficult.

KSA's early access will be free.

???? I still don't know what else "all titles held by the publisher" is meant to mean to us.

"x through z" surely includes y?

Yes. I mainly find it funny that attitudes have circled round from "KSP 2 will fail, drop the hopium" to "T2 sold PD, Rocketwerkz is making a space game; KSP 3 confirmed!".

I agree. I'm not sure that many people realise PD isn't just Squad plus KSP and its ports/sequel, but also... I'm guessing The Outer Worlds is the biggest one here. I don't think RW could afford it (they can hardly afford to maintain Stationeers), let alone all these other games just for the sake of Kerbal fanservice and avoiding coming up with a new identity. The KSP ripoff title is a working title and it's probably not a hint that RW has been organising a buyout of PD so it can sell another KSP sequel. Plus, interstellar and colonies are not confirmed. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it would have to contain these late-game elements for them to sell it as "KSP 3" to new buyers who were disappointed that KSP 2 didn't have these features.

Definitely take this Wikipedia page with a grain of salt, but bear in mind the price is a little heftier than just the Kerbal IP. The Outer Worlds alone probably makes up a good chunk of that price.