Bej Kerman

And it's a "solution" that Squad has thought of and has been suggested, but deemed too inaccurate to implement. An approximation of lagrange points you can do gravity assists around is a crap approximation, and to say it fits in with the rest of the game is silly because 1/10th planets and kepler physics at least give people a good enough idea of how spacecraft fly around in the real world. The planet Kerbin, 1/10th scale planets, and the gravitational maneuvers you can perform using stock Kepler physics have real world analogues, and you can teach players principles like gravity turns and gravitational slingshots with these - but there are no real world analogues for magic black holes that can remain fixed at L1/2 points without perturbing the system they're in. Not unless you bring the bar for "real world analogue" way down. That's to say: it's not, as some people think, a case of Squad developers being too dense to bother with an obvious solution. Even with KSP's less realistic aspects considered, it's still a bad solution. Okay, so you haven't read the entire reply you quoted (75 words, only 13 of which ended up in your quote). I said in the reply the point of this discussion was to debunk the idea people have that "this is an obvious solution, I can't believe Squad was so dense they didn't think of this". I couldn't care less about the mod itself, it was only the catalyst of the discussion.

I think you might be missing the point. People think this is an "obvious solution" and Squad are a bunch of thickos for not thinking about it, but they have thought of it and it just isn't good enough for stock KSP, even compared to minifying the solar system so launches are quicker and distance-related errors aren't as bad. I don't actually care about using or complaining about the mod myself.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that Rocketwerkz could probably finish KSA and the bespoke space simulation engine it runs on before modders can decompile KSP, port it to Unreal, and convince the new IP owners to allow its distribution.

You think an ultra-dense planetary body is in the same bracket of unrealism as a system full of dozens of black holes that miraculously balance themselves at all the L1/2 points of all the moons and planets? Because it's not. 1/10th scale planets with kepler physics is good enough for introducing players to gravity and space travel, representing lagrange points as black holes was not 'good enough' for stock KSP. Reality doesn't validate the image you have of Squad's developers all sitting around a table thinking "how could we possibly represent lagrange points in a keplarian universe?" and failing to think of what this mod does. They certainly thought of it, and they certainly heard it a lot from players, but it's not the "rather obvious solution" you think it is. Black holes that you can use to swing 180 degrees in your orbit is clearly not the miraculous key to L-points in keplarian physics that Squad was looking for.

The "turn KSP 1 into what KSP 2 promised" modpacks will never be complete unless modders can implement the features KSP 2's dev team said would be required to avoid the late game being a milk run slog.

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.

So Rocketwerkz can afford PD and its many IPs. What does it do with all the IPs that aren't KSP?

To be fair, "maybe the new owners will fund KSP 2 development" probably isn't as ridiculous as "I hope Rocketwerkz bought it"... because a collective of indie developers just has a spare few ten million hiding inside the good sofa cushion, so they can use just one of the IPs owned by PD to avoid coming up with their own identity. I do believe I remember Dean Hall expressing at one point that he doesn't want the protagonists to be death-happy, which would be a lot of baggage to shake off the Kerbal IP after years of in-jokes about Jeb and Bill doing suicidal stunts. And again, KSP isn't the only IP owned by PD, so it's a stupid amount of things to buy from T2 just for the sake of reviving one IP.

It definitely isn't coincidental.

Cause these act nothing like lagrange points. MODERATOR NOTE: This discussion was split off from:

Does it? SFS 1 played like SimpleRockets 1 (AKA Juno 1), extremely simple rockets and a limited parts selection in a 2D 1/20th scale solar system. Extremely basic game. Their marketing promo now for SFS 2 just seems like "Look! We can also make a 2D game then sell a 3D upgrade!". No mention of the colonies or interstellar travel that you'd need to be worthy of the "KSP 2 ripoff" title.