JeanRenaud

Gone from "12 FPS, wobbly rockets, and 100% GPU usage" in the first version to "never less than 40 FPS, stiff rockets, and maximum 75% GPU usage" on 0.2.0.0, with my GeForce GTX 1660 Super. I would say that this progress is quite satisfying, for a system below minimum GPU recommended specs. Everything over 30 FPS is okay for me, and even better 40 FPS. And that is at max quality settings. Having 100% GPU usage could give more FPS, but i think by getting just 75% GPU usage, my GPU fans are making a lot less noise, which is a good compromise for me. Getting more FPS over 40 would not give any advantage in this kind of game where reflexes are not the point.

Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 10 | CPU: i7-6700K 4 GHz | GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Super | RAM: 16 GB When doing tutorials, pictures and videos are missing over 3D-rendered environment. There is only the border of the image or video. Th initial full-screen video also is not workiong, there is a black windows instead. Included Attachments: Ksp2.log

Reported Version: v0.2.0 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 10 | CPU: i7-6700K 4 GHz | GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Super | RAM: 16 GB Images talk for themselves. A pill-shaped object appeared in the KSC view after recovering a landed vessel. This "object" seems to be located at a specific place because when we zoom out, it "shrinks", but it will also disappear if we rotate the camera enough. The object seems to disable rendering of the water in the field of view, but not the land and the sky. Included Attachments:

I confirm, seen it too. 0.2.0.0

Killed two Kerbals because i did not have a heat shield in low orbit. In KSP1 the MK1 was able to withstand a low orbit re-entry without a heat shield. Why does this changed ? The fact that you have to research three levels deep of science to reach the "heat shield part" is quite surprising, since this is clearly required almost at the start of the campaign. Heat shield should be put inside the "Light Launchers" category, the same way it is put in the first category of the second page.

I did too. I killed two Kerbals. Why does KSP1 tolerates no-shield Low orbit, and KSP2 does not, is interesting. The other question: Since this is an issue now, why does they do not put the heat shield in the first objects we must "research" before going to orbit ? We have plenty of options of research and we probably can build something able to launch to other planets, without having unlocked the heat shield... that seems like a death trap considering the "experience" people got in KSP1. I noticed in KSP1 the specs of max temperature for MK1 is "850K inside / 2200K skin", and in KSP2 it is "850K" without giving skin/interior differentiation, could it be for this reason ? Kerbin atmosphere cannot be suddenly thicker... And why does the command pod explodes if there was no plasma trail ? Maybe just because the reentry effects are not yet perfect ?

So far, with my GTX 1660S (under minimum spec) and the rest of the PC over the minimum specs : 0.1.1.0 : ~15 FPS in every quality settings 0.1.2.0: ~19 FPS all HIGH, ~23 FPS all MED, ~30 FPS all LOW. I would say this is significantly better. Maybe poor for some people, but OK for me. This is nice too see an impact of the quality settings ! For me it seems that "Ground shading quality", "Texture quality" and "Cloud quality" will have a big impact on performance according to their level, but the remaining parameters can be maxed out without any negative effect. I prefer V-Sync OFF, because now with a reasonable FPS, but FPS still lower than the refresh rate, the V-Sync ON seems to cause hickups in the frames. [Edit :] I have set an hybrid V-Sync mode in my GPU settings, which is "close to the speed of the V-Sync off but without deformations", it seems to work better than the built-in V-Sync from the game.

Considering that framerate is still not at its best for me, I really do not wish any better graphics than what is currently here with KSP2.

Ok i see it now. I was just "Refreshing" the download page, maybe my browser was showing a cached version of the page. I logged off then on, then got back on the download page to fix the issue.

The patch is currently on Steam, but not yet on the KSP / Private Division website.

I think people have misunderstood "performance". They were talking about performance of the engines, because you all know it, engines are so performant that you can launch the entire KSC to space.

I think you need to remove a "zero" from your number.

My specs could be worst, though. I tried it while unplugging my dedicated GPU and using the integrated graphics card, an Intel HD 530, and i was getting 2 FPS, and that's half the time. The other half, the game crashed while loading a saved game. KSP 1 with low graphics setting on the integrated GPU was running ok, at least 20 FPS on ascent.

My specs : - CPU: Intel Core I7 6700K @ 4 GHz - GPU: NVidia GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER 6 GB - System RAM: 16 GB DDR3 RAM - Storage: SSD M.2 - Display: 1080p, 60 Hz - Settings: 1080p, High/Low does not make any difference, so everything on HIGH but VSync OFF - Vessel parts count: 20 (including two launch clamps) Results : - 60 FPS in VAB - ±200 FPS in main menu - 60-70 FPS in space, looking only at the vessel and the sky - 15-20 FPS in space looking at Kerbin (filling 100% of the screen) and the vessel - 30-40 FPS at Kerbal Space Center - On LaunchPad, awaiting launch, 35-40 FPS orienting the camera to NOT see the ground, then 25-30 FPS when looking at the ground - On ascent after launch, 25-30 FPS orienting the camera to NOT see the ground, then drops as low as 12 FPS when looking at the ground Turning on VSYNC can drop the FPS to single digit in the worst case. Clearly, the physics have indeed an effect on the framerate (awaiting launch VS ascending), but they are not the only culprit, since looking at the planet worsens a lot the FPS. Again, outside the VSync, the other settings at HIGH or LOW does not seem to change the performance significantly. If i get 25 FPS at HIGH, i can get 27 FPS at low. 27 is still poor so i don't consider it an improvement.

Hi everybody, Good news ! I got an email from Private Division. The download issue is fixed. The 300 seconds expiring timestamp is still present in the download link, but it looks like now, it is probably just a limit for "starting" the download, not for "completing" it - I can't really know why, but it works. I downloaded the last version, 1.12.2, it took 8 minutes and everything is fine. I can open the ZIP file and everything.