What kind of PC would I need to play KSP...

[Pipcard]

...on the highest graphics settings, with fancy visual enhancement mods, at 60 fps (30 fps at least)? With Fraps or Bandicam recording it as well?

I want to get results like this.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Pipcard

[Aladran]

Correct me if I'm wrong but those graphic aren't from the game itself, but a 3D editor with added effects.

[Pipcard]

Correct me if I'm wrong but those graphic aren't from the game itself, but a 3D editor with added effects.

They are from the game, in the reddit comments he says he's using several shader and graphics mods and a "workaround" 64-bit version of KSP.

I'm using the generic GemFX injector and the following mods: Planetshine Windowshine Distant object enhancement Ven's stock part revamp Astronomers Visual Pack Scatterer

[Alshain]

I'm using the generic GemFX injector and the following mods: Planetshine Windowshine Distant object enhancement Ven's stock part revamp Astronomers Visual Pack Scatterer

To answer the question, a "modern day" with 4GB of Ram and a dedicated video card.

[Ignath]

Correct me if I'm wrong but those graphic aren't from the game itself, but a 3D editor with added effects.

I believe you are wrong. The guy who posted that image on Reddit said he used some SweetFX, PlanetShine, EVE, Scatterer and DOE to get that look.

In response to OP; you may want to wait till the game has completely been moved to Unity5 before making your decision. KSP is NOT (bolded for emphasis) an graphically intense game. It is VERY processor-intense and can currently only process physics on a single-core as well. Unity5 update may change this and multi-core processors may be a bit better.

[Laie]

KSP is mostly limited by CPU, and right now it's basically single-threaded. So it doesn't matter if your processor has four, eight or 1024 cores. Get one with a high clock rating and overclock it beyond recognition. If you want 30 fps on a non-trivial vessel, water cooling probably won't suffice anymore.

Other than that, you'll want a good video card (good will do, no need to go for excellence). 8GB of RAM (preferably more, but 8 should suffice for a *lot* of eye candy). Any current hard disk.

[Pipcard]

This is my current PC, by the way. I got it in 2012. Edited July 15, 2015 by Pipcard

[CalculusWarrior]

Honestly, you don't need that high-end of a computer to play KSP on max settings (but you're definitely going to want a separate graphics card), but the more powerful your computer is, the more active flights you can have before the game begins to slow down. The same goes for ship size and part count.

About a year and a half ago I basically purpose-built my computer to run KSP well (I wanted to actually be able to have clouds! ) and I learned that generally you want the fastest per-core CPU you can find, i.e. an Intel chip, as AMD produces chips with multiple cores which all run slower, but provide better multithreading support. This is due to all versions of KSP so far only running calculations on one CPU and not making much use of the GPU nor other cores much at all.

However, with the devs moving to Unity 5 for 1.1, you will want to make sure of a couple of things. For much better performance in the long run, consider getting a Nvidia card; their PhysX software is built into Unity 5 and so this will offer a nice performance boost compared to nowadays. I'm not sure what sort of multithreading improvements Unity 5 will bring, so I can't advise you there, but if someone knows more about that sort of thing, feel free to improve on this answer.

My computer has the following specifications (I've omitted parts which don't have much of an impact on performance, e.g. the motherboard, hard drives, etc.):

CPU: Intel 4670K (3.4 GHz)

GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX760

RAM: 8 GB

I also run the game on an SSD, which makes loading the game up much quicker.

All in all, go for a computer with at least 8 GB of RAM and a reasonable graphics card. You don't need a terribly fancy GPU, just enough that it can take the limited tasks its assigned from the CPU and let that do all the physics calculations. If you intend to build your own computer, you can also overclock the CPU for better performance.

Let me know if you'd like more information on the topic; the main takeaway is that you don't need a super high-end gaming computer to run KSP well, just a competent graphics card, a reasonably powerful processor, and a good amount of RAM.

[Alshain]

I had trouble finding it earlier, new website and all. But here is what squad says.

https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/kspstore/index.php?p=22

- - - Updated - - -

This is my current PC, by the way. I got it in 2012.

That would be good but it needs a new video card. The AMD Radeon HD 6410D is an APU which means the GPU and CPU are a single shared unit (also called "Integrated Video" as opposed to "Dedicated video"). That is fine for business applications but most 3D games will struggle. It does look like you have a PCI-E expansion slot, so you could add one and disable the integrated video without replacing the computer.

Bear in mind there are no rules or laws for using the word "Gamer" but quite frankly that is a lie.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Alshain

[LittleBlueGaming]

I'm sure others can give better answers, but I'd imagine you'd want something around the adeon R7 260X, GeForce GTX 750 Ti or GTX 960 2GB

[Ignath]

I'm sure others can give better answers, but I'd imagine you'd want something around the adeon R7 260X, GeForce GTX 750 Ti or GTX 960 2GB

Wouldn't even NEED anything that powerful. I had a GTX550Ti and KSP ran on full graphics settings without any lag or stuttering due to graphics. I have since upgraded to a GTX770 and notice very little improvement graphically.

[LittleBlueGaming]

Wouldn't even NEED anything that powerful. I had a GTX550Ti and KSP ran on full graphics settings without any lag or stuttering due to graphics. I have since upgraded to a GTX770 and notice very little improvement graphically.

I'm planning a new build, and haven't even been looking below those. Seems the performance per dollar just drops off too much to consider.

[Pipcard]

So, just for a minimum investment, would the addition of a graphics card to my current PC be enough to significantly improve performance? (I'm not talking about getting the best performance right now, just an improvement)

[selfish_meme]

No one has mentioned this but that guy is running a hacked version of KSP that you may or may not be able to get to work. If you want to reliably run all the visual mods you will want to run Linux. In which case you will want an Intel CPU and a discrete nvidia graphics card. I was playing with most of those mods last night and it used 68% of my 8gb. Or 5.6gb of RAM. If you are new to Linux I suggest Ubuntu, steam and the linux support thread.

[Alshain]

So, just for a minimum investment, would the addition of a graphics card to my current PC be enough to significantly improve performance? (I'm not talking about getting the best performance right now, just an improvement)

The gritty explanation involves something called Cache, which is memory... on the processor, and also system RAM. Cache is faster because it is right there on the die, where RAM has to be accessed through the motherboard, and the slowest forms of storage are your SSD and then HDD. So, each processor can have it's own cache but with integrated graphics, the GPU shares the same cache as the CPU (in your case you have a 1024 killobytes L2 Cache and no L3 Cache). It also shares the same system RAM, of which you have 8GB. By comparison, by Nvidia GTX560Ti has 4GB of it's own memory, not counting the 8GB I have of system RAM and I'm pretty sure it has it's own cache but I'm not sure how much.

That doesn't even count the GPU's processing abilities. I know mine is 900Mhz on the GPU but with integrated graphics, it's really hard to say, they don't advertise it.

TL;DR Yes, the biggest improvement you can make is dedicated graphics. The CPU is kinda mid to low range but is still fine for KSP and the RAM fine.

No one has mentioned this but that guy is running a hacked version of KSP that you may or may not be able to get to work. If you want to reliably run all the visual mods you will want to run Linux. In which case you will want an Intel CPU and a discrete nvidia graphics card. I was playing with most of those mods last night and it used 68% of my 8gb. Or 5.6gb of RAM. If you are new to Linux I suggest Ubuntu, steam and the linux support thread.

umm, no. I run all the visual mods under Windows 7 on a custom built 2012 computer (actually, older cause I didn't buy the latest and greatest). I use Linux too, but that install has a lot more mods than just visual. EDIT: Except scatterer... I'm just not a fan.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Alshain

[keeper]

Probably something like that ^^

I have AMD 64 bit 8350, 8 cores

nvidia gt 650 ti boost 2gb lol

8gb ram

ssd

I crank the rendering quality to high, have terrain details on, textures to half res :/ to save memory for mods, left the lighting/shadows default, terrain detail on medium (wishing to put on high)

It runs ok, about 30fps... When theres less than like 50 parts fps can go from 45 - 60.

500+ parts becomes more of a slideshow on launches, depends how warm it is inside lol.

Graphics card fan goes like hell the whole time regardless, cpu usually around 25 % but smoothness generally depends on part count mostly. for me.

Probably if i had better graphics card it would run smoother. But I could always turn it down a bit.

[Pipcard]

That would be good but it needs a new video card. The AMD Radeon HD 6410D is an APU which means the GPU and CPU are a single shared unit (also called "Integrated Video" as opposed to "Dedicated video"). That is fine for business applications but most 3D games will struggle. It does look like you have a PCI-E expansion slot, so you could add one and disable the integrated video without replacing the computer.

TL;DR Yes, the biggest improvement you can make is dedicated graphics. The CPU is kinda mid to low range but is still fine for KSP and the RAM fine.

What's the best video card that this CPU can handle?

[Alshain]

What's the best video card that this CPU can handle?

Well first it's not about what the CPU can handle, the CPU is mounted to a PCI-E capable motherboard (based on the pictures, you may want to confirm that) and so it can technically handle any modern GPU. However, the CPU may become the bottleneck which would cap the amount of improvement you actually get. The bigger concerns lie elsewhere. Video cards can be large, so you may not have room in the chasis. So take measurements where it would go to find your clearanc. Caution: Either shut your PC down or use a measuring tape (sewing), not a tape measure (construction) which is metal and can cause damage.

Then you have to be concerned about power supply, as bigger video cards need more power. See if you can find any information printed on the power supply unit that might indicate it's capability. You need to know the wattage and ideally the Amperage on the 12 volt rail. Sometimes they don't publish all of that unfortunately and wattage alone can be misleading.

As for which card specifically, I will have to defer that question to others. My card is as old as your computer (which isn't easy to find for sale anymore) and that is the last time I did any research.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Alshain

[T.A.P.O.R.]

I've had it running on max settings on a gt210 its about the same performance as on my gtx640 on the sak machine.

other games are a different story, but KSP is just fine.

[boxman]

...on the highest graphics settings, with fancy visual enhancement mods, at 60 fps (30 fps at least)? With Fraps or Bandicam recording it as well?

I want to get results like this.

To get this result with a low part craft, then pretty much any cpu will do as long as you have at least a gtx 750ti or better and with minimum 6gigs of ram. If you get a nvidia card you can also use shadowplay instead which will consume way less resources than bandicam or fraps.

I personally would get something better so you are more future proof though. Once KSP goes unity5 it should be able to push your GPU much further than it does now.

[selfish_meme]

umm, no. I run all the visual mods under Windows 7 on a custom built 2012 computer (actually, older cause I didn't buy the latest and greatest). I use Linux too, but that install has a lot more mods than just visual. EDIT: Except scatterer... I'm just not a fan.

Unless you are using the Windows 64bit hack, or the Directx11 hack, then my mods won't run on your computer, I have ATM aggressive as well and I am still pushing 6GB of memory used. I tried on a friends much better Windows PC and he could not even get Astronomers on EVE to run unless we removed a few components.

[Alshain]

Unless you are using the Windows 64bit hack, or the Directx11 hack, then my mods won't run on your computer, I have ATM aggressive as well and I am still pushing 6GB of memory used. I tried on a friends much better Windows PC and he could not even get Astronomers on EVE to run unless we removed a few components.

Well then you are doing something very very wrong, because there simply aren't THAT many visual mods.

I'm not sure what the DirectX 11 hack is? You mean forcing DirectX 11? That isn't a hack, it's a setting.

Seriously 6GB of visual mods? I can't even fathom what you could possibly be doing to get that. I have all the ones listed in that Reddit link, plus other visual mods and some part mods and I don't go over 2GB without ATM.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Alshain

[lost_in_space]

To answer the question, a "modern day" with 4GB of Ram and a dedicated video card.

4GB nowadays will have your hard drive spinning endlessly when accessing the web or your own hard drive. Avoid that frustration by getting at least 8GB.

[Alshain]

4GB nowadays will have your hard drive spinning endlessly when accessing the web or your own hard drive. Avoid that frustration by getting at least 8GB.

I think you may be exaggerating, but that was minimum specs.

[selfish_meme]

Well then you are doing something very very wrong, because there simply aren't THAT many visual mods.

I'm not sure what the DirectX 11 hack is? You mean forcing DirectX 11? That isn't a hack, it's a setting.

Seriously 6GB of visual mods? I can't even fathom what you could possibly be doing to get that. I have all the ones listed in that Reddit link, plus other visual mods and some part mods and I don't go over 2GB without ATM.

I have heard bad things about the DirectX 11 'setting', sorry I don't use Windows anymore and am not up to date on what goes on. So is it officially supported for KSP or is it a Unity CLI thing?

This is my mod list, I am using the high 8K textures for Eve and Astronomers (which is what I guess this guy wants to do). When I checked last night KSP_64 was using 68% of my RAM

ActiveTextureManagement MechJeb2 RCSBuildAid

BoulderCo ModuleManager.2.6.6.dll Squad

CollisionFX ModuleManager.ConfigCache StockBugFixModules

DistantObject ModuleManager.ConfigSHA TakeCommand

EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements ModuleManager.Physics TextureReplacer

IntakeBuildAid ModuleManager.TechTree TriggerTech

Kerbaltek PlanetShine