KSP2 Hype Train Thread

[shdwlrd]

1 minute ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

We're still missing seriously critical info.

Is raytracing required? That's the only reason I can think of for the RTX requirement.

[Vl3d]

4 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

We're still missing seriously critical info. What size ships are we talking about to run at what FPS with these specs?

It doesn't matter. There's no point in advertising min specs that only run a 300 part ship. The game has to run well for all gameplay situations. Including multiplayer and interstellar and colonies and multiple 1000+ parts spaceships on the screen.

[mcwaffles2003]

3 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

Is raytracing required? That's the only reason I can think of for the RTX requirement.

I highly doubt it, are there even any games out there that only raytrace and have no rasterization?

1 minute ago, Vl3d said:

It doesn't matter. There's no point in advertising min specs that only run a 300 part ship. The game has to run well for all gameplay situations. Including multiplayer and interstellar and colonies and multiple 1000+ parts spaceships on the screen.

Context matters, especially when 75% minimum players wont play 2000 hours to get to endgame stages

[Minmus Taster]

I don't care about specs after 3 darn years. I am going to play this game even if it's for only a minute before the keys turn to ash as I press them.

[shdwlrd]

2 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I highly doubt it, are there even any games out there that only raytrace and have no rasterization?

Not that I know of. My thought process here is the reflections and shadows are using RT? If it was just rasterization, the 1060, 1080, and 1650 are very close performance wise to the 2060 when the Tensor cores aren't used. Even with Tensor cores, the mentioned gpus are only slightly behind the 2060. The only real differences is raytracing and the 1% lows.

[Alexoff]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

KSP2 will have a lot of rockets on-screen and colonies in the near future. This is the price we have to pay for a multiplayer universe.

I am afraid I will not live to see this future, most likely by 2079 I will die of old age.

[mcwaffles2003]

2 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

Not that I know of. My thought process here is the reflections and shadows are using RT? If it was just rasterization, the 1060, 1080, and 1650 are very close performance wise to the 2060 when the Tensor cores aren't used. Even with Tensor cores, the mentioned gpus are only slightly behind the 2060. The only real differences is raytracing and the 1% lows.

I get the logic, but does a 5600 XT raytrace? I think its about the VRAM if anything

[Emanuel01]

 

The fact that they published the system requirements alongside the version of the game suggests it could get more optimized in the future. Perhaps those requirements will get lower in the 1.0 version

[gussi111]

Just now, Emanuel01 said:

 

The fact that they published the system requirements alongside the version of the game suggests it could get more optimized in the future. Perhaps those requirements will get lower in the 1.0 version

Lower? Really?

[snkiz]

9 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I get the logic, but does a 5600 XT raytrace? I think its about the VRAM if anything

It has No RT hardware whatsoever. So that copium bottle is empty. 6gb of vram is nothing special either.

[Stephensan]

11 minutes ago, Emanuel01 said:

 

The fact that they published the system requirements alongside the version of the game suggests it could get more optimized in the future. Perhaps those requirements will get lower in the 1.0 version

this is more of a "brute force to get playable framerates" rather than a game..

 

it really put me into question how far are they really from having this game out into 1.0

 

you can have 100++ fps on ksp 1 if you throw that much horsepower at it pretty much any game at that point. and it feels like the same ol same ol thing but now with a higher specs needed.

[Vl3d]

Just now, Stephensan said:

you can have 100++ fps on ksp 1 if you throw that much horsepower at it pretty much any game at that point. and it feels like the same ol same ol thing but now with a higher specs needed.

So doesn't that tell you there's a lot of new things under the hood we don't know about?

[Alexoff]

It would be interesting to see what proportion of Steam users can play on the minimum settings, and what proportion on the recommended ones. 3080 have 1.83%, 3080ti - 0.74%, 3090 - 0.53%, 4090 - 0.23%. I'm too lazy to calculate the proportion of video cards with minimum requirements, but I think a maximum of 20-25% of users will be able to run the game.

[KSACheese]

3 minutes ago, Stephensan said:

this is more of a "brute force to get playable framerates" rather than a game..

 

it really put me into question how far are they really from having this game out into 1.0

 

you can have 100++ fps on ksp 1 if you throw that much horsepower at it pretty much any game at that point. and it feels like the same ol same ol thing but now with a higher specs needed.

Not to entirely refute your points, because I agree that the system requirements seem a bit excessive, but I meet and surpass the recommended specs, but only get 100+ FPS either if it's completely unmodded or in the VAB and or SPH. For most of my experience, my framerate goes down to between 20-50 FPS.

We'll be able to compare next week, I suppose.

[royying]

Just stick with your existing config for 1 or 2 years, at that time a mid-tier display card might have a similar performance as RTX 3080

[Vl3d]

Just now, royying said:

Just stick with your existing config for 1 or 2 years, at that time a mid-tier display card might have a similar performance as RTX 3080

A 4070 Ti has similar performance to a 3090 Ti.

[JcoolTheShipbuilder]

1 hour ago, Yellowburn10 said:

A week before launch, and it seems like this game is having a more turbulent touchdown than a ryanair landing.

idk I thought a ryanair landing looked buttery smooth compared.. but... Lets just hope that there may be some optimizations in the future. I do plan on building my own pc in the future but... jeez the requirements

[Stephensan]

Just now, Vl3d said:

So doesn't that tell you there's a lot of new things under the hood we don't know about?

no, i just stated what it shows..

 

ksp 1 can be brute forced.. And it can be brute forced with graphics mods to get playable frame rates, and if ksp 2 is doing the same thing, but needs higher specs, its nothing new and it wasn't ready to be put out into beta.

 

if the mix of minimal and high settings has to go off there is only one small, short few second scene that makes me think "oh yeah i need a 3080" in recent videos

no, this doesn't give me the feel it needs that much horsepower

https://youtu.be/XAL3XaP-LyE

Deff not this

https://youtu.be/XAL3XaP-LyE?t=201

its this scene https://youtu.be/XAL3XaP-LyE?t=258

and what im really worried is that this split frame is going be the difference between high and low 

 

this right here was JUST on the "Kerbal Space Program 2 Early Access Gameplay Trailer"...

 

like that is a huge start difference.

 

and for people that won't look at the videos, its the same thing..

 

the complete confliction of what they show on graphics makes it completely incomprehensible to judge if the game is going to look good.. the top photo makes me think, yup, that is 100% needing my gpu horsepower and i completely understand that it needs a 3080. but the second one completely without a doubt looks like it can run on a gtx 1060 3gb. 

 

and just after that scene, does that look like it needs a rtx 3080 before it fades with the added smoke effect? no? there is zero ground to see what the game looks like at its best, we have been repeatedly shown "poor" looking photos past weeks now. and this video with the addition of the specs makes me wonder how bad it really can be, are they brute forcing it, or are they showing something that isn't going to have playable framerate.

[Minmus Taster]

Half of the communities PC's on the 24th:

I need to make funeral arrangements for my laptop, it's probably going to fry itself to keep me from buying the game.

 

[Profugo Barbatus]

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Man everyone ragged on Squad but turns out running a solar-system sized physics sim is hard. 

Excuse me, that's completely misrepresentative.

Its a simulation of a stellar cloud, not a solar system. Way more bodies and interactions, way more floating point math to keep track of, way more space for me to fill with lost kerbals that need to be tracked.

/s

But really, I get everyone being a bit salty about this, but as I said earlier, their min spec is half decade old hardware. That's not in the slightest way unrealistic, even disregarding the particularly high level of power required to run a robust simulation of any kind, much less what is functionally multiple simulations stacked atop each other, capable of being accelerated to compute at speeds at a minimum 100,000x the real time level. More, probably, Interstellar probably will have an extra tick on the time warp. That is not easy to do anything at that level, and we need it as a basic game fundamental. Then throw in the inevitable asset chaos of loading a massive colony while a player suicide burns on a fusion drive with a large vesse towards a rapidly loading in planetary surface, while running physics, resistance and heat numbers and occlusion across the entire vessel, without the game breaking on a fundamental level. And it just so happens a lot of physics and simulation loads are actually excellent work cases  for operating on a GPU, which is designed for mass simple mathematical calculations in parallel.

By comparison, rendering graphics atop a relatively constrained simulation like firing stat sticks at each other in cyberpunk is a fairly modest ask. There is far more in the equation that sheer visual spectacle. Were it so easy to make the simulation half of anything run performant, my game dev hobby would be making me a millionaire right now.

[shdwlrd]

1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I get the logic, but does a 5600 XT raytrace? I think its about the VRAM if anything

1 hour ago, snkiz said:

It has No RT hardware whatsoever. So that copium bottle is empty. 6gb of vram is nothing special either.

As snkiz said, no, the 5600XT doesn't do RT well. But it does support AMD's FSR. You can do upscaling like DLSS to help with your frame rate. Maybe that's the point of the 2060RTX and 5600XT. Maybe they are suggesting that upscaling will be necessary for the lower end of the specifications.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

3 hours ago, gussi111 said:

So what would be the recommended GPU for 1080p high? Would a 3060 be enough?

Yes

[The Aziz]

3 hours ago, Stephensan said:

rtx 2060... that is just the opposite of mid range,

At this day and age? It is mid range. As the comparison picture earlier shows. I bought my 2060 almost 3 years ago and even then it wasn't the top model because 2080Ti/S were already out and ruling, and 30xx were just around the corner. The only reason why some people aren't considering those cards as mid is because of crypto fiasco, and the prices going to space.

To put it in different words, RTX2060 is older than KSP2 announcement trailer.

2 hours ago, gussi111 said:

Lower? Really?

Yes, really. Like I said somewhere before, my experience with later versions of alpha KSP1 was much better than the earlier ones, except maybe for the 0.9. I expect the same here, because why wouldn't I, it's a matter of optimization.

Goodbye, I have better things to do, an update for Slime Rancher 2 is just out.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

It would be interesting to see what proportion of Steam users can play on the minimum settings, and what proportion on the recommended ones. 3080 have 1.83%, 3080ti - 0.74%, 3090 - 0.53%, 4090 - 0.23%. I'm too lazy to calculate the proportion of video cards with minimum requirements, but I think a maximum of 20-25% of users will be able to run the game.

To be fair - this is PC gaming. 

Folks need to move on from their 5 year old GPUs at some point. 

And... To be fair to the devs - if the recommended game spec was a Nvidia 1070 - we'd all be losing our minds asking "what the hell have they been doing these last 3 years?!?" 

Fact is its not their fault that Covid + China + AMD and Nvidia reaping huge profits off the card 'shortage' (which set the new floor for pricing) made the cost of cards abjectly ridonkulous. 

So, yeah - them saying the recommended spec is last Gen's upper tier (but not enthusiast class) card is right on the money 

Edited February 18, 2023 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Talka]

So… yikes. Those system requirements are really, really alarming. 

I’ve been fully on the hype train from the beginning, and frankly thought the scaremongers complaining about an early access release, lack of new features, low resolutions, and low frame rates were being… well, stereotypically over-reactionary angry gamer nerds.

And, sure, these requirements could change before 1.0.

But this is suuuper suspect. Nothing we’ve been shown comes remotely close to justifying system reqs at this level. 

FWIW, this isn’t just sour grapes. I upgraded my PC last year and exceed the recommended specs. But the chances of this being a fundamentally broken product have increased significantly given the reqs they’re asking for the performance they’re marketing.

Edited February 18, 2023 by Talka