Jump to content

how do u think the ksp 2 hardware requirement will be?

quangdinh

By quangdinh
in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

K^2

K^2

Posted
Posted
On 12/28/2021 at 3:08 PM, sunnypunny said:

i highly doubt an 11th gen i5 would be minimum, that's some beastly CPU power and judging by the dev posts i'd anticipate the sequel being reasonably well optimised.

I can't say for sure what Intercept's priorities are going to be like, but we usually only optimize games well enough to run on target platforms. The reason is that any engineers working on optimization aren't working on new features or fixing bugs, and engineers are always a limited resource. You get occasional exceptions in large companies, where they can throw enough engineers at everything, but even in some fairly impressive AAA studios that's rarely the case, and it certainly isn't for a small studio like Intercept. I don't think they're going to try and squeeze every bit of optimization out of KSP2. I think they'll try to get it to run well on a target platform, just like most other studios would.

The big question is what is considered to be the target platform. They might have a Windows PC with certain specs in mind, but increasingly popular is to use one of the consoles as the base. For current generation of games that's going to be PS5 as the slightly weaker (computationally) console. Meaning, if the game runs well on a PS5, it ought to run well on XBSX and a reasonably new mid-high gaming PC. The caveat is that historically, console CPUs were absolute garbage, so this was never a problem. We are, however, about to see a new wave of games that target PS5 as their base platform that will have rather beefy CPU requirements because of it. I do think KSP2 is a candidate for such a game, primarily, because it's already a CPU-intensive sort of game. So it wouldn't be all that unlikely for Intercept to just say, "Runs fast enough for PS5, ship it." And that would put min spec at 11th gen i7 or 12th gen i5...

Again, this might not be the case. Intercept might have a lower target in mind, but they could be too strapped for resources to really make it happen, so the only thing we can say for sure, is that do or perish, they have to get it running on PS5. Any additional breathing room they can make is a bonus. I hope they do. I hope they make the game accessible to as many people as possible, but I also don't want anyone to have false hopes that KSP2 will run on a potato.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sunnypunny

sunnypunny

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, K^2 said:

I can't say for sure what Intercept's priorities are going to be like, but we usually only optimize games well enough to run on target platforms. The reason is that any engineers working on optimization aren't working on new features or fixing bugs, and engineers are always a limited resource. You get occasional exceptions in large companies, where they can throw enough engineers at everything, but even in some fairly impressive AAA studios that's rarely the case, and it certainly isn't for a small studio like Intercept. I don't think they're going to try and squeeze every bit of optimization out of KSP2. I think they'll try to get it to run well on a target platform, just like most other studios would.

The big question is what is considered to be the target platform. They might have a Windows PC with certain specs in mind, but increasingly popular is to use one of the consoles as the base. For current generation of games that's going to be PS5 as the slightly weaker (computationally) console. Meaning, if the game runs well on a PS5, it ought to run well on XBSX and a reasonably new mid-high gaming PC. The caveat is that historically, console CPUs were absolute garbage, so this was never a problem. We are, however, about to see a new wave of games that target PS5 as their base platform that will have rather beefy CPU requirements because of it. I do think KSP2 is a candidate for such a game, primarily, because it's already a CPU-intensive sort of game. So it wouldn't be all that unlikely for Intercept to just say, "Runs fast enough for PS5, ship it." And that would put min spec at 11th gen i7 or 12th gen i5...

Again, this might not be the case. Intercept might have a lower target in mind, but they could be too strapped for resources to really make it happen, so the only thing we can say for sure, is that do or perish, they have to get it running on PS5. Any additional breathing room they can make is a bonus. I hope they do. I hope they make the game accessible to as many people as possible, but I also don't want anyone to have false hopes that KSP2 will run on a potato.

riiiight, so devs keep overestimating the requirements and everyone keeps on building up these ideas that humongous CPUs are required for gaming since sony made some deal with intel that benefits their bottom lines, meanwhile the thing is sitting there on < 10% load the entire time... :confused:

"but there's more to CPU processing than the load measurement in task manager" they always say back... why even bother talking? have fun

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
quangdinh

quangdinh

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 1/1/2022 at 1:57 AM, KSP_linux0191 said:

Here is my guess:

OS: Windows 10 and up, Mac OS X, uh, something and up (don't know much about Macs), Linux, Ubuntu; v20.04 and up, Debian; 10 or 11 and up, Other; made in 2019 or later

Processor: i5  i7 10th or 11th gen and up

RAM: 16+GB DDR4 stock, 32+GB DDR5 modded

Graphics: Ryzen 5 4+GB VRAM

I think that KSP 2 will be setting new hardware standards, not following them.

and my laptop might explode lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Aziz

The Aziz

Posted
Posted

I'm a proud owner of rtx 2060 and boy it does heat my room. Perfect for winter. Not that good in the summer.

Speaking of requirements, I feel like I should remind that console target is still PS4/XB1. This hasn't changed. Whether that's likely to happen or wise to do (financially, yes), I will not say anything because I simply don't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
K^2

K^2

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, sunnypunny said:

riiiight, so devs keep overestimating the requirements and everyone keeps on building up these ideas that humongous CPUs are required for gaming since sony made some deal with intel that benefits their bottom lines, meanwhile the thing is sitting there on < 10% load the entire time... :confused:

You have a very odd notion about how software development happens and how software works that are both very far removed from reality. I have actually worked on a title where we had a contract with Intel for additional CPU-heavy features. They have requested these to be optional and helped us optimize the game to make sure we aren't just heating air to no effect. The idea that Sony's somehow conspiring with Intel to sabotage performance is absolutely laughable. Doubly so, seeing how Playstation consoles have been running on AMD chips for over eight years now and have ran on Intel chips never.

2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Speaking of requirements, I feel like I should remind that console target is still PS4/XB1. This hasn't changed.

Other than the fact that they haven't bothered to update logos on the site, what makes you think this hasn't changed? We have not heard anyone directly state that these platforms are getting KSP2 since Intercept has taken over the project, and by this point, I very highly doubt it. Given how much KSP has struggled on gen 8 consoles, and that while KSP2 is going to be much better optimized, it's also far more feature-rich, supports continuous collisions, warp with physics, and multiplayer, all with a team of about ten engineers having to deliver all of that. The odds that KSP2 will be able to run on PS4 are not good. And I can't imagine Intercept wasting resources to try and make it happen when by the time KSP2 releases, we will be two years into gen 9.

I have high confidence that PS4 and XB1 support has been dropped over a year ago, and we just haven't had anybody bother to do a press release or update the website. This will likely come whenever there is an update on the release date or a renewed marketing push. It's not unusual for publishers to just "forget" to give the fan base bad news until they can cover it up with new hype.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sunnypunny

sunnypunny

Posted
Posted (edited)
  • KSP1 was thrown together by random indie devs and modders hired by a marketing company who never made a game b4
  • KSP2 is coming from a well-organised development team funded by a big publisher with a near AAA level production

and ppl think that the latter will be poorly-optimised in the context of the prequel and require an 11th gen i5 minimum [snip]. show me any game that requires such high spec on the CPU, nothing comes close. it's common knowledge that gaming generally puts very little demand on the CPU, but around here ppl think u need a ridiculous CPU bc they run tens to hundreds of mods with thousands of extra parts on a game that was never optimised well due to the way it was made, nor designed for this usage-case

[snip]

Edited by Snark
Redacted by moderator
Link to comment
Share on other sites
K^2

K^2

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 1/4/2022 at 10:38 PM, sunnypunny said:
  • KSP1 was thrown together by random indie devs and modders hired by a marketing company who never made a game b4
  • KSP2 is coming from a well-organised development team funded by a big publisher with a near AAA level production

Both KSP1 and KSP2 run on the same engine, both utilizing PhysX and GameObjects. And these things have not improved much in recent versions of Unity in terms of how they utilize your system's resources. They are still going to fully stall with your CPU showing 10% utilization, because the main thread is at 100% and all the other cores got nothing to do. There are ways to work around that, but that requires significant time investment.

And no, ~10 engineers is not a AAA team. I've worked for mid-size studios with over 40, and we weren't making AAA level stuff there. I've managed engineering team of similar size to the entire engineering of Intercept, but at a AAA studio, we were just one tiny team of many. Intercept has more experienced people that what Squad had when they started out, sure, but it's still an indy-size studio still working on growing to a mid-size.

[snip]

I have experience making games in Unity. I have shipped titles across multiple platforms on a proprietary game engine running PhysX, same physics setup as Unity. I have also shipped a title running completely in-house engine with fully custom physics. My previous job was Engine Lead at a AAA studio, and my current title is Director, though the team I currently manage is actually smaller. I have many years of experience with exactly this type of work ranging from being a grunt in the field doing the necessary optimization work to managing teams and deciding how the engineer time should be allocated to meet goals. I also have direct experience with software, tools, and platforms involved. And based on this experience, I doubt that Intercept would want to allocate significant resources to improve performance beyond what is necessary to get the game running well on a PS5. Stuff happens, and studio or publisher management could always push for a lower min spec, but if I was leading tech development on KSP2, based on features we expect, the timeline given, and the engineers I see available to the project, I would strongly advise against it, and recommend that engineers spend the time polishing the game with focus on stability and multiplayer instead.

[snip]

Edited by Snark
Redacted by moderator
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mcwaffles2003

mcwaffles2003

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 1/4/2022 at 10:38 PM, sunnypunny said:

it's common knowledge that gaming generally puts very little demand on the CPU

Generally games aren't doing 500+ part rigid body dynamics simulations while simulating resource management while tracking 10's or 100's of craft in simulated orbits with all of their resources also being managed...

[snip]

Edited by Snark
Redacted by moderator
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sunnypunny

sunnypunny

Posted
Posted (edited)

[snip] as u said devs don't spend much time on this, and from what i've read devs often just guess these based on a rough estimate. ur unlikely to spend time or have the resources to test ur game on a wide range of systems (the number of possible combinations makes this prohibitive) - or even have one (if any) lowend systems lying around as a test rig that might give u some idea of just how low u can push the minimum across multiple conditions (CPU/RAM/GPU). the best ppl to assess the minimum are in fact budget gamers trying to push the bar as low as possible bc it's all they can afford.

[snip]

 

Edited by Snark
Redacted by moderator
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snark

Snark

Posted
Posted

Some content has been removed and/or redacted due to personal remarks, off topic digressions, and other problems.

Folks, it's fine to disagree with one another, but let's please keep it civil.  Name-calling and finger-pointing doesn't win any arguments, and makes the forum a less pleasant place for everyone.

Thank you for your understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gargamel

Gargamel

Posted
Posted

More content has been removed.    Please remember that openly discussing moderator actions is not allowed.   If you have concerns regarding the Moderation Team's actions, feel free to contact us privately. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
miklkit

miklkit

Posted
Posted

So far all the talk of possible system specs needed are in intel/nvidia speak.  As someone whose last intel/nvidia rig was bought in 2008, this is all Chinese to me.  Could someone translate please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLTay

TLTay

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, miklkit said:

So far all the talk of possible system specs needed are in intel/nvidia speak.  As someone whose last intel/nvidia rig was bought in 2008, this is all Chinese to me.  Could someone translate please?

Find a roughly equivalent amd spec to the intel nvidia spec for translation?

Or run a free benchmark and compare where yours stands to the min spec.

If you're asking whether even a god-tier 2008 rig will run KSP2 well... probably not would be my guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
K^2

K^2

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, miklkit said:

So far all the talk of possible system specs needed are in intel/nvidia speak.  As someone whose last intel/nvidia rig was bought in 2008, this is all Chinese to me.  Could someone translate please?

PS5's CPU is effectively a slightly slower Ryzen 7 3700X, at least, when running on all cores. So that's as high as min-spec can go, because otherwise gen 9 consoles aren't going to make the cut.

Bellow that, it's hard to say. Incentive to spend time optimizing drops off sharply once the consoles can run the game, but even if Intercept stops optimization right there completely and call it good enough, there can still be some wiggle room. Like, if the game is still severely main-thread-bound, which KSP certainly was, then maybe 8 cores won't make much difference against 6 cores, and then Ryzen 5 3600 will do just fine, and that's a huge difference. So even going with this pessimistic view, it's hard to say. But 3700X is a good marker for, "At least, min spec won't be higher than this." If you have that or something beefier, you're good for sure. If not, we'll have to wait and see.

Rendering-wise things are way more complex. It's way easier to cut minimum requirements by degrading graphical fidelity without cutting into playability of the game. But I kind of think you'll want 4GB of VRAM, which does narrow things down to something reasonably recent. RX 470 might be a fine guess based purely on that. The performance is closer to a PS4 Pro, but there are games running essentially the same graphics features on that hardware at an ok quality and framerate. But depending on what Intercept does or does not let you disable, this can go quite a bit lower or higher. Like, if you drop atmospherics and procedural vegetation and tune down texture and shadow resolution, 2GB will probably do just fine, and then you can get away with an older or lower tier card. But if Intercept decides that you really, really need these fluffy clouds and dense forests, maybe RX 470 won't cut it performance-wise, and you'll have to have something better.

Worst part, given that CPU pressure will be pretty high, comparatively, at least, I don't even know if that's an incentive to be more flexible on graphics requirements or less? Given how many people won't be able to play without expensive upgrade because of an old CPU already, do you try to scrape as much as you can, and drop min spec on graphics dirt low? Or do you go, "Well, people who have that kind of CPU will have decent graphics as well," and crank it up? I don't know. That's for somebody in marketing to figure out, and that will play a lot into min spec on graphics.

And for sake of completeness, PS5's GPU is RDNA2 with 36 CUs. That falls somewhere between RX 6600XT and 6700XT. So the latter of the two basically guarantees that you'll be able to run same fidelity as PS5 or better. If for some reason you do want to just build a PS5-spec PC to ensure you have at least a base-line experience, that would be Ryzen 7 3700X CPU with RX 6700XT graphics and 16GB of RAM. Not that I would recommend doing this actual build, because that's a very unbalanced one, but it's a data point to get bearings from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
miklkit

miklkit

Posted
Posted

3.5ghz?  My 4.5ghz 3800X has that covered and 32gb of ram is enough.   The RX 6700XT is $1000 dollars!!!!  Nope nope nope. 

KSP is running on a very old and bad version of Unity and uses the vram of this Vega 64 backwards.  It makes it use system ram first and then its HBM2 ram, which results in poor fps.  Other Unity based games run with much less ram used plus they have higher fps and much better graphics.  I hope KSP2 is more modern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...