System Requirements

[PalowPower]

Hey There,

My Friend has a GTX-1050Ti and I'm not sure if he will be able to run KSP 2. He will run it on 1080p 60fps. 

And I will be running KSP 2 1440p 240fps with a RTX-3080Ti. Is it enough for KSP 2 at my settings?

[Kerbart]

As a GTX-745 owner I luckily don't have to wonder about such things. As of advanced cards right now, only time will tell!

[mcwaffles2003]

4 hours ago, PalowPower said:

And I will be running KSP 2 1440p 240fps with a RTX-3080Ti. Is it enough for KSP 2 at my settings?

Someone is confident in their CPU :p

[PalowPower]

4 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Someone is confident in their CPU :p

Ryzen 9 5900X

[mcwaffles2003]

6 hours ago, PalowPower said:

Ryzen 9 5900X

You got it overclocked to 10GHz or are you just that reassured in the optimizations

[Nazalassa]

System requirements: NASA computer for graphics and another one for physics.

[Sesshaku]

On 4/20/2022 at 6:48 PM, Nazalassa said:

System requirements: NASA computer for graphics and another one for physics.

That reminded me of an old youtube video mocking the original Crysis, by editing a developer of the studio interview, it went something among this lines (the video wasn't on english, so forgive translation):

"
-Reporter: The images we're seeing, are they rendered in real time by a PC?
-Crysis developer: Uhhhhhhm......yeah...........well no, actually not. In reality, this 60 fps gameplay videos are obtained thanks to two computers with 15 cpu cores each one (this was the time of 4 cores being a lot) working in parallel with a NASA supercomputer and a Nintendo DS. But don't worry, in the final product the user might enjoy a superb 30fps with drops to 2 fps in scenes with animation like walking or standing still in tall grass. All they'll have to do is buy 14 8800GT and mount them in a soundproofed cryogenic freezer, meaning that by the mere cost of 12 thousand euros the player will enjoy an economic Crysis that will actually feel real when the bank demands payment"

[Nazalassa]

XD

[SciMan]

So, as far as system requirements, think of this: It has to run, and run well, on the PS5 and the new Xbox (the name of which I always have to look up every time I think of it, which makes me wonder "what genius in marketing convinced them that whatever that more-than-a-mouthful of a name was a good idea?" I mean seriously, why couldn't they have just called it the Xbox 2, then literally even a monkey would have understood that it was the successor to the Xbox One! I thought rule #1 of product naming was "Make it easy to remember"? But enough about that).

Anyways, knowing that it has to run well on what we currently refer to as "next-gen" consoles, you could get a good idea of what the ACTUAL "recommended" system requirements are, based on what the system specifications of those consoles are.
This is made rather easy because both Xbox and Playstation, of both the "next gen" and the "current gen" are basically using almost-off-the-shelf multi-core 64-bit x86-based AMD cpus, with integrated AMD GPU's.
This is in stark contrast to things like the PS2 and PS3, where the architecture was entirely alien (to PC users) (with the PS3 technically having an 8-core CPU, tho at the time practically nobody knew how to do multi-core programming well).

From that, I think that a 1050ti will maybe struggle a little bit with KSP 2 (as IIRC the GPU in a next-gen console is comparable to a GTX 1660 or RTX 2060 (maybe 2070, not sure, but certainly not 2070 super)).
However, the much more pressing matter will be the CPU. If you don't have a fairly capable CPU, the game will probably have somewhat low (but stable) FPS with part counts around 150-300 (at least until something explodes, but that's to be expected).
I myself have an i7-9700k (no overclock, but water cooled, so "thermal constraints" are a non-issue meaning it's always at the max 4.9 GHz turbo clock on basically all the cores all the time), and to be honest I'm not sure it will keep up, with the sheer size of the things I think I want to build in KSP 2.
Because even if they ARE automated, I don't want to have to wait for 20 supply missions just to ship over the fuel for whatever gigantic mission I'm creating next. I'd much rather get the job done in less, but larger, shipments. I also don't like the idea of "lots of little missions to make a colony", I'd rather send 1-5 potentially gigantic "colony (segment) in a box" vessels, that on their (collective) own are capable of setting up a colony to the point that it can start contributing to my interplanetary resource flows and industrial base.
Do I know if I can even do that in KSP 2? No. Does that mean I'm not going to try? Also no. Because at its heart, to me KSP is all about making the biggest dang rocket you can make (or afford) that won't fall apart on the launch pad, in order to do the most things at the most places in the solar system that you can, all with ONE (or very few) launch(es).

[Zozaf Kerman]

@SciManVery well written and reasoned. I myself won’t have to worry too much about ksp2 physics dying on me because if they really do “kill the kraken” then my 3060ti pc will most likely be able to handle 250-500 part count vessels.