KSP2 System Requirements

[Elthy]

18 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

Apparently in KSP2 these things will not strain the processor much. There are no bases, so there is no need to calculate something behind the scenes.

But that would be realy unusual and in total contrast to the GPU requirements. Again, the CPU isnt just calculating stuff thats obvious on the surface, but also the gameengine itself. If you stand still in a shooter after all enemies are down is the CPU idling? Its not, as only a small part of its jobs are reduced now.

 

2 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

No news on physics as of right now. We don't know if they went PhyX or Havok. CPU physics or GPU physics.

We can exclude GPU physics for sure, otherwise we would have read about legendary progress in GPU-calculations everywhere in computer news. GPU physic calcualtions are only viable for a realy limited set of scenarios, where there is not much interaction between the simulated particles and accuracy isnt to important. Thats why we have only ever seen it on some graphics eyecandy like hair or debris.

[Grenartia]

4 minutes ago, Kerbin Launch Coalition said:

As 'flashy' as the teasers? We must be looking at different games here.

???

3 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

No news on physics as of right now. We don't know if they went PhyX or Havok. CPU physics or GPU physics.

I know, but still. A 2060 for "1080p at low settings" seems like they're either doing GPU physics (which, given the Athlon isn't an amazing CPU is potentially the case), or "low" graphics is significantly better than most games I play. If the latter, then the devs should really consider adding even lower settings for those of us who want to play and don't care about super amazing visuals.

[magnemoe]

Just now, Elthy said:

We can exclude GPU physics for sure, otherwise we would have read about legendary progress in GPU-calculations everywhere in computer news. GPU physic calcualtions are only viable for a realy limited set of scenarios, where there is not much interaction between the simulated particles and accuracy isnt to important. Thats why we have only ever seen it on some graphics eyecandy like hair or debris.

This makes sense GPU works best doing the same sort of calculations many times. Who is not true for crafts in ksp. 

[Alexoff]

11 minutes ago, Elthy said:

But that would be realy unusual and in total contrast to the GPU requirements.

We can only guess here, the developers do not comment on the requirements. In general, there is no work with the community. Why do I need different amounts of empty hard disk space? I don't remember this in other games.

[Grenartia]

1 minute ago, Alexoff said:

We can only guess here, the developers do not comment on the requirements. In general, there is no work with the community. Why do I need different amounts of empty hard disk space? I don't remember this in other games.

Probably optional graphics stuff. 

[Vl3d]

3 hours ago, m4ti140 said:

I do not live in the US and I literally can't afford a PC that can run this game with my salary, so for me it's end of the road until PCs become more affordable. And same applies to the majority of existing KSP users.

You're being overdramatic. You can play KSP1 without any issues on older hardware. KSP2 is a 2023 game, is starting with modern hardware.

[rebel-1]

Wow! These are the requirements! Like a top AAA shooter. Why does this game need such resources? Is the game not optimized that much? The game simply does not have such graphics for such requirements.

 

[Alexoff]

48 minutes ago, Grenartia said:

Probably optional graphics stuff. 

From mods? This is the first time I hear that it will be possible to download additional textures for the game or something like that.

[TheKrakenHerder]

5 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

KSP2 is a 2023 game, is starting with modern hardware.

To be fair, this isn't just modern hardware, this is absolute top-of-the-line hardware. This is literally one of the most demanding games in modern history, and the recommended hardware would cost upwards of $2500.

[rebel-1]

Just now, TheKrakenHerder said:

To be fair, this isn't just modern hardware, this is absolute top-of-the-line hardware. This is literally one of the most demanding games in modern history, and the recommended hardware would cost upwards of $2500.

Actually, yes. It is strange that a game where graphics are not the main thing and there is simply nothing to ask for such computer resources - the minimum requirements are much higher than modern AAA shooters and simulators.

[Grenartia]

1 hour ago, rebel-1 said:

Actually, yes. It is strange that a game where graphics are not the main thing and there is simply nothing to ask for such computer resources - the minimum requirements are much higher than modern AAA shooters and simulators.

I don't think the team would be getting half as much crap if they would have made the specs make sense when they released them, and promised from the outset that lower-tier hardware (within reason) would be supported before full release.

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, TheKrakenHerder said:

To be fair, this isn't just modern hardware, this is absolute top-of-the-line hardware. This is literally one of the most demanding games in modern history, and the recommended hardware would cost upwards of $2500.

The 2060 is an bad example, 1080  are more common card I guess, with each generation you tend to have that sliding scale. And 1080 was released in 2016. 
Has to hope graphic cards become cheaper but I think that will take time, the price trend has been insane, 
 

[Astr0Guy5]

The Steam page is still not updated with the specs.  Maybe this means the requirements will change over development and they don't want to put temporary specs on Steam?  I don't know why else they wouldn't put them there.

[Gargamel]

I get the feeling the dev in charge of setting these requirements was not a fan of KSP previously, where learning to play under “seconds per frame” was common.  
 

True KSP fans are always surprised when they get reminded that the clock did have a green color.

It’s a good thing we didn’t have members going around over the past year telling others their systems would be able to handle the new game.   

[RPgK]

Ahem, interesting information. But still, it's probably not worth panicking now. There is not much time left before the release, let's see what will happen in the real game

[LoSBoL]

Just now, Gargamel said:

 

It’s a good thing we didn’t have members going around over the past year telling others their systems would be able to handle the new game.   

Can't really blame those users, with all the gameplay images published expectations were set. None came across with me personally that such high GPU requirements would be needed, and I'm not the only one which can be seen from the row it has caused. Managing those expectations could have been done by Intercept, but haven't. 

[Kerbin Launch Coalition]

2 hours ago, Vl3d said:

You're being overdramatic. You can play KSP1 without any issues on older hardware. KSP2 is a 2023 game, is starting with modern hardware.

To be fair I think that's an unfair statement. Kerbal Space Program 2 looks nothing like it would command that sort of hardware requirements. I mean it still looks quite basic (graphically) compared to a lot of not even new titles.

 

That's where I think the main confusion stems from, but this has been a trend for the history of PC gaming. New more powerful hardware, games that 'utilise' it and everyone scratching their heads as to just what all that extra computational power is actually doing.

 

The developers could clear a *lot* of this confusion up and go into a brief bit of detail as to 'why' an RTX 3080 is recommended. But dropping a system requirement like this, like a week before launch with little input on why they're so high is less than ideal.

 

That said, I am getting the game as planned because I've been waiting a long time for this but I do fully understand people's 'concerns' regarding these insane (for what it is) system requirements.

[snkiz]

Just now, Gargamel said:

It’s a good thing we didn’t have members going around over the past year telling others their systems would be able to handle the new game.   

I mean most developers who want to make money will target a system that a majority of potential customers have, or are willing to purchase. Traditionally that target becomes the recommended spec. Not the ultra spec, or the modded spec. Apologists can claim a 60 class card is low end and 80 only mid tier all day. Doesn't make it true. 60 is in fact mid tier, 70 is high, 80 is enthusiast. 90 is the gold plated halo replacement for titans. No hardware reviewer considers it a legitimate part of of the main stack. Recommend sepc. is supposed to be intended for the masses. This is just leaving a bunch of people and educators behind. This does not line up with the intercepts stated goals of making a more approachable game. It's easy to see how some feel like they were duped.

TLDR; This whole thread is some PCMR crap.

[Kerbin Launch Coalition]

5 minutes ago, snkiz said:

I mean most developers who want to make money will target a system that a majority of potential customers have, or are willing to purchase. Traditionally that target becomes the recommended spec. Not the ultra spec, or the modded spec. Apologists can claim a 60 class card is low end and 80 only mid tier all day. Doesn't make it true. 60 is in fact mid tier, 70 is high, 80 is enthusiast. 90 is the gold plated halo replacement for titans. No hardware reviewer considers it a legitimate part of of the main stack. Recommend sepc. is supposed to be intended for the masses. This is just leaving a bunch of people and educators behind. This does not line up with the intercepts stated goals of making a more approachable game. It's easy to see how some feel like they were duped.

TLDR; This whole thread is some PCMR crap.

In no known universe is an RTX 2060 a 'low end' card and realistically shouldn't be considered as so. The 3060 is championed as more or less the king of 'mid-range' not budget or entry level. I mean there'll forever be the 'PC Master Race' folks who consider anything that's older than five minutes, is 'out-dated' but I think most of the PC gaming player base is going to sit BELOW the 3060 level, which is only about 15 - 20% faster, best case than a 2060.

 

I don't think it's going to be as bad as that mind. For all we know this could be, to run perfectly with no slow-down at 1080P. I'll take that like, I don't really game higher than 1080 as it's pretty pointless on a 17.2" laptop panel. So if I can get good graphical fidelity at that resolution with good performance, I'd consider that a win! (RTX 3070). Roll on next week!

[Bej Kerman]

4 hours ago, Alexoff said:

13 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Can't wait to not hear that when people get their hands on the game and see that no matter how bad development has been going, it will be a million times better than the unstable poorly-planned janky Sibelius-grade bug-overrun heap of smeggy spaghetti we've been trying to mod into something playable for the past ten years. Just to avoid repeating myself, I will quote myself, again. (sorry Kerbart, for overrunning your notifications panel, but it needs saying - however, I'm not rephrasing myself for every Joe that undermines KSP 2 and puts KSP 1 on a pedestal). 

Have you already played KSP2? Is the game stable there? No bugs? Is it well optimized?

I've played KSP 1 enough to see how hopeless the devs would need to be to make a game with worse optimisation, and I know enough about development to know that the requirements will be a lot lower when KSP 2 is closer to being a product the devs would have been comfortable sharing.

29 minutes ago, snkiz said:

This is just leaving a bunch of people and educators behind. This does not line up with the intercepts stated goals of making a more approachable game.

This does line up with their goals of making a more approachable game. They're still making it and the time you spend making it is a bad time to be optimising it.

[darthgently]

18 minutes ago, Kerbin Launch Coalition said:

In no known universe is an RTX 2060 a 'low end' card

Still, it's been on the market for what, 5+ years?  Bottom line is we don't know if the recommendations are conservative or not.  But do know they are for early access, which may have optimization still to triage, and by the time general release comes around the specs would be less alarming as the norm will have changed more

[Kerbin Launch Coalition]

11 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Still, it's been on the market for what, 5+ years?  Bottom line is we don't know if the recommendations are conservative or not.  But do know they are for early access, which may have optimization still to triage, and by the time general release comes around the specs would be less alarming as the norm will have changed more

The RTX 2060 hit the market in Q1 2019. But you can't forget that there's a lot of people who play Kerbal Space Program with stuff like GTX 1050 and the likes. Minimum requirements generally suggest, if you want to play this game, at a basic level you need this hardware.

 

I've never seen a game with such a significant low end requirement. That's what is raising eyebrows.

 

Hey, I'm looking at this like you, I think these are kinda conservative requirements and it'll be refined in a bit of time as the team progress through the roadmap. For me personally, I'm between minimum and recommended in the GPU department with a load more RAM and a better CPU so think I'll be alright. 

Anyone got any idea why 'recommended' comes with an extra 15Gb of drive storage? We thinking optional textures and what not?

[Ruedii]

Just now, Kerbin Launch Coalition said:

The RTX 2060 hit the market in Q1 2019. But you can't forget that there's a lot of people who play Kerbal Space Program with stuff like GTX 1050 and the likes. Minimum requirements generally suggest, if you want to play this game, at a basic level you need this hardware.

 

I've never seen a game with such a significant low end requirement. That's what is raising eyebrows.

 

Hey, I'm looking at this like you, I think these are kinda conservative requirements and it'll be refined in a bit of time as the team progress through the roadmap. For me personally, I'm between minimum and recommended in the GPU department with a load more RAM and a better CPU so think I'll be alright. 

I think you need to remember the difference in performance between early access launch and 1.2 release in KSP.

The early access launch version would grind most computers to a halt.

[Hanuman]

Great, make the old monkey reset his forum password again.  This is slightly distressing to me, only because it seems that people aren't seeing the forest for the trees.

I think all it takes to fix this for everyone involved is probably nothing more than a couple very honest, very down to earth sentences.

I think all it takes is one official person to say: 

The actual answer for system requirements for this game is that we don't know what they are yet.  It's too early for that honestly, all we really know is what we have here on hand that will run the thing right now.   So here's those specs.  We'll do all we can to make sure this plays on as many machines as possible, and how this game runs on as many different machines as possible is some of the first really valuable information we get from Early Access.  So then it becomes not just does it run, but how well can we fix it to MAKE it run too.   But anyway, as quick as we can get the info from all the new machines and how well they run it, we'll get the System Requirements updated. 

In short, this is simply the very first task everyone is helping us find the answer for by joining Early Access.

It's almost certainly, the plain and simple truth.  

[SSTO Crasher]

And the worst part?

Those of us who bouht our pcs after the EA trailer just so we could play KSP2 on the first day now knowing we can’t