KSP2 System Requirements

[Rpatto92]

On 2/18/2023 at 2:35 AM, SolarAdmiral said:

 

 

Yep, that's KSP1plus right there. Basically the same game.

Seems like a fair comparison. Old Scott Manley screenshots vs cherry picked promotional materials.

What about those dodgy looking low frame rate clips, with bland texture, poor texture streaming and the grey barren space centre. 

I really do hope KSP 2 becomes everything its cracked up to be, I'll be extremely disappointed if it doesn't however...

I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't be crying laughing, not if but when someone does a direct comparison between modded KSP1 and 2. Comparing: fps, texture res and part count. 

[Rpatto92]

On 2/18/2023 at 7:35 PM, GigFiz said:

Did people not read the whole first post or something?

"These systems requirements are to ensure a high-quality experience while playing KSP2 in a variety of in-game scenarios.

KSP 2 will work across a wide variety of hardware beyond what is listed in our recommended specs, with performance scaling based on the size and complexity of the crafts you build. "

They are saying that these are the minimum/recommended specs to handle pretty much everything that you can do in game, which, judging by what we've been told, probably scales up to pretty extreme levels, far in excess of anything you could do in KSP1 (especially considering the behind the scenes jank it has), in size, complexity, and part count. They aren't actually saying this is what it takes to run it at all.

I wouldn't be surprised if you could turn the settings down to reasonably low, and be able to do pretty much anything you can do right now in KSP without it choking, whatever your specs.

If you are that worried, just wait for feedback from people trying to run it below spec. I know I don't meet the official minimum, but I'm still gonna buy it day one and see what I can do. Worst case, it doesn't work, but it's fine, because that just means I'll already have it when the time comes.

People do read entire posts but they're addendum to the main topic of interest being glaring obvious issue of optimization you tend to run into when a games specifications are shooting to the Mun. 

[Grenartia]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

UPGRADE!

Translation: "poor people should just buy more money"

[JacksonTheLegend101]

Will a RX 580, 16GB RAM, and a ryzen 7 3700 work?

[Aerodynamic Kerbal]

Ok... WHY

I have a laptop. Nvidia GeForce940m. I don't want to upgrade. KSP is somewhat good on such laptops.

KSP2 IS A PAY TO WIN. THEREFORE  I UHH read the About me in my profile

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

47 minutes ago, Grenartia said:

Translation: "poor people should just buy more money"

Welcome to PC gaming... You must be new here! 

[Dinkledash]

My RX6800 looks like it will be here a day early! 

[Vl3d]

2 hours ago, Leopard said:

but upgrade to what? what specs will cover the game and cover it well? currently no one really knows, what will a modded install need?

also "upgrade" is easy to type, but when the graphics card alone is £700 - £1,000 its slightly harder to actually do

meah, anyway for me there is no chance of playing this, PC won't be upgraded until about five years from now, so wish the good ship KSP 2 a safe journey, but I won't be aboard

maybe come five years hence I'll have actually rescued everyone in my current save

The fact that you're stating that you can't play the game without a 1000£ video card when the minimum 2060 can be found second hand for ~150£ says it all.

[Leopard]

32 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

The fact that you're stating that you can't play the game without a 1000£ video card when the minimum 2060 can be found second hand for ~150£ says it all.

what it says is that I said the one in the "recommended" bit was listed as £700 retail but frequently can only be found for more but yes whatever, plus not everyone wants second hand hardware, and also the availability of such is highly variable

[ondrafialka]

My plan was to buy the game after seeing some initial reviews. I have a bad GPU with just 2GB VRAM (845M), but as I am able to play KSP1 with Scatterer and Eve Redux (I get very low FPS when flying throught coulds, but I prefer the visuals), I was hoping KSP 2 might be borderline playable with the lowest details. I was also planning to upgrade my laptop to something with RTX 3060 later this year and believed that such GPU would handle  KSP 2 with no problems ( with high detail at 1080p). My assumptions were wrong. Now I guess I will just wait how (if) the requirements lower in the development process.

[magnemoe]

23 minutes ago, Leopard said:

what it says is that I said the one in the "recommended" bit was listed as £700 retail but frequently can only be found for more but yes whatever, plus not everyone wants second hand hardware, and also the availability of such is highly variable

I would wait until the game come out and people test it on different hardware with various settings. 
But no issue buying an used graphic card,  lots of people sells because upgrades, it works or not, only thing who can really break is the fans, Happened to me, I stripped on a 80 mm fan on top of the broken  
 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

KSP DEVS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR NVIDIA /AMD'S HORRIFIC PRICING. 

If the recommended specs were lower we'd be screaming about the game not rising to its potential. 

 

 

Stahp already 

[Vl3d]

You might want to see this menu.

Spoiler

 

[Anth]

Just now, Vl3d said:

You might want to see this menu.

Borderless built in. Excellent.

[jebycheek]

（Spoil alert）I just learn that we don't even have water physics In this EA, it's pretty sad.for now it definitely much less than KSP one  on the game play,It might get better with in few weeks or months who knows.

I guess i can Stop worrying about the GPU now,I'm gonna buy it and play for only one hour. then talking Crap about it for improvements. 

Edited February 20, 2023 by jebycheek

[Vl3d]

Important to note - the ESA game was a debug build. That slows down a game considerably.

Spoiler

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by Vl3d

[MechBFP]

16 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Important to note - the ESA game was a debug build. That slows down a game considerably.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

That isn't necessarily true. Depends on what level of debugging they were capturing.

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

Ouch, my i5-6600k is just above minimum but my good old 1060 is shaken by this (wonders why it can run RDR2 on high @ 1440p, but doesn't make the bottom tier here?).
Probably still going to purchase in the hopes that I can run the thing in the future.
KSP1 gave me around 4k hours of good times. Am I chasing the nostalgia dragon?

[bigyihsuan]

47 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

That isn't necessarily true. Depends on what level of debugging they were capturing.

Debug builds are, in general, slower due to extra stuff being put into the executable (code symbols, line numbers, extra debug-only code, etc) to help with debugging;. When you build software/a game for release, you usually turn on release mode to strip out unneeded code and data meant only for debugging.

[theJesuit]

6 hours ago, LoSBoL said:

I have KSP2 on my wishlist on steam since 2019, and knowing what a resource hog KSP was and is, I knew I needed to upgrade since 2019.

I upgraded in 2014 as my old workhorse was just not really coping.   It's now 2023 and I'm now thinking I need an upgrade again.  I've moved house three times since I bought my 'new' laptop 8.5 years ago.

And yes, I figured it will probably  die at some point.   An upgrade at some point is inevitable. 

[MechBFP]

10 minutes ago, bigyihsuan said:

Debug builds are, in general, slower due to extra stuff being put into the executable (code symbols, line numbers, extra debug-only code, etc) to help with debugging;. When you build software/a game for release, you usually turn on release mode to strip out unneeded code and data meant only for debugging.

Why would you ever remove your debugging code when you can just comment it it out or use a variable to enable/disable it as needed?

The only time I have ever seen someone actually remove debugging code is when they are doing assembler level code optimizations on extremely specific hardware.

[bigyihsuan]

29 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

Why would you ever remove your debugging code when you can just comment it it out or use a variable to enable/disable it as needed?

The only time I have ever seen someone actually remove debugging code is when they are doing assembler level code optimizations on extremely specific hardware.

Debug code is still code: it'll be compiled into the executable anyway, regardless of its purpose. Even if the debug code is never run, and is logically unreachable normally, sometimes compilers optimize it away and make unreachable code reachable.

Edited February 20, 2023 by bigyihsuan

[Kerbart]

51 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

Why would you ever remove your debugging code when you can just comment it it out or use a variable to enable/disable it as needed?

The only time I have ever seen someone actually remove debugging code is when they are doing assembler level code optimizations on extremely specific hardware.

It's not the code, it's the data the compiler adds to the executable for debugging purposes. That can add up to a lot of bloat and code that runs slower (but, if it crashes, your debugger can step in). The code itself can usually be flagged as "conditional compile" and simply be excluded by setting a flag or compiler variable. It's not being removed, just not compiled.

[purpleivan]

8 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Two players run tests they find on the interwebz. 

Player 1 is pleased as punch with her 63 FPS 

Player 2 complains the game is horribly optimized and laggy because she's only seeing 27 FPS 

Player 1 is using her brother's AlienThing Gaming xTREME running a sweet 6300m while Player 2 is stuck using her mother's old crappy work laptop by Lenotho that has a janky 6300m inside. 

 This information is useless if you don't also know that Player 1 is running native 1080p and Player 2 got a 1440p gaming monitor from Santa and has the laptop hooked up to that.

I have already said that any performance test that we come up with would of course ask those posting results, to include the resolution that they ran the tests at, as part of their system description. That is because (as I have already stated) resolution would be a critical factor in the FPS figures obtained from the test.

In the context of what I have stated above, I don't see what you are trying to get at in relation to the tests that we were trying to specify on the other thread. I wasn't disagreeing with you about the importance of the resolution the game is rendered at. However, you are now quoting things that I have said about our efforts at defining the scenarios for perf tests. with a reply that suggests we are ignoring the impact of render resolution.

That is something that we were clearly not planning to ignore.

[BeastHunter]

On 2/19/2023 at 2:09 PM, GregA said:

Am I on the potato or super chad spectrum on my laptop?  I am RTX 3060 Laptop GPU, i17-12700h, 15.71 GB ram.

Fellow G16 user, I see. I can run parallax, Eve, scatterer, and astronomers visual pack with 8k textures and optional Kerbin textures at 40-60 fps. The system says that the GPU is at 100% despite this. I estimate it should run low-medium quality at a decent framerate.