KSP2 System Requirements

[rebel-1]

I have a GTX1070. When playing the World of WarShips at maximum settings - the video card does not even start the fans. DCS on this graphics card at high-max settings and its excellent graphics runs at 40-60 frames per second. MSFS at high settings consistently holds 60 frames if I'm not over a large city. With its excellent graphics. And then it turns out that my video card will not work in KSP2 even at the minimum settings. How is it? Although KSP has always been a game with graphics of the level of the 90s of the last century.

[MechBFP]

6 minutes ago, rebel-1 said:

I have a GTX1070. When playing the World of WarShips at maximum settings - the video card does not even start the fans. DCS on this graphics card at high-max settings and its excellent graphics runs at 40-60 frames per second. MSFS at high settings consistently holds 60 frames if I'm not over a large city. With its excellent graphics. And then it turns out that my video card will not work in KSP2 even at the minimum settings. How is it? Although KSP has always been a game with graphics of the level of the 90s of the last century.

It should work, it is just a matter of what the FPS will be. You'll need to either try it yourself or wait for benchmarks to appear from the day 1 testers.

Edited February 18, 2023 by MechBFP

[Cytauri]

Will a 3060 work?

[Grenartia]

41 minutes ago, Hanuman said:

You and I have the same GPU, though I've had it for almost 3 years now.  I was going to upgrade, and was waiting for GPU prices to return to sanity.... still waiting... maybe if crypto gets regulated.

I'm going to at least try it at release to see what happens, as I have to know.

The first good news I have for you, is that if a new card ends up requiring the extra power it's really only your power supply you're changing in addition.
The bad news is... except maybe in some cases where Dell especially, but others use a proprietary case with their own power supplies so it may not be a simple swap.  Don't know what you have.

If I get it, and it won't even start up because of my 1050Ti, then that makes this a $400 game.  That's what the real worry is, I think.

If I get it, and it runs like crap, I'll live with it. 

Yeah, I already knew that about the proprietary case and PSU (and even the mobo).

I'm basically in the same boat as you, except if it doesn't run, I'll have to pay at least $1k to upgrade everything except my SSD. 

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, rebel-1 said:

I have a GTX1070. When playing the World of WarShips at maximum settings - the video card does not even start the fans. DCS on this graphics card at high-max settings and its excellent graphics runs at 40-60 frames per second. MSFS at high settings consistently holds 60 frames if I'm not over a large city. With its excellent graphics. And then it turns out that my video card will not work in KSP2 even at the minimum settings. How is it? Although KSP has always been a game with graphics of the level of the 90s of the last century.

I had a 1070, switched it out a few months ago, I would try it anyway, my 1070 played a ton of games above recommended settings, and it was just fine for VR with the Valve Index.

Use the refund window to try it.

[GigFiz]

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.

Edited February 18, 2023 by GigFiz

[TLTay]

1 hour ago, SSTO Crasher said:

I have a newer intel processor and yet it is nowhere near the necessary GHz

GHz is not the relevant factor, as a 1 GHz processor from 10 generations ago will perform wildly differently from a modern processor locked to the same speed. It's not like the torque rating in a car where the number actually means the same thing 10 years ago as it does today.

You'll have to compare your processor with others via some kind of benchmark scores to tell where you stand.

[rebel-1]

1 minute ago, Master39 said:

Use the refund window to try it.

It won't work. Developers do not need the money of 150 million Russians, so they do not sell the game in Russia.

[TLTay]

21 minutes ago, CytauriKerbal said:

Will a 3060 work?

It exceeds the minimums, so yes, it should provide a playable 1080p experience at low or better. (Assuming CPU is ok)

[Guest]

1 minute ago, GigFiz said:

I know I don't meet the official minimum, but I'm still gonna buy it day one and see what I can do.

I still haven't changed my plans of trying it out on the SteamDeck and see if it runs on it at 1280x800@30 FPS, with Proton.

It will be the king of all low-speck tests, on an unsupported OS and possibly with no controller support.

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, TLTay said:

The big issue with the system requirements isn't even how high they are, it's that they were completely unexpectedly high.

People who have been closely following the promotional material would not have guessed this high at all for the GPU by the looks of the game.

Judging by the terrain and the visible flat planes on a rounded object, I would have personally guessed a 1050 or so to be the "minimum" target for a good experience.

Nothing shown so far seems to warrant a 3080. Nothing. At. All. Not to mention the 3080 is the target... not for 4K, but for 1440p? Yowch.

I've got a system that almost makes recommended specs, but man. I thought I'd be running ultra at buttery smooth framerates based on the promo stuff.

For requiring hardware like this, you should be getting cyberpunk-grade visuals, not whatever they've been showing us. 

TLDR: People are mad because specs don't correlate with the visual quality at all.

Here I agree, should expected above 1050 for medium as that include PS 4, but previous gen also has poor single core performance. 

[GigFiz]

Just now, Master39 said:

I still haven't changed my plans of trying it out on the SteamDeck and see if it runs on it at 1280x800@30 FPS, with Proton.

It will be the king of all low-speck tests, on an unsupported OS and possibly with no controller support.

In the immortal words of Ol' Jack Burton:

"Hey, you never know until you try"

[Kerbin Launch Coalition]

27 minutes ago, TLTay said:

It exceeds the minimums, so yes, it should provide a playable 1080p experience at low or better. (Assuming CPU is ok)

That's nuts that an RTX 3060 is going to be running this at low 'or better' with graphical fidelity that seldom even touches the card.  

[Jacke]

On 2/17/2023 at 7:29 PM, PD_Dakota said:

For additional context:
Minimum is 1080p at Low Settings
Recommended is 1440p at High Settings

Well, frak.  That's bloat.  Keeps happening in computing.  Especially with the storage space.  This has me rethinking buying KSP 2 on release.

 

On 2/17/2023 at 7:29 PM, PD_Dakota said:

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

These system requirements show that there wasn't enough control over time and space efficiencies done during development to this point.  To put it simply, this will kill sales.

 

On 2/17/2023 at 7:29 PM, PD_Dakota said:

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.

Then why is the minimum so high?

 

On 2/17/2023 at 7:29 PM, PD_Dakota said:

Throughout the Early Access period, our development team will continue to prioritize performance optimization to ensure an optimal gameplay experience for as many @Kerbonauts as possible.

We hear you and we take your feedback very seriously. You are a core part of the development process, so please continue to share your expectations for what you want your KSP2 experience to be. 

You're getting feedback in spades right now.  Those numbers are too high.  I will struggle to find that much storage space.  While I meet the memory standards, due to Windows having too many extra processes around, I know I'm likely to have problems with that too.

Deal with it now.  Before release.  Or see sales hurt for a long time.

Edited February 18, 2023 by Jacke

[Cytauri]

Jeez, this thread is exploding more than any other posted by the devs. There’s 20 posts per hour here. I hope my Ryzen 5 5600g and RTX 3060 can run KSP 2 1080p at high settings. I literally got this pc last year which can run Minecraft with modded textures and Ray Tracing, Beam.ng on high settings, KSP 1 modded with parallax 2.0 plus many other graphics mods, and even Forza Horizon 5 with ultra to high settings on. It’s crazy and weird that KSP 2 needs these extremely expensive equipment. KSP 2’s graphics aren’t the greatest from what I have seen. 

It also has me thinking on why KSP 2’s storage space changes from 45 to 60 gigabytes in min to recommended.

[Meecrob]

25 minutes ago, 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.

OK, yeah I read that part. So what if I don't want to max the graphics settings cuz my computer isn't a beast? I get zero information. All they did was confirm that people with high end computers will be able to run the game, but they ALREADY knew they could run the game. Everyone with a setup on the borderline is left with "Maybe, buy it and find out!" Basically they posted only the Recommended Specs for two resolutions, and did not post minimum requirements.

 

People are going to get upset if you tell them:

Here are the minimum requirements*

*not indicative of minimum requirements

 

[Kerbin Launch Coalition]

1 minute ago, CytauriKerbal said:

Jeez, this thread is exploding more than any other posted by the devs. There’s 20 posts per hour here. I hope my Ryzen 5 5600g and RTX 3060 can run KSP 2 1080p at high settings. I literally got this pc last year which can run Minecraft with modded textures and Ray Tracing, Beam.ng on high settings, KSP 1 modded with parallax 2.0 plus many other graphics mods, and even Forza Horizon 5 with ultra to high settings on. It’s crazy and weird that KSP 2 needs these extremely expensive equipment. KSP 2’s graphics aren’t the greatest from what I have seen. 

Mate this (KSP2) has higher recommended system requirements than the almost photo realistic Microsoft Flight Simulator and DCS. Like *much* higher requirements, which is insane given how the game looks. We're going to be in the situation where one can run Sins of a Solar Empire II, maxed out, all the eye candy with thousands of ships and struggle to run Kerbal Space Program 2. 

[Cytauri]

8 minutes ago, Jacke said:

Or see sales hurt for a long time.

Man, this is a great point. I’d hate to see the Kerbal Space Program series die within this year just because of system requirements. This would make KSP 2 never even hit 1.0 and be a completed game.

[Brofessional]

The relatively low CPU specs next to the high GPU specs makes me wonder if they aren't doing some of the physics calculation on the GPU this time around.

If that's not the case then the physics performance on the CPU must considerably better. If it is purely visual effects putting so much demand on the GPU then you will be able to run the game on lesser hardware just by turning things off.  We know min reqs are for 1080p low, but there is a big difference between low and off for computationally expensive effects.

[Bej Kerman]

13 minutes ago, Jacke said:

Deal with it now.  Before release.  Or see sales hurt for a long time.

PUNCTUATION. FOR. EMPHASIS!

[Cytauri]

5 minutes ago, Kerbin Launch Coalition said:

Mate this (KSP2) has higher recommended system requirements than the almost photo realistic Microsoft Flight Simulator and DCS. Like *much* higher requirements, which is insane given how the game looks. We're going to be in the situation where one can run Sins of a Solar Empire II, maxed out, all the eye candy with thousands of ships and struggle to run Kerbal Space Program 2. 

Yeah I agree. It just does not line up. Right now, from what they are showing us, KSP 2 looks like you would need a Nvidia 970 to run it. If KSP 2 looks better than they’re showing us, then they should have shown what KSP 2 looks like with high settings at BEFORE they showed us the system requirements.

Edited February 18, 2023 by CytauriKerbal

[MechBFP]

Check https://store.privatedivision.com/game/kerbal-space-program-2

They do mention a 1070TI now as also minimum.

[Cytauri]

2 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

Check https://store.privatedivision.com/game/kerbal-space-program-2

They do mention a 1070TI now as also minimum.

That is good, still the minimum for Forza Horizon 5, but not bad. Makes me feel a little better, and I hope other feel better too.

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, MechBFP said:

Check https://store.privatedivision.com/game/kerbal-space-program-2

They do mention a 1070TI now as also minimum.

"Maybe you were right to show concern about our given minimum requirements, Intercept. Maybe super-maximum-ultra graphics with full N-body on isn't a minimum requirement to play the game!"

- Take Two

[Cytauri]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

"Maybe you were right to show concern about our given minimum requirements, Intercept. Maybe super-maximum-ultra graphics with full N-body on isn't a minimum requirement to play the game!"

- Take Two

When was this?