KSP on Windows surface pro

[Zorgoth1]

Has anyone run KSP on a Windows Surface Pro? I may end up getting one of the new ones for work and was curious if I'd be able to get away with running KSP on it while I'm on the road.

[FenrirWolf]

I have a Surface Pro 2 and the game does run on it. I haven't done extensive testing or anything (to be honest I hadn't even tried it out until reading this thread), but the game is playable. Naturally the graphics settings and power plan settings can be tweaked to get things working the best.

And an external mouse would probably be good because trying to use a trackpad for KSP (or most any game, for that matter) is an exercise in pain .

[moeggz]

That's awesome because I was trying to decide what type of tablet to get. The tablet that can play KSP is the winner. Don't even need to look at specs or anything now. Thanks for sharing

[TwiggyShip]

I use the SP2 for everything, work, play, study etc. It's an amazing, incredibly versatile device.

As well as all that, it can run KSP on full settings. I use the 128gb 4gb RAM SP2 and it can handle KSP on max with no lag whatsoever. The fan does it's work, it never overheats nor gets unbearably loud

Love this device.

EDIT: a mouse is pretty much essential for KSP though. I did go through about 3-4 months of not having one and got by but it was a real PITA. I eventually caved and bought the Arc Touch Mouse Surface Edition and haven't looked back, it's an awesome, highly portable mouse.

[Tripzter]

As well as all that, it can run KSP on full settings. I use the 128gb 4gb RAM SP2 and it can handle KSP on max with no lag whatsoever.

No lag on full settings? Until you get to 50 part count out of the assembly building right?? I call bs... 4gb of ram on a 1.6 or 1.9ghz I5 processor with a fairly low graphics card is far from good enough for ksp to run on max settings with no lag.

Edited June 7, 2014 by Tripzter

[Linear]

No lag on full settings? Until you get to 50 part count out of the assembly building right?? I call bs... 4gb of ram on a 1.6 or 1.9ghz I5 processor with a fairly low graphics card is isnt going to cut it.

If im right in thinking they have iris pro, then it would be absolutely fine.

[Tripzter]

If im right in thinking they have iris pro, then it would be absolutely fine.

That's the 8gb ram 256gb/512gb models. The 4gb 128gb one has the i5.

Both have the HD5000 graphics card which is very low.

Edited June 7, 2014 by Tripzter

[boxman]

No lag on full settings? Until you get to 50 part count out of the assembly building right?? I call bs... 4gb of ram on a 1.6 or 1.9ghz I5 processor with a fairly low graphics card is far from good enough for ksp to run on max settings with no lag.

If it has a half decent GPU then it might be able to do at least a ship with some hundred parts without any lag. The graphical settings mainly depend on the GPU while part counts has all to do with CPU.

Edit: just now noticed the comment about it having HD5000... So yeah i doubt that will run very well at high settings.

Edited June 8, 2014 by boxman

[dryer_lint]

trying to use a trackpad for KSP (or most any game, for that matter) is an exercise in pain

Really? I use a trackpad and it feels fine... am I missing out on something?

[technicalfool]

Really? I use a trackpad and it feels fine... am I missing out on something?

Depends on what you're into. Most people (and I'm one of them) seem to find trackpads and keyboard-nipples (remember those?) to be singularly awful as a mouse replacement.

But, whatever rocks your socks. I mean there's even people who prefer playing first person shooters with a control pad. Really, such heresy must not be allowed to stand in the way of the almighty keyboard and mouse. Or something.

[Linear]

That's the 8gb ram 256gb/512gb models. The 4gb 128gb one has the i5.

Both have the HD5000 graphics card which is very low.

HD5000 is more than enough...

[boxman]

HD5000 is more than enough...

It is basically the lowest model of that entire generation of cards though, so I personally highly doubt it would run well on high graphical settings.

[DMagic]

None of the Surface Pros have an HD5000, the 2 and 3 have an HD4400, which is quite a bit weaker. Though in this case everything is so power-limited that it's not as big of a difference as it could be. The new top end Surface Pro 3 has a slightly better CPU, and it looks like those might have an HD5000, but they won't be available for a long time.

I get around the same performance on a Surface Pro 2 as I did on a 2013 MacBook Air, which does have an HD5000 GPU. I use it all the time (Surface Pro 2, i5 4200U, there are some newer Pro 2s that use the 4300U) and it runs fairly well, though I wouldn't say you can max out all of the settings. And if you run at full screen (without any of Windows scaling options) you might really run into performance problems, which will be much worse on the higher resolution Surface Pro 3.

And yes, you really need a mouse, the terrible touch pad on a type cover and the pen just don't cut it.

Edited June 8, 2014 by DMagic

[Tripzter]

HD5000 is more than enough...

For low settings maybe some medium with the occasional lag but definitely not max.

[samstarman5]

I am just gonna put this out here, any photos of it in action would definitely be welcome.

[TwiggyShip]

I don't understand how you seem to find it impossible on max settings? Even just a simple SLS using the new parts is over 65+ and launching that to orbit, with volumetric clouds as well, is a breeze on the i5 SP2 4gb.

I honestly have never run into a performance issue, on highest settings, with this thing. That said, most of my operations consist of LKO or Apollo-style missions, so I'm not exactly launching behemoth asparagus launchers. I imagine that yes, that would push the GPU a bit. But still, the SP2 is more than capable of handling KSP on highest settings, at full screen.

[FenrirWolf]

I think I'm gonna try experimenting to see if 64-bit KSP runs any better or worse on my SP2 than the normal executable.

[qromodynmc]

I have Hd4000 gpu along with Gt650m on my laptop ,I can try Ksp on onboard gpu if you guys want.

[Linear]

For low settings maybe some medium with the occasional lag but definitely not max.

Im confused as to why you think the 4***+ line is so underwhelming? You can run CoD and games like that fine on it, i have, KSP is a walk in the park.

This isn't what the topic is about though.

[FenrirWolf]

Not to mention that KSP is not all that demanding in the GPU department anyway. CPU power matters far more for this game.

[CalculusWarrior]

I'm planning to get a Pro 3 one day, and although I'm sure that it wouldn't give as smooth of a KSP experience as my desktop, surely it must be playable.

[DMagic]

This is what the comparison between a surface pro 2 and my desktop looks like from my CPU performance thread. This is a decent desktop, but it's by no means high-end. I think they are both from 0.23.5. The desktop was run with settings at max, on the surface I think the terrain was set to medium and AA was turned off, otherwise the settings were the same and the resolution was about the same (both were in windowed mode on a 1080p screen).

For a mobile computer the surface pro 2 is alright, but any halfway-decent desktop will blow it away. Some of the higher end mobile setups come much closer to desktop levels of performance.

[MR4Y]

This is what the comparison between a surface pro 2 and my desktop looks like from my CPU performance thread. This is a decent desktop, but it's by no means high-end. I think they are both from 0.23.5. The desktop was run with settings at max, on the surface I think the terrain was set to medium and AA was turned off, otherwise the settings were the same and the resolution was about the same (both were in windowed mode on a 1080p screen).

http://i.imgur.com/MWJta0Z.jpg

For a mobile computer the surface pro 2 is alright, but any halfway-decent desktop will blow it away. Some of the higher end mobile setups come much closer to desktop levels of performance.

Unless you use the exact same KSP settings on both machines, this graph tells pretty much nothing. A faster processor on lower settings will have better performance than a slower processor on higher settings.