LoSBoL

Im super exited for the lading screens.

Oh come on, try to emphasize here, Imagine yourself trying to lauch something and failing every time and SOME FRICKIN KID is telling you IT SHOULD BE LIKE TAKING CANDY FROM A BABY !! (I'd say, keep it in :) )

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.

You've read an opinion piece of some reporter that was filling in blank spots trying to connect dots. Those are not facts, they were hypotheses at best, nothing was reported. You don't know what lead to TT taking over development, it can be anyone's guess.

Just an feeling here that the minimum specs wont go up further as EA development progresses and that the now given minimum specs are prognosed for the full game with colonies and interstellar travel. Why do I have that feeling? Bumping minimum specs during development will continue to have a row across the community whenever they do. I think the game will be getting more and more demanding when more features are added, and there wont be to many performance issues initially at the start when you have a 150 part launch vehicle on the launch pad when going below minimum specs. We'll know in a week how good performance will be on the pad with a 4GB GTX970 at 1080p, someone is bound to try.

Personally I'm glad they did. SQUAD, the marketing company which went over it's head with it's creation of KSP did not have the expertise, funding nor dedication to create a KSP2. We'd probably be stuck with KSP 1.3.0 if it was't for Take 2 to further fund development up to 1.12. You don't know what happend, noone does. It's easy to condemn the big bad company of destroying a small one, but you are doing it without having any information on how or what happend or what lead to Private Division taking over further development. Any conclusion made is one based on emotions, not facts.

An I5 6400 is a 4 core, 4 thread CPU, I'm guessing you at least have a 4 core CPU, no need to look at the Ghz, you'll be fine.

I'm not so sure about that, a top tier 2020 rig would very comfortably run KSP2 towards the now released recommended requirements. That same rig would play any game on the market today you throw at it beautifully still. I think most of the owners of such rigs would frown their eyebrows looking at the published recommendations. Again, because of what has been shown, and knowing what their rig is capable of. If it would be me, I'd go 'sure Intercept, I'll be fine' If you upgraded in line to what has been shown though, then you Indeed may fall well beneath the published minimum specs.

Any budget gaming computer bought after the release of the EA trailer would run KSP2 within the now released requirements.

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.

Unrealistic expectations are a result of faulty managing of expectations. I'd say with everything I've seen of screenshots of the gameplay, it definitely should not need such hefty GPU requirements. Thats the expectations that I had, and haven't been met by dropping the system requirements a mere week before the game drops. I can perfectly understand the row, which could have been handled a whole lot beter by Intercept by dropping this ball earlier. As for myself, I knew I wanted a top tear machine when KSP2 would drop, and would have upgraded before it would drop in 2020, 2022 or now in 2023, and postponed upgrading till last december for it, so I'm good to go, but many were on the fence by lack of managing expectations.

I was about to make a joke about that being the issue, it's actually more funny when it is used as a real argument.

It looks a bit cluttered, then again I'm not used to see or play 16:9 anymore, I bought myself a 32:9 monitor especially for KSP (gone is the poor man's ultrawide setup) which gives a beautifull view and lots of space for the UI not to mess with the view. It also looks 'modulair', which I'm really hoping it is, here's me hoping every bit of UI can be dragged across the screen where I want them to be. Especially considering my 32:9 setup. KSP does a perfect job facilitating every resolution, I'm expecting KSP2 to do the same. Edit; Also I'm hyped off course, the screen isn't the only thing upgraded for KSP2's arrival.

There are pieces from this video in it.

The difference is huge, a 15watt low voltage throtling 2 core 4600u against an overclocked 4790K single performance king, which was the best you could buy for KSP for years. You are right, single core performance development has been incremental for years, that's why I could not justify upgrading the thing untill the 12 th generation, and now again, the difference in KSP performance is huge between the 12700KF and the 4790K running at 5 GHz all core. Which is purely due to single core percformance gain between the two. Over the course of 8 years the incremental gains each year do add up eventually, but it took a very long time. The point I was trying to make is that whatever machine you build, it will be fairly easy to get it on its knees with KSP, and that most of the worry for KSP2's performance is due to that. Good pointers, to be fair though, somewhere along the line of updates of KSP1 (Unity) there was an update which was significant in spreading the load over more cores and with that offloading the main (physics) thread, which was noticible in performance, but you are right, KSP had and still has a lot of problems due to being poorly written and optimized. We'll have to see how much optimisations KSP2 has made, but I'm not worried about that, they knew exactly what problems needed to be solved to get the performance better then KSP1. KSP1 however does run on potato's, and I'm still confident that KSP2 will run on what we call potato's nowadays. I can fully agree again, I mentioned before that KSP is not a 'gamers'-game and indeed, it will again be single performance bound and we'll have to wait and see to confirm, but I remain confident that you won't need a high tear PC and you should be able to run it on a 5 year old laptop with visuals turned down. Incremental single core performance development however is not because lack of market pressure, but because we've hit the ceiling of what is possible on that front almost a decade ago, we've only been getting small optimisations each generation since. Hence the devolpment to more cores, which did nothing for KSP. Only a few more weeks to go and we can benchmark all we want, I'm exited

Use cases may vary, I think most of the worry is because of KSP 1. It was very easy to get KSP 1.2.2 on its knees 6 years ago with an I5-4440, 8 Gb of Ram and an GTX970. It was just as easy doing it after that with an 'built for KSP' highly optimised and overclocked I7-4790K with 16 Gb of Ram and an GTX970 on mildly modded installs up to 1.12.4 which I ran till a few months ago. And even today with a mildly overclocked I7-12700KF, 32 Gb of Ram and a RTX3080 I can have it in the 20 FPS with modded installs. I think most are looking to much at KSP1's performance and therefore predict that KSP2 will suffer the same issues. Then again, playing Vanilla KSP on my old laptops (with throtelling I7-4600u or I5-5300u and their IGPU's) over the past in planes and on holiday ran playable when you're not to demanding. I don't see a reason as to why it would be different with KSP2 and 8 years of IT development since.

So what are we getting with KSP2? optimization of code and eye candy. Eye candy can and shall be able to be turned down and physics calculations have not gotten any harder over time. Problem which needed to be solved is high part count physics calculation handling, which basically has been promised. This should run on laptops with an 4 core 8 thread cpu and IGPU. Like a 7th generation I5 low voltage cpu with an uhd 620. Will it run 60 FPS? No, but a lot of people will settle for 20 FPS, KSP is not a 'gamers' game, targeted audience is a whole lot broader then that, not just gamers with gaming built machines. CPU performance has come a long way and you would be surprised what non-gaming laptop CPUs with IGPs are capable of. Mentioned low voltage cpu will run games like Cyberpunk and Red Dead Redemption 2 on lowest settings, if you accept average FPS of 25 to 30 at HD ready resolutions. Why wouldn't it run KSP2, physics calculations? I can't imagine they'd be harder then on KSP1, rather the other way around due to the very needed optimisations KSP2 will have. Just my two cents.

We're not in disagree, the processor that runs the fastests is very likely to have the fastest single core performance. That 11% percent however, is not in the slightest the difference between a slideshow and smooth running KSP 1. A recent I3 has plenty of single core performance and fully suited to run KSP 1 without any issues. A recent I3 (lets say from the 8th intel generation) is perfeclty suited to run KSP without comprimising part count. As it is with single core performance, you do get a lot of deminishing returns when the difference is a mere 11% between an I3 and and I7. You're quite underestimating how much single performance you get with an Intel I3. It's core count that destinguishes them from eachother, cores you wont benefit a whole lot from when KSP 1 is concerned.

GHz Indeed doesn't matter, it's single core performance that matters. If you look at the 12 series, an I7-12700k outperforms a I3-12300 with just a mere 11 percent single core performance wise. That's the gain in performance you can expect with KSP 1 by going for an I7 instead of an I3. If that 11% is worth the nearly 3 times the price depends on personal preference and off course budget. That 11% difference is not going to make a world of difference in part count. How KSP 2 is going to profit is yet to be seen. When you are not looking at just KSP 1 to upgrade, I was surprised to see that multicore has been taking a huge flight in games, I've just installed Cyberpunk and was amazed to see that it is using all 20 threads of my I7-12700KF, and not by a little but at least at 80% utilisation.

It's not the GHz that KSP 1 loves, it's the single core performance that usually is accomplished due to high GHz. And although KSP 1 has become more multicore since it's start, the best processor you can buy for it is the one with the highest single core performance, no need to look at I5, I3, I7, I9, no need to look at the GHz it reaches eather, just need to look at the single core performance. Yes, I5,I7 etcetera will get a higher single core performance than the mentioned I3, but the difference is small. Development of single core performance is slow across the years, development is going multicore due to that. From which KSP1 does not profit. I3's with high single core performance are suited well for KSP1, and won't let you suffer. 4 cores and 8 threads is good enough. Basically the reason I only upgraded my computer just now after 9 years, due to lack of development of single core performance.

Multi monitor KSP2 would be the bomb! If there is any game that would benefit from multi monitor usage, it would be Kerbal Space program. And to those who think that they wouldn't like it, buy yourself a second hand 24" monitor for 20 bucks and try it, I bet most of you would get hooked.

The next best thing is always around the corner, better to live in the present and enjoy whenever you can instead of postponing

cAs a small QOL feature I would like to see a 'control point toggle' being added to the Part Action Groups'.

To my recognition there was a pretty big cry from the community to give KSP an art pass, Oil drums and placeholders where terms I've seen come allong quite frequently. I'm a bit puzzled as to why you would think SQUAD has been losing connection with the community considering what people have been asking for (some for years and we gave up upon ever seeing), and what we've gotten in the last 2 years in the base game without costing a dime. A few examples that come to mind; Ambient light adjuster 4K UI support Struts selectable at both ends Part variants Personal parachutes VAB switcher Schmelta V indicator Burn time indicator New skybox Orbital information without needing to switch to map screen Fill command chairs in the VAB Ability to use parachutes while in a command chair Including Astroid Day in the base game AGL meter (unhidden) navball in map view Ability to remove helmets Easier to use maneuveur node editor Multicore support (within their possibilities by giving each vehicle their own Physics thread) Ram leakage fix Landingsite(s) in map view Steam workshop Steam cloud save localization, opening up the game to virtually the whole globe I could argue SQUAD has been more in touch of what the community has been asking then they ever were, maybe we'll see an pass on the current planets in the future, considering stranger things happend which were not expected to ever happen (like a Delta V indicator integration and Steam Workshop)

KSP definitely is different from all of those games, even the feared T2 'takeover' hasn't affected that. We've gotten a burn time indicator, Dv readouts, and new UI elements, for free. I'm happy to spend another 15 dollars to keep development going. And I'm pretty certain SQUAD won't let me walk a Kerbal to some crystals lying around and then would ask me to buy science equipment We indeed have a bit of a different perspective Because I would actually feel I would be getting less than otherwise, and not being given the full game If I would be walking up to some scatter laying around and being confronted with an ad to 'buy more' to get the full Kerbal experience. My guess is we'll just see an ad when we boot KSP like with the introduction of MH which would suffice. I'm perfectly fine to pay for DLC, especially when it comes to KSP due to it still being developed and adding the scatter to the base game sounds good to me to, I'd would just feel a bit like monetization to me if I would be confronted to spend real money during actual gameplay, it just doesn't sound like a Kerbal thing to do.