Bej Kerman

What's wrong with OPM not doing either?

If you nitpick examples from developers with poor reputations? Sure. If you consider how development tends to go? KSP 2 is probably going to have much lower requirements as EA progresses to a more consumer-ready state.

Exactly my thoughts. Yeah, sure, it sometimes makes things look slightly better. But is it anything that can't be approximated by the shaders the devs already created? A ray traced reflection of a fuel tank on a visor isn't worth the demand. We've seen full ray-tracing demonstrated with Portal RTX, but that's a much lower step than having entire planets, dealing with terrain and vessels made of maybe thousands of parts.

I'm not a software guy. I'm familiar with software. I've closely followed SpaceEngine's development, I do occasional research.

I'm not a software guy. I'm not completely blind either, I have seen stuff being worked on before, and I do have an idea of what's going on BTS that isn't blind speculation

I've spent long enough trying to tolerate KSP 1 that I'll be completely and utterly numb to whatever performance issues KSP 2 might have. It runs like a broken Sloth and said mods only compound the performance issue until you end up with a game that runs at jaw-droppingly low framerates trying to fly the sort of vessels Squad was showing in the game's advertisements. You want a self-sufficient nuclear-powered vessel? Too bad, you're going to have to build the massive structure almost entirely out of MkI fuel tanks because Squad couldn't be bothered implementing the fuel switching necessary for NERVs to run on large tanks effectively. The result? A framerate that's insulting to ENIAC. Such a basic feature missing and you've already neutered what should have been the best engine in the game. Same goes for thrust in timewarp, which, even by KSP 1's tech, should have been a basic feature. It's hard to overstate Squad's negligence, and frankly, there's no way in this world that KSP 2 is going to be any worse than KSP 1. Frankly, Sonic '06 was probably giving it a bit much credit. So maybe you're technically correct, ignoring how you intended me to interpret this sentence.

What IS comical about expecting that Unfinished graphics require GPUs built for Unoptimised graphics? Oh? Can we see the crystal ball you got this info from? [snip] However bad KSP 2 is, KSP 1 is even worse. Bold for extra emphasis

Once again I ask you - are you a developer and do you know what's going on in the studio? I've seen development work first-hand and know that it isn't a straight-like process. In fact, not knowing what's going on in the studio should be the exact reasoning for giving them the benefit of the doubt! You have no idea what the devs are having to deal with or what kinds of challenges come with making a working product from the building blocks within the time Intercept was given. No, I think it's "work". Promised something to the consumer - carry out. Don't expect him to make up excuses for you. Oh, yes. Just "work" and watch the game completion percentage go up in a linear manner Nobody is entitled to super-devs that can "carry out" anything when given unreasonable deadlines. Don't think that developers are 2000000-word-per-minute superheroes who can just pull a working product out of their backside within 2 hours if you say "give me x within 2 hours".

I feel like this should be fairly obvious to everyone at this point. This level of paranoia is just comical.

Definitely.

KSP 1 is no longer in development and KSP 2 is doing away with career.

Indeed. Then again, some people here have spent literal years obsessing over the game. How someone cares for more than a few days before forgetting about it until the next update is beyond me.

Ya mean they didn't optimise their code that was not yet suitable for optimisation???? Your idea of development is nothing short of confusing, in fact probably wrong. Sounds like someone being condescending about a problem they've never faced.

Because suits are well known for treating developers well

Buy what before I do what? But your rig before you know the KSP 2 minimum requirements. Yeah. So I hear.

Well that's why you don't buy before you know. It doesn't even matter anyway. The store now says the minimum requirement is a 1070.

People are just a bit angry they put money into rigs before seeing any kind of info, that's what I see. The developers can't be blamed for being forced to push out a game that hasn't yet seen the optimisation work needed for a public release.

The marketing material is full to the brim with the sort of crafts you'd expect would bring KSP to a crawl. That craft flying by Duna we saw isn't exactly KSP 1 material.

Blueish planet with sun over horizon looks like blueish planet with sun over horizon

No, you aren't understanding. It's not similar. Not in the least. Apples and oranges. Elite Dangerous was released in 2014 and Frontier has added next to no major features. KSP 2 is still very early in development. Frontier has a complete product it is doing very little with to focus on the real cash cows. Intercept can't optimise at the same time they're working on the major features of KSP 2. KSP 1 can't do diddly darn bull. Development could not possibly be going so bad that Intercept beats Squad at making a pile of junk that doesn't work.

Then you do not understand how development works. Features then optimisation. KSP 2 is not a complete product. It is still a prototype at this point and the developers have yet to reach the optimisation phase of EA. That's insulting given that Frontier is well past Elite Dangerous' official release and has more than enough workforce to handle things better than they are.

MSFS has gone through all its pre-release optimisations, KSP 2 hasn't. And the screenshot isn't even KSP 2. Memes aren't funny when the punchline isn't rooted in reality, even less so when it's incendiary and targeted at a dev team that is already having trouble with demands.

Just speculation but I'm guessing the weight of the requirements lay more on executive meddling from T2 than anyone from Intercept. Just a possibility, I just think Intercept not explaining what development entails and being initially conservative with minimum requirements comes more down to Take Two not wanting confusion to lay on the kiddies they are trying to market to and wanting new players to be able to run the game at max graphics with little slowdown than Intercept being incompetent, the latter I doubt.

"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

PUNCTUATION. FOR. EMPHASIS!