Ryan@123

I think it will run as any modern game along with directX 12 must support opengl or Vulcan.Vulcan is not recommended with Nvidia GPU.But I guess it will run with openGL as it's tough to day what star theory will do.They most likely will implement it. Well I tried overclocking to 5ghz and tried KSP (THIS THING CRUSHED MY 2000PART ROCKET) And a few of the street test(I forgot name) but my cpu and GPU fans where GOING BERSEK.And its lying inside a e-gpu stand with a pcei-x16 extender and a 500 watt 60+ egpu B That's Great then I suggest that KSP 2 will run atleast on low 720p.But ram may be the bare minimum hence I suggest to upgrade to 16gb

It's purely speculation,even the devs do not know how each piece of hardware will behave when this code of a game i.e ksp2.But I guess it will be WAAAY better optimised for modern low end hardware.Propably it will use a new engine(obviously) unity 5 and I have heard that it's quite well optimised.Atleast for the cpu part Note:sorry I couldn't reply I have upgraded my pc.E-gpu via pcei-x16 extender cable and new cpu and psu. Now specs- I7 9700KF GTX 1060(my pc now seems a beast such a feeling of power I have never experienced) 16gb ram. All my 5 years of savings 50% gone. How does it handle KSP 1 if it handles it well then ofcourse I guess it will run well on 720p low.Note I had a razor note book with a weaker igpu hd 530 and KSP ran VEERY well on 1080p even used some cloud mods.UHD 620 ofcourse is better so you can run it on 720 low or atleast 600p.The cpu is quite good and the ram may become slight less.Upgrade to 16gb then stay tension free(sort of)

Thanks for the advice but my pc has a pcei-x16 express slot and I can just use a pcei-x16 extender cable to add e-gpu. As for KSP I am sure that my pc has enough horsepower to run that game but if I get a good GTX 1050ti LP from gigabyte then I will replace it by the GT 1030 and then rock all setting high.In KSP 1 my pc was able to handle massive 2000part rocket(though my pc fan was running like mad)

We all are waiting for KSP 2 and have faith in all the devs and are damn sure that this GAME WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING IT WILL OVERTAKE EVERY SINGLE SANDBOX GAME.We all watched the alpha gameplay and they are mind-blowing.Just one request plz add multi planetary systems.It will be mad fun in exploring new solar systems with revolutionary technology

Actually yes there may or may not be multi threading for single.Vessels but there may be for two or more vessels.Like while handling one vessel another one in orbit comes to screen then the physics calculation part may be transmitted to another core unlike KSP 1 where everything in a single core.As for fact clockspeed any cpu with atleast 3.7-3.9ghz all core turbo is good while it's recommended to have a 4ghz all core turbo cpu.But graphics KSP 2 will have substantially more GPU requirements but I hope not the THE BATTLEFIELD SERIES(THAT SERIES MADE MY PC CRY THOUGH IT RAN).I guess anyone with a GTX 750 TI or GT 1030 should be fine.

Yes But this time KSP engine has undergoing a freaking overhaul.Most likely the cpu part will remain unchanged with slight better optimisation than the last one allowing to take full advantage of the single core power and all core and all thread power i.e multi-core support hence I suggest that a true quad core with 3.6ghz + all core frequency or possibly 4.0ghz all core turbo should be the ideal CPU or a 6 core CPU(always recommended). A fast dual core with hyperthreading will be the minimum and a fast quad core which can rival a 6core cpu with it frequency will be the recommendation.As for GPU I guess GT 1030 Will run it at 900p(which is the native resolution of my monitor) CSGO runs at max at a freaking 190fps,GTA V ultra 4k 19fps.Since I saw the alpha gameplay KSP 2 will become a heavy ram and GPU game alongside cpu for which it is always known.Yes my prebuilt dell Inspiron sff may not be upgradable easily but what about a e-gpu and a e PSU.Then I can use any GPU I want but first I will see whether it runs on GT 1030 or not.I hope that the minimum requirements state a GTX 750 hence most people will be able to run it.Alsk I HOPE. THAT THE DEVS WONT STATE THE FREAKING PS5 AS THE MINIMUM AS IT WILL THEN BECOME MS FLIGHT SIMULATOR 2020 REQUIREMENTS.Mostly a GTX 1650 will be the recommended and the minimum a GTX 750ti or GT 1030

Also we are forgetting one thing if there was no covid-19 the game would have been released by 2020,hence we can approximately guess that ps5 and xbox1x will run ksp2 maxed out at 4k but for older pc(I mean 9th gen Intel and low end 10 series GPU like GT 1030 and GTX 1050 not ti version) it would be the minimum the bare minimum for KSP2 but due this covid-19 the time has increased so has the time for development and making the base game more efficient and working for optimisation for pc which are on the low end of stuff because if they release as the ps5 base line it would be like Microsoft flight simulator 2020 requirements.Hence I guess the GTX 750 to be THE BARE MINIMUM.but these are all speculation.Its always best to wait for the devs to announce the requirements.But I certainly hope that it would not list ps5 system requirements as the bare minimum but certainly better than the recommended requirements of KSP 1. ryzen 3 1300X,GTX 750TI 8gb ram seems to the optimal minimum for ksp2.

Yes I agree KSP 2 will push hardware to limits(but I hope that it doesn't push to the extent Battlefield series or GTA series does).In game debate they played a GTX 1050 as minimum and i3 560 as minimum.In recommended GTX 1060 and i5 4th gen Haswell overclockable(i5 4650k is guess).As for my hardware I can't upgrade my cpu quickly as for GPU I am trying to find a GTX 1050ti but none of them will fit in my prebuilt dell Inspiron 3470 SFF.Only external GPU is the option or placing the GPU in the pcei-x1 slot as it's dual slot GPU. As for my case I can UPGRADE TO A I7 9700K which I will but the GPU I am unsure But if GT 1030 can't handle it then I will do a external GPU setup

If we combine Albert Einstein famous Equation E=MC²,it definines Energy but NO MATTER CAN BE FULLY CONVERTED INTO ENERGY AS PER THE 1ST LAW IF THERMODTHERMODYNAMICS.E=MC² is also known as a hypothetical defination of energy.BUT no matter can be 100% converted to energy BASED ON THE sole reason that NO CONVERSION IN THE WORLD IS 100% EFFICIENT. If we combine Albert Einstein famous Equation E=MC²,it definines Energy but NO MATTER CAN BE FULLY CONVERTED INTO ENERGY AS PER THE 1ST LAW Of THERMODYNAMICS.E=MC² is also known as a hypothetical defination of energy.BUT no matter can be 100% converted to energy BASED ON THE sole reason that NO CONVERSION IN THE WORLD IS 100% EFFICIENT. Now coming to your question THE SOLAR ENERGY REQUIRED TO CONVERT 1 TON OF HYDROGEN INTO ENERGY SHOULD BE GREATER THAN 3*10^11Joules.Now The value which I said is only possible in the case of complete conversion of the energies with efficieny 100%. NOTE: I AM IN CLASS 8 hence if I made any mistakes plz correct me.

Yeah correct but the devs have hinted about new solar system and kerbol will get a new planet called puff hence It will be significantly ram heavy.Along with the major fact that it will be more taxing on the GPU with Direct X 12 support.Meaning that unlike previous ksp the UHD 630, Vega 3 won't run it at max in 720p but it would be unplayable.I guess the minimum will be GTX 550ti or GTX 460.(at directX 11 support) or a GTX 750(at directX 12 support if they do it minimum)

Yes I agree with all of you.But my first concern is regarding the GPU.We know how KSP stressed on GPU power.A freaking weak GT 710 weaker than Intel's skylake igpu could run it at 45fps Which will definately never be the case this time.Hence I was thinking the level of graphical performance one must have in the pc in order to play it.Besides fro. GPU we know that KSP will and always be cpu intensive,hence the cpu also matters.I have heard that the devs have done some optimisation such that there is reduced lag with massive rockets.This possibly indicates multi core support but since this game mostly would support directX 12 which is limited to 6threads then how would a recent true Quad core hold up like a i3 9100F or a i7 7400 or a r5 1400 or r5 1500x

Guys I use a Dell Inspiron 3470 SFF and very limited to GPU(definitely stuff changes with external GPU which I may get like a Rx 590 or a GTX 1660 super and a new PSU.I hope that the my cpu(i3 9100F) could handle it well,if not then the last resort i5 9400F.Also I meant by the fact a standard of graphical performance as KSP 1 was playable for such hardware which ksp2 will not be.But what about GT 1030,as I have heard that we can even play the Battlefield V (which puts even the most powerful GPU at it paces) at low.But my major concern is the CPU.Older i3 and Pentium will certainly cry while running but what about a new (or recent) coffee lake refresh i3 9100F.Certainly the devs of KSP (one of the most cheerful devs I have ever seen) have enabled multi-core performance hence I guess this game to run on a true quad core smoothly or atleast in a playable manner with it 4.0ghz all core turbo.(and 4.2ghz single core turbo)

Hello Everyone, I looked up to the developers show case yesterday but one thing ravages me THE HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW KSP 2.As the graphics are awesome so it may be a problem for many AMD and Intel low end processors and graphics card like GT 730 or GT 710.Will KSP 2 run on low end system like mine(for reference) I3 9100F GT 1030 16GB ddr4 ram. Thanks