Vl3d

Other menus:

The fact that you're stating that you can't play the game without a 1000£ video card when the minimum 2060 can be found second hand for ~150£ says it all.

It has begun!

UPGRADE!

Forget about KSP1 performance. The games should not be compared anymore. I'm sure people will be able to play KSP2 with KSP1-looking graphics in the future. But what's the point? You have KSP1 for that. Why go back to playing GTA 2 or Doom 2 after the release of GTA 3 or Quake 3 Arena? Look to the future. I'm not going back to Pentiums.

Even though they are set to "yaw only", when tail control surfaces are placed at an angle (not 90 degrees) they also have an influence on pitch or roll. This should be cancelled out by other control surfaces, preferably automatically. This opens up the ability to design more diverse looking craft without performance loss.

Forget OPM, we're going interstellar. There are sufficient things to do in the stock Kerbol system as it is.

Then why are the CPU requirements so low? Even with multithreading we should expect higher loads for physics calculations. Is it possible that CPU requirements will increase as EA advanced?

I'm curious.. do you guys still doubt the scale and ambition of KSP2? Am I still crazy for asking to have weather visuals and all the stuff?

What software should we use to display FPS and load?

No, they're just for 0.1.x

You're being overdramatic. You can play KSP1 without any issues on older hardware. KSP2 is a 2023 game, is starting with modern hardware.

This is probably enabled only on high settings.

True. I even posted in the Marketing thread that I understand now why there was so little fanfare. Guess marketing was really pointless.. EA really is for Early Adopters.

I'm happy for you! I hope you find yourself enjoying the amazing vistas of new planets when you explore. And even if the sysreqs are high.. the game still needs (alien) weather visual effects!

Let's goooooooo!!! Min. settings baby!!!

I think I'm one of the very few people that are actually happy the requirements are so high. I will be able to run the game on ~minimum settings (I will try higher with lower part count), but I'm ok with it. I just want the game at it's peak to be visually stunning. We'll catch up to it hardware wise and it will help us optimisation wise as EA progresses.

A 4070 Ti has similar performance to a 3090 Ti.

So doesn't that tell you there's a lot of new things under the hood we don't know about?

Source?

Sorry to hear that. Still, give it a try maybe it works. Or at least find a 2060 machine, maybe you have a friend that would like to upgrade.

It doesn't matter. There's no point in advertising min specs that only run a 300 part ship. The game has to run well for all gameplay situations. Including multiplayer and interstellar and colonies and multiple 1000+ parts spaceships on the screen.

You can't play on minimum settings, is it below your level?

I was actually the first person to post about that.