Kerbin Launch Coalition

That's crackers, to suspect an RTX 4090 struggle with a game that looks like this one is bordering on comedy. The scary thing is, I think you're spot on given the system requirements.

You've seen how much RTX 4080 cost though right? Like I'm gonna go ahead and make a sweeping statement here, 99% of gamers will not be willing to fork out the asking price for one, for Kerbal Space Program 2. Not when it has no real credentials to be demanding such hardware. Of course there'll always be the 'hardcore' who'll drop a grand to play a single game like it's nothing but most people squarely aren't in that boat.

Well the GTX 1080 is faster (10 - 15%) than RTX 2060 so it'll work well enough I'd imagine. Unless there's something like Ray Tracing as base feature.

To be fair, I'm getting it on Early Access and, unless it is just the worst performing game ever, keeping it. I'm looking forward to see the colonies and what not, the one thing the original Kerbal Space Program lacked was in a nutshell, ambition. This one seems more ambitious, which isn't nothing but a good thing provided Intercept and Private Division can provide a game that works. I wouldn't be surprised to see this. That said though, I'd have expected the minimum requirements to be a bit more reasonable if there's an optional texture resolution bump for higher end systems.

I mean, Star Citizen is playable at 4K with an RTX 3060 and that's never gonna be a finished game. I can see a number of people using Steam's refund policy like, not gonna lie.

People are ruling this out but I mean it makes huge sense, it doesn't look great, sorry not sorry, but it doesn't. BUT if physics is being off-loaded to the GPU it'd certainly explain the inexplicably high system requirements. Hasn't really been done before though has it?

That doesn't make me feel better, as *minimum* requirements? That's still a LOT of power for a bare minimum setup. Though it does make me, with an RTX 3070 feel a bit more comfortable, given it has a comfortable like 75% advantage over the 1070 Ti.

Mate this (KSP2) has higher recommended system requirements than the almost photo realistic Microsoft Flight Simulator and DCS. Like *much* higher requirements, which is insane given how the game looks. We're going to be in the situation where one can run Sins of a Solar Empire II, maxed out, all the eye candy with thousands of ships and struggle to run Kerbal Space Program 2.

That's nuts that an RTX 3060 is going to be running this at low 'or better' with graphical fidelity that seldom even touches the card.

Yeah in terms of theoretical computational prowess even an RTX 3060 is 'slightly' more potent than the GPU in the Series X. Problem is when it comes to console to PC comparisons, such numbers are largely irrelevant. The main advantage the Series X has in that respect is it has more VRAM. The RTX 3080 *monsters* the Series X in principle (it's more 'powerful' than a Series X and a PS5 combined, then some) but that'll never in a million years translate into actual, real-world performance.

The RTX 2060 hit the market in Q1 2019. But you can't forget that there's a lot of people who play Kerbal Space Program with stuff like GTX 1050 and the likes. Minimum requirements generally suggest, if you want to play this game, at a basic level you need this hardware. I've never seen a game with such a significant low end requirement. That's what is raising eyebrows. Hey, I'm looking at this like you, I think these are kinda conservative requirements and it'll be refined in a bit of time as the team progress through the roadmap. For me personally, I'm between minimum and recommended in the GPU department with a load more RAM and a better CPU so think I'll be alright. Anyone got any idea why 'recommended' comes with an extra 15Gb of drive storage? We thinking optional textures and what not?

In no known universe is an RTX 2060 a 'low end' card and realistically shouldn't be considered as so. The 3060 is championed as more or less the king of 'mid-range' not budget or entry level. I mean there'll forever be the 'PC Master Race' folks who consider anything that's older than five minutes, is 'out-dated' but I think most of the PC gaming player base is going to sit BELOW the 3060 level, which is only about 15 - 20% faster, best case than a 2060. I don't think it's going to be as bad as that mind. For all we know this could be, to run perfectly with no slow-down at 1080P. I'll take that like, I don't really game higher than 1080 as it's pretty pointless on a 17.2" laptop panel. So if I can get good graphical fidelity at that resolution with good performance, I'd consider that a win! (RTX 3070). Roll on next week!

To be fair I think that's an unfair statement. Kerbal Space Program 2 looks nothing like it would command that sort of hardware requirements. I mean it still looks quite basic (graphically) compared to a lot of not even new titles. That's where I think the main confusion stems from, but this has been a trend for the history of PC gaming. New more powerful hardware, games that 'utilise' it and everyone scratching their heads as to just what all that extra computational power is actually doing. The developers could clear a *lot* of this confusion up and go into a brief bit of detail as to 'why' an RTX 3080 is recommended. But dropping a system requirement like this, like a week before launch with little input on why they're so high is less than ideal. That said, I am getting the game as planned because I've been waiting a long time for this but I do fully understand people's 'concerns' regarding these insane (for what it is) system requirements.

Even though nothing has been said, there has to be some GPU based physics to be requiring those cards, with the visuals we've seen. Don't get me wrong it looks good, a definite step up from Kerbal Space Program but I don't know how that translates into requiring *that* much more hardware for rendering. If the physics have been off-loaded to the GPU it certainly serves to explain the quite dramatic jump from minimum to recommend, physics plus graphical bells and whistles. Maybe? There's definitely a lot of really 'confused' people over on the Facebook and Twitter KSP communities. That said, I'm still stoked for the release and can't wait to see what's what. I'm somewhere between minimum and recommended (though I have a better processor and RAM) so I'm expecting it'll run well enough. That said it's still essentially an alpha build so I'm fully prepared for bugs, random unexpected slowdowns and what not. All part of being an Early Access participator.

As 'flashy' as the teasers? We must be looking at different games here.

The entire game is a 'calculate behind the scenes' sorta game. The one thing I see with these requirements is that *maybe* some or a lot of that physics simulation stuff has been off-loaded to the GPU instead of the CPU as with the previous game. The main limiting factor to the original Kerbal Space Program was the single core, physics heavy setup, that's why the more parts (i.e the more physics stuff to do with interactions between the parts) the slower the game ran. That and that sudden jump in framerate that is common when leaving the atmosphere, as aerodynamic physics (albeit wooden as hell) are no longer a factor.

To be honest though how I see it, is to run the game at 'below' maximum settings is GTX 1070/RTX 2060 sorta area. I'd expect the RTX 3070 in my laptop to 'probably' be able to do maximum settings at 1080P (but not 1440P) which I can live with personally. I'm sure performance will improve over time and there's been no suggestion of what sort of framerate that is for each respective set of requirements. It could be a case of RTX 3080 does maximum settings, 1440P and never dips below 60FPS.

I'd agree with that. I'm thinking this is just an EXTREMELY conservative, beta sorta requirements just to cover all their bases. If not, I'll be surprised!

What in the name of Jesus is with these requirements? This marks the first ever time the RTX 3070 in the laptop I game on isn't in the 'recommended' hardware requirements. Apologies but what the hell, GPU side is requiring that amount of resources? Are we talking GPU based PHYSICS? That just doesn't make sense to be honest for a game like this based on how it 'looks'. Keep in mind an RTX 3080 is like, in principle, around two and a half times as powerful as an Xbox Series X. (*In terms of outright theoretical performance, GPU vs. GPU*).

You know a method of fixing the 'issue' with Parallax 2.0 and the Kerbin Side mods? In particular trees being generated inside the other launch sites and airfields?

You'll encounter the same issue with KS3P and Ad Astra for JNSQ.

Yes it's not present using TUFX. HOWEVER, that said it also isn't present in stock (With Parallax) and KS3P, that's the setup I am using, rescaled stock with Outer Planets and Minor Planets.

I had that happen, and it only ever happened with JNSQ whilst using KS3P in particular. Never saw it on JNSQ without the post processing mod, or in stock with Parallax. It's odd because you can see an odd 'shadow' on rockets most of the way up, but once you get past a certain point it just disappears.

Yeah JNSQ has its own set of rather beautiful surface textures for each body in the JNSQ stock system. However, due to them sharing the same name as all the stock system bodies (with the exception of the bodies out beyond Jool), the Parallax 2.0 scatters are still implimented on the surface. So, it kinda works out alright. The only real issue I've came across is with regards to icebergs, but that could be fixed I think with some slight editing of the JNSQ Kerbin config file. Though I could be wrong.

To be fair, there's nothing that needs to change with Smart Parts. They perform their intended function perfectly, most of my rockets include Smart Parts (especially strap-on solids).