Stephensan

that is what ksp 2 wants to address, and has been beaten so much the meat of the horse is unusable for even sausage and has to be processed into spam like consistency. its not forgotten it shouldn't need a high end pc in overall specs for what we see.. its not forgotten, we are literally talking about it right now early access is for information gathering to help progress the game better and a small bit for the money. not for "enthusiasts with enthusiast" hardware... i can bet 2 crashes directly onto the runway, that most of the buyers will be completely under the "minimal requirements" or just at it in some fashion compared to the people that really have "enthusiast" hardware.. easily in a 10/1 fashion.. People want to play ksp 2 now due to how old the OG one is, and they want something better, not a blow 550$ for the minimal settings, and for recommended setting that much plus more on the gpu alone if they released the specs 1 year ago it be even worse due to the 3080 being "top of the line enthusiast gpu" without being a cash out for i got "xyz gpu". and the 2060 would still be considered a higher end mid range GPU.

no, i just stated what it shows.. ksp 1 can be brute forced.. And it can be brute forced with graphics mods to get playable frame rates, and if ksp 2 is doing the same thing, but needs higher specs, its nothing new and it wasn't ready to be put out into beta. if the mix of minimal and high settings has to go off there is only one small, short few second scene that makes me think "oh yeah i need a 3080" in recent videos no, this doesn't give me the feel it needs that much horsepower https://youtu.be/XAL3XaP-LyE Deff not this https://youtu.be/XAL3XaP-LyE?t=201 its this scene https://youtu.be/XAL3XaP-LyE?t=258 and what im really worried is that this split frame is going be the difference between high and low this right here was JUST on the "Kerbal Space Program 2 Early Access Gameplay Trailer"... like that is a huge start difference. and for people that won't look at the videos, its the same thing.. the complete confliction of what they show on graphics makes it completely incomprehensible to judge if the game is going to look good.. the top photo makes me think, yup, that is 100% needing my gpu horsepower and i completely understand that it needs a 3080. but the second one completely without a doubt looks like it can run on a gtx 1060 3gb. and just after that scene, does that look like it needs a rtx 3080 before it fades with the added smoke effect? no? there is zero ground to see what the game looks like at its best, we have been repeatedly shown "poor" looking photos past weeks now. and this video with the addition of the specs makes me wonder how bad it really can be, are they brute forcing it, or are they showing something that isn't going to have playable framerate.

this is more of a "brute force to get playable framerates" rather than a game.. it really put me into question how far are they really from having this game out into 1.0 you can have 100++ fps on ksp 1 if you throw that much horsepower at it pretty much any game at that point. and it feels like the same ol same ol thing but now with a higher specs needed.

yeah don't even want to think about it still

oh it is still hype, but the utterness of hearing nate saying that they are targeting mid range pc, for them to then go to minimum settings a rtx 2060... that is just the opposite of mid range, that is still in the high end for the entire community. heck it the gaming community. even seeing steam charts the gtx 1650 would be considered a mid range by steam charts. midrange for them must mean, mid range parts of 2022/2023 new. not what really mid range means for the gaming community.

"sees the newest and greatest gpus on lent computers for a special event, sees that a gaming pc builder has supported this and lent them the computers for free publicity." oh yeah we should worry? like no, we shouldn't need to even remotely think or correlate a gaming pc building company lending 4090's to people for an event, to be factual "need" to have, more to show overkill pc's.. not what is going to be slightly above "recommended" pc's specs.. it wasn't glossed over, it was we weren't expecting this bad we heard mid range... this isn't mid range specs for recommended, nor minimal, this is upper high end... with the 3080 really being the upmost of the high end, with the 4000 being top end.. the rtx 2060 i would say would still be a higher end pc... not mid range, or in the "minimal requirements" area

thats very very generous thinking i really doubt you can build a 1500-part mothership, spacestation, very possible, if you can build your own space vehicle assembly, have huge refueling/processing 200+ kerbals, few ships around it to maneuver it, and a torch ship on it, with multiplayer PERHAPS. .. by the time interstellar hits we should have tons of different types of engines, huge fuel tanks, long metal bars "torch stick ship" with heck, lets say a 200 kerbal population and 4 parasite ships with air breathing, refueling/processing, and high trust, and long range will be anything close to 600-700 parts. and thats a stretch, honestly. even super SSTO's won't be that big anymore, that was due to the limitations of what stock engines we had in ksp1..

they really should have showed photos of "frame by frame" same spot etc on low and high with fps. cause its getting worse and worse now with they said "only 1440p" 3080 like

needs a rtx 3080 for that without the smoke.. like

i really really really really really really (goes on for 3 hours) hope that it has DLSS, FSR, just in case right now.. Im on the same page, it better look killer with a 3070 overclocked. a 3 year old GPU that costs nine arms and four legs better run well, i don't to think that i need a 4000 series GPU to play 4k or 1440p. most of my games (beisdes minecraft) can play very well on 4k even without DLSS... the only game that i do DLSS is SCUM, due to doing 200% of 2160p, and then using quality to bring it back to sanity, giving me on med high settings 80fps+ on avg, with lows of 50~ fps. there is just zero specification on what the hardware they are suggesting should be able to do, and thats the largest issue.. im expecting right now the 3080 spec to run high @ 1440p60fps

no idea, seems rather sad, with now knowing that seeing everything together, it better bet absolutely killer ingame, looks amazing, other than that the "hoard" of ksp 1 runs better with XX mod and has higher fps come..

and then boom, requirements.

with the split of what we been seeing of graphics i would really want to see the "recommended" specs at what res with fps..

thought my 3070 was going to big "stuff" at 4k looks like it wont be like that i really hope there is DLSS

to think that you need a 2060 for 1080p.. it should be 1440p@60fps med high... like

YES, excatly

Holy MF christ the specs are tough swallow... i don't even got the recommended PC for GPU.. like

looks like low quaility and seems like it was a split frame of HQ and LQ

Also not saying anything, but it looks like time is straight up paused

added in for a "next scene" hope they add it for real though

most of these photos are "just grab them" not "look the best" more for hype, less for looks every single photo, recently that looks really poor means its just for hype and not showing the "Game"

and i thought it was to have fun smh

also all of them still are avoiding any showing of going past sonic+ plasma etc. still

Free roaming IQ cells will be used as kraken bait.

few pages ago.. no way the CC's went there and had gaming pcs with who knows what specs and NOT played ksp 2.