mcpattyp

I would genuinly prefer to just launch from a flat grassy field during EA if it meant better performance. It could at least be option that might not be hard to implement, just delete all the buildings and trees

There has been pretty clear trend in the community's response to the first real gameplay, and this thread is probably going to be read by Nate himself, so I'm not going to continue the nuclear ripping into the game because I think he understands what the community thinks. But please, focus a large amount of resources in the coming weeks and months on large leaps in optimization. There is no way there is not plenty of headroom for optimization. Your entire early access strategy focuses on player feedback to guide the course of development, but if nobody can run the game sales are going to tank hard, and you wont have the feedback you need, and I assume you guys need sales to continue development, because you are a business. Please, increase accessibility to this game by lowering the monster system requirements. If you don't, there wont be anyone left to play it. I know this dev team has passion for the game because I saw it in every feature video. It probably hurts to see the negative reaction. Focus up and work your asses off on making this game perform the best it can.

Okay, Everyday Astronauts rocket that was slightly larger than a Kerbal X got the game to crawl pretty hard, and that’s on a pc with a 4080, 7900X and 32gb of RAM. I will be buying KSP2, but not at release. I do look forward to a more polished game in the future and I am rooting for the devs!

This screams “we are releasing the game half baked because we need sales to stop being a drain on Take 2’s financial reports” I will still be buying the game. But if it’s clear to me immediately I cannot play at a reasonable 60+ fps with a part count of 50-60 I will just refund the game and either wait for optimizations or wait until I can afford to spend atleast $3000 on a new computer (Lithobraking near my desk in 2026)

Posting these specs with zero context was a bad idea. No wonder the discord erupted and went nuclear. What resolution is this for? Is the minimum specs for 144fps, 60fps, or 30fps? The fact that they withheld the information kind of implies that it’s the worst possibility of both of these important categories Just for some context, the Steam Hardware Survey reports that about 40% of steam users have a 2060 or better, but that only 4% has a 3080 or better.

Can we talk about how they waited until a week before release to post this?

The fact that they waited a week before release to post this is mind boggling

This alienates a significant portion of the audience and is not a good thing. I’m assuming you only think this because you can afford a new high tier graphics card. Not everyone can.

Damn my 2070 is just barely above the minimum… wait… 3080 RECOMMENDED???!!!

I feel like changing the navball’s location was nothing more than to change something for the sake of changing something. Why move it out of your direct line of sight? It’s the most important thing on the screen beside the ship itself. Whatever, it will probably be fixed by a mod in the first week

Is it known what exact time KSP2 will release on the 24th?

I have been fairly pessimistic on KSP 2 in general, but I’m done being a naysayer. At this point, with the game only 3 weeks away, I’m just going to hold my opinions internally and either verify or prove them wrong once EA releases

It’s Matt Lowne, of course he’s trolling. How could anyone think that is real lol

The fact that the alpha drops right in the middle of the school semester is going to be dangerous

Life support is probably not going to be in the game. There’s a reason it’s been completely omitted from that roadmap, and the only evidence for it is little shreds like one developer saying “bring plenty of snacks” in a feature video (or something along those lines)