This is the thing that really makes me skeptical about the future. I can accept an early version having serious framerate issues in limited and particularly stressful situations. For example, another EA game I've played (much more of), Planet Crafter, performs very badly in one specific area (my hardware gets about 15-20fps versus easily over 60 in most areas, player constructions notwithstanding). Big whoop. It's just one area; it will probably be optimized at some point, and that'll be the end of that.
KSP2? Just building a conceptually simple rocket meant to go to Duna and back, using radial tanks (hello terrible crossfeed performance) but generally just an uncreative vertical stack. Ascent clocked in at about 8fps. Dropping the first stage, up to about 15fps. Last stage approaching Duna was getting about 35fps.
Now, if the end-game for KSP was to build this simple Duna rocket I wouldn't be worried, because these numbers will improve. But the goal isn't a Duna rocket. We're supposed to be scaling to space stations. Motherships. Mining outposts. Colonies. Interstellar. And multiplayer on top of all that. The Duna rocket is baby stuff. I don't need my game to run at 4k/120fps to enjoy it, but if we can't achieve solid performance at this tiny scale then what hope is there for the lofty goals that actually go beyond what's already in KSP1?
Rebuilding from a more stable and performant base seemed like KSP2's raison d'être, yet it seems just as unstable (in all the same ways and more) and certainly not more performant. Can we really get from here to where we all want the game to go? I'd love to see it, but we're going to need to see dramatic improvements to the game's core functionality to make any of it achievable.
