GoldForest

We saw it in a beta sneak peek a week ago. Don't remember which one, but it was there.

NVIDIA T550 Laptop GPU GPU - Benchmarks and Specs - NotebookCheck.net Tech T550? A quadro? Not really okay. You can see that it averages 30 FPS on high... at 1080P. Might have to turn down the settings.

Maybe these specific scenes were filmed at low scatter settings, who knows. Also, I've seen plenty of complaints about Parralax being "Too busy" with the scattering making it "hard to land" KSP 2 wants to be fun for new players. Do you really think they want to be like Neil Armstrong and having to hover until bingo fuel to find a landing spot?

I was making a analogy/comparison. You can replace COD with any modern game. MSFS (120 GBs (Without DLC)), Dead Space Remake (50 GB), Halo Infinite (50 GB), Hitman 3 (60 GB), Doom eternal (80 GB), so on and so forth. Games have been more than 50 GB for a while now. So, complaining about 40 GB is a moot point. And you're right, there hasn't been optimizations. That 40 GB might drop to 30 in a year or two. So complaining about the storage requirements is pointless. Why 3080? Why not 4080 then if that's your argument? The 3080 is a graphics card first and a raytracing card second. I bet you KSP 2 doesn't even have raytracing, not yet at least. If it does, I'll be pleasantly surprised. As for scattering in the trailer... are you kidding me?

Hmmm. Could it have been so astronauts working on the truss weren't in danger?

No news on physics as of right now. We don't know if they went PhyX or Havok. CPU physics or GPU physics.

There are reflections (The rocket launching at the start of the gameplay trailer literally has reflections right in the center view), the planets look absolutely better close up (The sneak peeks have just been at low settings), ray tracing isn't that important, especially since only about 10% of the people that have the hardware to run ray tracing run it. I'm not joking. Only 5 to 10% of people with RTX cards run ray tracing in games. So, why bother adding it? As for scattering, again, the devs run LOW settings for anything they are not working on. Part texturer/modelers do not need ultra planet textures or planet scattering. Part programmers don't need beautiful planets either, they just need to make sure the lander engine works on the several planets we're visiting. The person making volumentric clouds, doesn't need planet or part textures to ultra. So on and so forth. The only high/ultra settings we've seen were in the Feature episodes and in the gameplay trailer. The game does look 2023 if you ignore the low settings sneak peeks and only focus on the high settings we've seen in the feature videos and the gameplay trailer.

Yes. Minimum specs is kind of a misnomer. It should be called Minimally Recommended Specs. KSP 2 will run for you, even if you have below the minimum specs. How well it will run is up in the air. the 2060 might be an over allocation of power on Intercepts part. Could be that they have only tested as low as a 2060 since they either don't have anything below that on hand or they didn't get to testing anything else due to the time constraints.

It's not that strange to see a release one day after the other.

The PC's at the insider event were no indication that we should have suspected something wrong. I mean, if you setup a big grand event, would you give your guests a mediocure experience or a "Wow!" experience? Intercept went for wow. If the specs call for 3080s, why did they have 4090s? The insider event was to give their guest the best experience possible. Also, it's not that bad. Recommended specs and min specs are not the "If you don't have this, it won't run" that a lot of people take it for. KSP 2 will work on 900 and even 700 series GPUs, just don't expect all the prettiness that the higher end users will enjoy.

I wouldn't worry too much. They always over allocate storage for future updates and dlc. My guess, is that the 60 GBs is the finished product size. As of right now, the real size is probably closer to 15 to 25 gigs is my guess. My modded KSP install is about 25 gigs right now, without planet packs, but I run Parallax, EVE and other visual mods on ultra.

Told you marketing it right now would kill KSP 2. And this just confirms it. Most people, imo, don't look at the specs and go, "Oh, I'm below the minimum specs... I should try it out just to see if I can run it decently." Most people go, imo, "Let's see the min specs... oh... oh no... I can't run it. " and then go to another game that they can run. Most people, imo, don't understand that min specs are a guideline, not a rule. Because the boys and girls who texture/model the planets haven't been giving screenshots to the social team. Most of what we've seen in the last 4 months has been low settings screenshots from the team working on EA release build.

Sorry, I'm not apart of the min spec gang. I actually exceed Recommended specs. CPU: I5-13600K RAM: 64 GBs (And before anyone ask why so much, KSP 1 maxed out my before upgrade 32 gigs, plus I like to have a few background programs running, so needed a little head room) GPU: RTX 3090 Strix OC SSD: Plenty of space. Also, people complaining about the 60GB when they play COD which takes 100 GB is hilarious to me. Like, guys, the devs always over allocate storage! Also, I doubt 60 GB is the EA specs. 60 GB is probably the max size of the game when all updates are added. Keep in mind, they have the game pretty much completely made. All the updates are already made, they just want to work on them sections at a time. Which is understandable, I mean, they want to optimize each focus so it doesn't hinder performance later. I'm not worried about the space requirement going up either. If it goes up, it goes up. I mean, you got games literally hitting 150 gb today. Kind of a moot point to complain about size.

Yeah, well you know how you were advocating for KSP 2 to have more marketing and to get a bigger playerbase for EA? Well, this just alienated everyone who still rocks a 1060 or below. There's going to be even less people during EA now because of this announcement more than likely.

Tbh, this thread has derailed hard. The last 10 pages are just bickering about the specs really. So let's fix that: I'm still excited for KSP 2, I'm still going to buy it day one and play it until I collapse from dehydration, starvation and sleep deprivation!

Yeah, that's the "Research" Orb that was added. It's Prichal.

Oh boy, I just remembered, the 16s got supers too... ugh. That's a long line up for an entire single generation... All that in a single generation... And this doesn't even include the laptop variants...

And they are targeting current gen consoles for release after PC hits 1.0, so makes sense that they would require the same or slightly worse specs.

Tell me about it. They launched like 40 cards in one generation. GTX 16s RTX 20s RTX 20 supers I'm honestly surprised they didn't launch Ti Supers.

Weird that you added Prichal to the mod. Isn't Prichal a Russian part? I'm not complaining, just wondering why it is here instead of in Tantares

I would call the 2060 a low mid-range GPU. The 2070 is the high mid-range GPU. If the 2060 was a higher mid-range GPU, the 2050 would be a mid-range card too, but it's not, it's a high low-end card. And that's not taking into account the supers or Ti's.

It is functional. We've seen that from the videos. No, but they are coming. KSP 1 was quite buggy, yes, because it was made by video game hobbyists and not video game professionals. Intercept has professionals. It's a lot more than a demo game, but fair enough. $50 dollars for early access is quite steep, though, you're saying $10 to $20 on the release price which may be $60 or $70.

Depends on the type of work. An accounting firm? No. A 3D design studio? Yes, and might even be a 2070.

Considering 3080 is recommended for 1440P at 60 fps on high settings, 3090 should be able to handle 4K medium to high settings getting around 60 fps. Also, to all the people freaking out about the specs, remember, devs always over allocate power. If you have a 16 series GPU or equivalent, you're more than likely going to be fine for most of the game. 10 series and 900 series or equivalent might start to struggle in medium and high demanding areas respectively. 700 series or equivalent might struggle with anything low demanding.

No. Nothing in KSP 1 is compatible with KSP 2.