Kerbart

My suspicion is that the 4 GB of memory will cause extensive texture swapping as well? That'd be a big hit on performance. I stopped playing on a laptop KSP 9 years ago (I just happened to check this morning when I last bought a new laptop) after it had melted my laptop to slag. After that I switched to a desktop, it's a lot cheaper to get good performance out of those. And perhaps that is one of the performance issues; a lot of people play on laptops these days. I'm not a hardware expert but I suspect those will always either struggle to match desktop performance, or require an exorbitant price. The melted laptop had a GPU card, not sure how upgradable those are in modern laptops. A set of low resolution textures would probably help if GPU memory turns out to be an issue, and that's an easy fix for IG. I remember from my MSFS days that it was always an option to install (AI) aircraft with low-res textures. Not as pretty but it kept performance on lower-end PC's acceptable.

We might be talking about two different things here. Define slideshow? I have a 7 year old desktop and with its original card I got indeed what can be called truly slide show performance. But after upgrading to a modest gpu (1660 Ti) I'm getting 18-30 FPS (launch/space) which appears pretty smooth to me. It might not be the 120 FPS that hardcore PUBG players want, but that's not needed to enjoy KSP either.

I don't think it was actively marketed outside the KSP1 crowd — and given the state it's in, it would be unwise to do so. As much as the sorry state the game is in right now, things can turn around quickly if they can address the burning issues in the next month or so. Performance isn't as bad as was claimed — maybe not 30 FPS but things still look smooth and it's definitely playable — and once the game breaking bugs (parts spontaneously flying off, mutilated saves) are addressed people will start enjoying the game, Next would be much needed QOL improvements - AP/PE display in maneuvers, accurate DV calculations, etc, followed by a round of fixing annoying but not breaking bugs (the horizontal launch thing, typing an "M" in the VAB triggering the map, etc). By the time it's May the game should be in a much, much better state. If not it's going to be rough.

Is it a message?

The solution is simple: add another mod loader. That way we have three different mod loaders!

My dude, the voice of reason... you're going to get a lot of hate for that... 13 FPS? What kind of Fred Flintstone hardware is that? I tossed a modestly priced GPU in my 10 year old potato and I'm getting 20 FPS at launch right out of the box. Which is totally fine with me.

I can highly recommend using Greenshot - it's open source software that provides similar functionality like Snagit, but for free, including automatically saving screenshots, but also having the ability to edit them. Can be mapped to PrtScr so it pretty much works automatically. It's available on my employer's app portal, and they're pretty paranoid about third party software, so I'm confident it's been vetted properly.

Not to mention that "Kraken" seems to mean different things to different people. Some associate it with any glitch they see — good luck with that, don't expect that Kraken ever to be slain. You'll always find glitches, somewhere. Others associate it with the original floating point errors, and ships suddenly glitching/bucking after reloads — a very specific bug we're seeing far, far less, even in KSP1, these days.

If things could be fixed overnight, yes. But they can't. This will take months, and burning out your devs before they even start fixing things will not achieve anything. Also, choices need to be made. What's more pressing? the "launching sideways" bug? Or the the "pause spam" bug? What needs work "right away" and what can wait? Just starting to fix things at random will do more harm then good. This is Early Access. The product we got is not quite what was suggested, but here it is. Remember that the KSP1 journey was very similar and it was fun to be a part of that. Better to enjoy it (it's a game after all) than to be grumpy over it.

Thank you - that puts it in perspective for me.

The game was released on Friday, after what I assume where many sleepless nights to get some of the pre-release issues resolved. It's Monday morning now. Relax.

Well, we don’t know. What we know is that there is going to be a way to automate supply runs. So it’s likely you will need to mine certain materials on ohter planets and/or moons, forcing players to explore more outward—and get rewards for it. I can imagine it will still be an engineering challenge if you only have a limited amount of fuel available.

The way money is utilized in zkSP1 wasn’t particular realidtic rither, and the way contracts work meant that to fund new missions you could simply do the same boring stuff over and over again. The same was said for Science.we’ve al been there, driving around the KSC gathering crubs. Not fun. One of the reasons development took so long is because the team took a step back and pondered over hwto improve game mechanics. We don’t know what it entices, what we do know is that besides Sandbox there will be an Exploration mode where the game puts up challenges forthe player tomove forward. Science will be spart of thst—in what form we don’t know—and money will not. Resources are the new limitation in that mode, it eill be exciting to see how it works out. Lkely you will need certain resources, like hydrogen, to build or use certain engine classes, and to build things like stations and colonies.

One thing to keep in mind if you plan to upgrade an old budget machine like that is that better graphics cards are quite power hungry. If you power supply is only 300W it's likely not able to supply sufficient current.

So, I have a potato. Dell XPS 8700. (u7 @ 3.6 GHz but I assume those are not todays gigahertzes) + GTX 745. Laugh at me, I don't care. I also have a house and two cars to pay for, and a family to feed. And you know what, that potatoe runs as fine as frog hair for everything else I need. I did upgrade memory to 32 GB some time ago, and decided to be adventurous and order KSP2 because, well, I'll end up buying it somehwere anyway. Besides, with some luck it'll appear on GFN and then I can run it on a chad machine anyway. So, how does it run on that GTX 745? Well, I can tell you: absolutely atrocious. Even panning around is impossible; move the mouse one sliver, and by the time the screen is updated your view has rotated anywhere between 90° and 180° degrees. And then Scott Manley mentioned that performance really isn't that bad, even on older machines, provided they have a decent video card. I have no illusions on the decency of that tiny 745. Then I did some "research" (mostly Youtube) and what cards I can put that potato of mine. Turns out a GTX-1660 Ti is just fine, and those are sor sale for just a smidge over $200. Maybe other cards are better, but I didn't videos of people running those on their 87, so a trip to Microcenter later and my desktop now sports, for my standards, a chad video card. And guess what? KSP2 runs buttery smooth! Sure, I launch small vessels (I always do), and I have no clue what the frame rate is. Could be 20 FPS for all I care, it looks smooth to me. Those performance horror stories seem quite a bit overrated to me, thankfully.

I think you're confusing "lack of money" with "lack of constraints." It has been mentioned many times by the dev team that "challenge mode" in the game will use different mechanics, as collecting scince points and money through contracts quickly gets repetitive and grinding.

I would expect mods to go into userdata, like save data, and not be inside program files. 1 wasn’t particularly well set up that way, there’s no reason for 2 to continue down that path.

Why don't you give it a try? I've always flown with the navball pushed as far to the left as possible, to keep the center of the screen, where my ship is, unobstructed. I really don't see what the issue is.

Not only that, they have to scrap all existing tanks, redesign them all for the 3.6:1 fuel ratio, retool their workshop, redo the templates and jigs, etc, so that the new tanks have the right fuel ratio? Never going to happen.

Would it be an idea to opt in for some kind of profiler (perhaps as a mod)? Not everyone is paranoid and I'm sure there are many players who have no problem with the game "phoning home" to tell where the processor is spending its precious time. Yes, I have no clue what I'm talking abut, feel free to blast me if it doesn't work that way. Just offering some suggestions here.

Pray tell me, can KSP1 support multiplayer? Does it support resource management? Does it have integrated tutorials? Are you happy with the way Science and Contracts were bolted onto KSP1 to make a career mode whose only saving feature was "the alternative is nothing?" Are you able to conjure up a structure that will offer room for those kind of features, and more, in two months? And be confident that a team of paid developers, a year from now, doesn't have to go back to the drawing board to rethink those plans and scrap a years work? I'm pretty sure they tried that back in 2019, and after a year figured out that building out KSP1 wasn't going to work. If there ever is a KSP3 they can likely do that, as KSP2 is built with expansion in mind. But KSP1 was a 2D simulation not quite intended for publication that morphed over dozens of generations into what we have now. There's no way that's the solid foundation for what we want in the future.

But that's where the Kerbal X comes in. Unless I'm mistaken, that pilo 'o' rust should be the same for everyone, so you'll have at least some idea what the conditions for quoted frame rates are. It could even have it under different circumstances, right after launch, at LEO, and in deep space. Or something along those lines. We could refer to them as "Kerbal refined all standard heuristic rates" or KRASH Rates.

No, it was an internal thing about software studios. Which is a topic that is not allowed to be discuss on the forums. The medical crisis came after that if I have the timing right.

Yes, and then... something happened. I can't say what, or I get banned from the forum. But something happened. And then they restarted the project, took a good look at what was envisioned, and they had to design an architecture from the ground up to support that vision. That was never done for KSP1, which is why the game is such a mess in many ways. Because there's a lot that isn't a red flag. Discontent is mostly the result of bad communication, not because of gross ineptitude. The developers are passionate and vested into the project. Take Two hasn't cancelled it and is willing to bankroll 3 years (add another 2 for launch) instead of cancelling. And we haven't even seen what will be released on EA. Granted, we have a good feeling what it will be, and if YT is an indication 75% of the players will ask Steam for a refund as they can't get the game to run on their PC, but we don't know if that will happen and we don't know how Intercept will handle it. And so far I haven't seen an indication that they won't handle it.

It's a game. I'm going to assume that to keep thins simple, the fuel ratios have been rounded to whole numbers, so 3.6 becomes 4. That way your fuel tank with 10,000 units will have 8,000 O2 to 2,000 CH4 instead of 2174:7826, and if you want to drain your tanks and keep half in it you'll need 4000 and 1000 instead of mental gymnastics. A lot of convenience for a small imprecision that 95% of the players won't notice. Nate told me they rounded π as well. “By rounding it we can now calculate everything in integers, that gave us quite the performance boost”