Minimum requirements vs Recommended specs

[UmbralRaptor]

(Sorry if this is comes off as a bit rantish)

I keep on seeing comments in the Support forum about how a given system is unable to run KSP because it\'s below the recommended specs. These specs are guesswork, and more of a guideline for good performance, rather than what is needed to run the game. I\'m sure of this, because I was running KSP a far below spec system between 0.8.4 and 0.11 or 0.12.

It also runs the current demo version (0.13.3) tolerably, if not spectacularly:

15 FPS is surprisingly smooth and playable.

If that bothers you, 30 FPS noticeably smoother

This rocket is capable of sundiving, and sees 20 FPS in the VAB. If it\'s not capable of munar landing/return, a similar or smaller stock or marginally modded rocket (eg: capt slug\'s landing legs) is.

Assuming that this computer is minimum, I\'ve attached my dxdiag output. More generally, I expect that the minimum system is a fast (3+ GHz) Pentium 4 or equivalent AMD with a mid-range Radeon R300 (I have an X300) or equivalent nVidia dedicated graphics card, and 1 GiB of RAM (assuming 512 or 768 MiB isn\'t enough). Is there reason to believe that later versions or KSP will be more CPU/GPU/RAM intensive?

[stefan1114ever]

I am planning to buy a new macbook pro

13 inch 2.4 Ghz... Do you think that is good enough for ksp?

[UmbralRaptor]

I\'m unfamiliar with Macs. Laptops tend to be iffy compared with desktops, though a new system might be okay...

*checks the Apple website*

They claim it does CAD and video editing well, this suggest that it will work.

[cardgame]

I am planning to buy a new macbook pro

13 inch 2.4 Ghz... Do you think that is good enough for ksp?

I\'m currently running KSP on the 17' MBP and it\'s working beautifully. Does the 13' have only integrated graphics or does it have a dedicated card?

If it\'s just integrated I\'m not sure if it can run KSP well. A lot of the work is processing, but the GPU comes into play as well.

[Tiberion]

I think the only official 'spec' requirement is this old one on the Wiki anyway;

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/~kerbalsp/wiki/index.php?title=System_Specs

I try to avoid saying 'recommended specs' or anything like that since they aren\'t official; its not too useful at this stage of an alpha anyway; A certain spec might work today, but not tomorrow when they add Feature Y.

[stefan1114ever]

I\'m currently running KSP on the 17' MBP and it\'s working beautifully. Does the 13' have only integrated graphics or does it have a dedicated card?

If it\'s just integrated I\'m not sure if it can run KSP well. A lot of the work is processing, but the GPU comes into play as well.

I don\'t know that your macbook pro has a decated card, but if you have a decated card i think i will have a de ated card too

[trbinsc]

I use a 13 inch MacBook pro with integrated graphics, and I can run the game without problems. The only problems are that some mods, like the mapping utility use a .exe to work.

Edit: Specifically, the integrated graphics chipset is a NVIDIA GeForce 320M.

[LukeTim]

Thank you for using Mibi and Gibi, instead of Mega and Giga for the RAM.

[stefan1114ever]

I use a 13 inch MacBook pro with integrated graphics, and I can run the game without problems. The only problems are that some mods, like the mapping utility use a .exe to work.

Edit: Specifically, the integrated graphics chipset is a NVIDIA GeForce 320M.

Thanks

[Zephram Kerman]

I\'m just speculating here, but I think it\'s safe to assume the game will run more and more slowly as features are introduced, and then speed up when they optimize the code before the final release.

[vexx32]

They tend to do optimisations as soon as they notice a new feature has begun to slow down the game. Optimisations (from what I\'ve seen) tend to come out about a version or two after the actual feature.

I don\'t think it\'ll become unmanageable, unless they end up having to re-code core game tidbits, which can occasionally take some time to get right.

[Glaucus]

How do you show fps?

And what is the general limiter gfx or CPU? I assume it\'s the physics calculations on massive rockets which result in 1fps or lower.

[UmbralRaptor]

I use FRAPs. If you have 0.14 or later, Tosh has a custom command pod that displays FPS

[HOC]

I\'m just gonna throw my simplified specs and performance out there to serve as a reference for people who want to know if they can run the game.

Acer Aspire 15' Laptop

Intel i3 Dual Core at 2.4GHz

ATI graphics card at 512MB

4 GB RAM

I consider my laptop capable of playing the game well enough.

I recreated the ship UmbralRaptor showed in his first picture, and these are the results:

Always over 50FPS in the VAB

8- 12 FPS when sitting on the launch pad (important:) looking down on the ship, at the terrain. 25- 35 FPS when sitting on the launch pad (important:) looking up at the ship, towards to sky.

8- 10 FPS during initial stages of launch (ground to about 10kms) when looking at terrain, 30+ FPS when looking at space.

Get the gist? My computer is bad at generating Kerbin\'s detailed terrain. This was all done on default graphics settings.

Hope that helped someone.

[xclusiv8]

KSP seems to be very GPU intensive. Laptops are not the best at gaming and unless one has a dedicated card FPS will be low. I my self consider anything below 25FPS to be unplayable.

[HOC]

Yeah, well everyone has had a different history with computer specs. I for one have never owned, and have never played, on a computer with a much better spec than the one I just gave- so for me 15FPS is completely fine. Don\'t get me wrong, most games I play at over 25, I\'m just used to bad performance.

[BrackMan5]

It has been a little while for this thread, but I would like to say my specs and performance, as this is now 0.16

AMD 64 X2 4800+ MMX, 3DNow 2.5Ghz

ATI 200P Integrated Graphics (aka: Radeon XPress 1150) 512 MB

2GB of RAM

Just so you know, the graphics doesnt actually fully take 512 MB of RAM from my 2GB, only 256 MB. I don\'t really know how it works, but apparently it isolates the 256 MB of RAM where nothing but the GPU can use it, and you cant change how much it allocates without going into the BIOS. It does some kind of performance enhancement for that RAM and boom, its very close to par with a legit 256 MB/512 MB (depending on the comparisons) dedicated GPU. Don\'t get me wrong, it\'s not the best but it can kick some butt.

45 FPS in VAB, any angle, only getting some lower FPS when I have a rocket so tall that it\'s in the ceiling, and I\'m looking at as much as possible.

12-18 FPS when at initial angle on launch pad, 10-15 FPS when looking at ship and the terrain, 28-32 FPS when looking at spaceship from the ground to space.

I go instantly to 10 FPS at launch, then quickly regain to about 15-17 FPS at initial camera angle. Down to 7-9 FPS when looking down at terrain and ragain to 11-13 looking down at terrain. Drop to about 25 FPS on launch and rgain to about 30 when looking up.

In space I get a minimum of 25 FPS, going up to about 40 FPS when I zoom out, but can still see detail on the ship.

When I go into Space Map, constant 40 FPS except the changes in time acceleration, which gives me a quick stutter to very low FPS.

All default settings, fullscreen.

I have never had a good computer for games, this is my best ever set-up, and for some reason, this does really well with this one.

I bought this computer with a AMD Sempron at 2.0 Ghz, same motherboard, and only 512 MB of RAM, from a thrift store we have locally, a business got an upgrade, and donated three of these, I got one, and have been slowly building it up. Even found the processor I have now at the same thrift store. People here aren\'t very computer savvy, apparently, not knowing they could make a few bucks off the processor. Oh well, good computer for me! ;D

[MarvinCZ]

I tried running KSP on a 7 year old laptop of mine. It wasn't thigh end even when bought. I use it mostly on a better PC.

I expected it to fail at loading, or when encountering some 3D scene, but it worked. It isn't great and the graphics are broken, but it is sort of playable. The FPS is mostly good. Perfect in VAB and pretty good in space. The only problems are loading times (loading parts on game start and moving to launch pad) and the broken graphics.

Specs:

Windows XP SP2

AMD Sempron 2800+ (1.6 GHz)

448 MB RAM (512MB - 64MB taken by integrated graphics)

SiS M760GX integrated GPU, 64MB shared memory

I expected memory to be a problem, but apart from the loading times it was OK. Even with NovaPunch installed.

[Klldarkness]

For a bit of reference, I suppose:

I'm running:

Amd x2 5500 black edition at 3.2 ghz

Windows 7 Ultimate 32 bit

4Gb of ram (Only 3 are used by the system)

Ati radeon 5570 1gb with the final gb of ram above shared.

High end when I built this computer. It's now considered medium.

Always getting 35+ fps, on max, except for when I go to 1000x time warp for the first time in a flight. Then it freezes for a second. No problem after that. Haha.

[nibula]

Dont play on laptops and invest for real computer not these you can get from stores around the corner

[jfx]

I'm currently not at home and run KSP on a very common late 2011 entry level notebook configuration

Intel Pentium B950 (sandy bridge architecture) - 2.1 gHz

4gb DDR3-1333 (single channel mode)

Intel HD Graphics (slightly slower Version of Intel Graphics HD2000 found in i3 CPUs)

The Game runs OK until you try to field very large Designs OR try to look at the ocean - seems like the Intel IGP doesn't handle the water shader too well. Still looking forward to have access to my main machine (i5-2500k, 460gtx).

[_Aramchek_]

I only ever have initial slowdown with HUGe or very complex rockets sitting on the launchpad, that slowdown is around 25-32 fps, hitting orbit it's in the 70-110 fps range, same as doing eva's on Minmus and the Mun.

AMD BD FX@ 3.8ghz

4gb's ddr3 1600

560 GTX TI

[ilikemoneygreen]

Also just as an fyi, i cant remember about xp, but vista and later have those power options that limit performance. On my pc it is noticeably faster when you hit max performance. i go from using about 30 fps to about 120, which is quite the leap. So if your frustrated about performance make sure your laptop is actually using its gpu to its full abilities. This is especially important for those older laptops which are probably in power save mode... which would be crawling with ksp.

[Guest]

On 5/5/2012 at 5:32 AM, UmbralRaptor said:

(Sorry if this is comes off as a bit rantish)

I keep on seeing comments in the Support forum about how a given system is unable to run KSP because it\'s below the recommended specs. These specs are guesswork, and more of a guideline for good performance, rather than what is needed to run the game. I\'m sure of this, because I was running KSP a far below spec system between 0.8.4 and 0.11 or 0.12.

It also runs the current demo version (0.13.3) tolerably, if not spectacularly:

 

 

15 FPS is surprisingly smooth and playable.

 

 

 

If that bothers you, 30 FPS noticeably smoother

 

This rocket is capable of sundiving, and sees 20 FPS in the VAB. If it\'s not capable of munar landing/return, a similar or smaller stock or marginally modded rocket (eg: capt slug\'s landing legs) is.

Assuming that this computer is minimum, I\'ve attached my dxdiag output. More generally, I expect that the minimum system is a fast (3+ GHz) Pentium 4 or equivalent AMD with a mid-range Radeon R300 (I have an X300) or equivalent nVidia dedicated graphics card, and 1 GiB of RAM (assuming 512 or 768 MiB isn\'t enough). Is there reason to believe that later versions or KSP will be more CPU/GPU/RAM intensive?

took me 7 years to find this post again! I got ksp 1.3.1 going a few days ago on an AMD Athlon 64 FX-57 CPU, Radeon HD 2600XT 1GB GPU  & 4GB Ram running Windows 2000, all textures/parts I dont use "PRUNED" (32bit obviously, next I'm going windows 98SE & ME with 3rd party "service packs", 4gb ram fix, etc on the same pc)

Edited September 23, 2020 by Guest
typo

[Kernel Kraken]

I think a rule of thumb is, the minimum specs are the minimum. It'll run KSP, but it might not run the way you want it. Hell, I have an i5 and a 1060 and my PC just melts if my crafts are more than about 300 parts.