Can KSP run well on laptops?

[moldevort]

Does anybody here play KSP on a laptop and also get over 50 FPS? What kind of laptop do you have? Does it play other games well?

[Arkbird]

In-game I don't think I get 50FPS, but it is playable at almost all times, or at least with medium to medium-large ships. I don't remember the model, but the specs I do. It has an Intel HD Graphics card, Dual-Core P6100 processors at ~2.4GHz each, 4GB of RAM, and 64MB dedicated memory. IL-2 1946 runs smoothly most of the time. Realflight G5.5 normally is at 20FPS+, and that is about as low as it goes. FSX, at 1024x768 screen res runs okay, with lowered ground detail/ground traffic. KSP, I play at 1024x768 screen res, using Mr_Orion's settings file. Aside from SM3 generation and the new part shaders on, everything is off. Hopefully I retyped what I wanted to say, as I accidently deleted my post while writing it last time.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Arkbird

[what-the]

I play on i3 with Intel HD graphics 3000 on minimum settings and with a 30 piece rocket frame rate is playable at 15. I had a desktop with a HD7770 and that only got 47 on medium high (had an old CPU though). As long as you don't go overboard with your rockets most laptops in from the past 2 years should run but 50fps would be unlikely on a decent setting from anything but a desktop.

[jfx]

I ran it on an Intel Sandy Bridge (2.1 gHz, Pentium with its HD 2000 like IGP. Runs meh with stock (~15fps for a standard launch) but very smooth with the fallback planet shaders set in the config file.

[Navy4422]

I run on mine i7 2630qm (2ghz) 1.5gb gtx460m and 8 gb of ram depending on the ship I will get meh frames on lunch (down to 2 or 1 on big ships) but after about 6000m i jump to 50+ and in orbit I stay around 110fps

granted I like my desktop way more than my laptop

[thermobaric]

It isn't about if it is a laptop or not, it is all about the hardware inside of it. in general, laptops are more expansive than desktop pc's. so you get less power for the same money.

i'm playing ksp with an AMD fx 4170 quad core 4.2 GHz, 8 gb ram and a readon HD6950 on full HD with max graphics. framerate is most of the time 120 fps (i limit it). it runs crysis 2 on max with 80 - 100 fps. i never felt 1 bit of lag with this rig, and it actually didn't cost much money at all!

[moldevort]

It isn't about if it is a laptop or not, it is all about the hardware inside of it. in general, laptops are more expansive than desktop pc's. so you get less power for the same money.

i'm playing ksp with an AMD fx 4170 quad core 4.2 GHz, 8 gb ram and a readon HD6950 on full HD with max graphics. framerate is most of the time 120 fps (i limit it). it runs crysis 2 on max with 80 - 100 fps. i never felt 1 bit of lag with this rig, and it actually didn't cost much money at all!

Laptop or desktop?

[Tim_Barrett]

It really what depends kind of laptop it is. The current "thing" for the general public is to have overly thin, wide, and shiny laptops, sacrificing many important things like battery power, structural integrity, and like said, specs.

KSP doesn't particularly chow down on your computer when running, but if you are using a laptop, don't think that a huge rocket will get off your launchpad with ease anytime soon.

I try convincing my friends to get a good setup and pimp out a relatively normal laptop and save a lot of money for things like KSP and other games, but they don't do it. I don't know why. It's a good thing KSP is one of their favorite, because they wanted to play Planetside 2 on a mac thinking bootcamp and switching to Windows will make it lightning fast - good luck with that! xD

The best thing to do when looking for laptops, given that is what you are doing, avoid the popular brands. The title is what costs the most on computers these days, so Macs and even Alienware laptops won't be your money's worth. Try searching online at your local computer/electronics store. Unfortunately you will probably not find nearly as many results for refurbished and customizable computers as you would find while looking for desktops, but hey, it's a start.

[Astronut]

I recently bought a 'gaming' laptop from Asus which seems to run KSP nicely (unless the craft has a large number of parts). It runs SkyRim on high settings just fine.

[Warshawski]

Dell Precision Mobile Workstation 6600M... 2.6 gHz i5-2640 dual-core proc, 16 gigabytes of 1800 mhz RAM, AMD FirePro 8900 graphics card with 2 gigabytes of GDDR5 memory.

Yeah... 50 FPS is far from uncommon.

[Panichio]

I run on mine i7 2630qm (2ghz) 1.5gb gtx460m and 8 gb of ram depending on the ship I will get meh frames on lunch (down to 2 or 1 on big ships) but after about 6000m i jump to 50+ and in orbit I stay around 110fps

granted I like my desktop way more than my laptop

In terms of FPS, the same thing for me, but sometimes mine still has random lag attacks, since I'm a clueless fool, I don't know my specs, but all I can say is a use a Dell Inspiron 15r. 'Inspiron'... Eugh... The name alone sends shivers down me' spine.

[Newt0570]

I can run minecraft at 60fps on normal render distance, but I have a low (but playable) framerate when launching a mun lander rocket.

Usually decoupling the liftoff stage reduces most of the load on the computer. The rest of a mission seems to get very good frame rates. (up to 60)

There are quite a few super-efficient rockets that can go to the mun and back with less than 10 fuel tanks. These small craft never lag for me.

win7 64bit

processor: "AMD A6-3420M APU with Radeon HD Graphics 1.50 GHz" (quad core)

8GB RAM

Edited August 13, 2012 by Newt0570

[Navy4422]

Laptop or desktop?

If you find a laptop that gets 4.2Ghz on a quad core let me know I want it , but yes thats around an 800$ desktop I'd guess

In terms of FPS, the same thing for me, but sometimes mine still has random lag attacks, since I'm a clueless fool, I don't know my specs, but all I can say is a use a Dell Inspiron 15r. 'Inspiron'... Eugh... The name alone sends shivers down me' spine.

Id guess youd have an i7 or i5 as well but your graphics would be less than mine though still discrete maybe a 1 gb HD 7730M or similar (KSP doesn't use that much in the way of graphics compared to most games though

Edited August 13, 2012 by Navy4422

[Dark Fury]

Asus G75 has an i7-3600 with a Nvidia GT 650 2gb dedicated card. They run about $1200. That being said i am currently running on an I7-2600k @ 4.4ghz, 8gb ram, and two 6870's with 2gb and still suffer from random lag spikes in the game where it is unplayable.

[Dark Fury]

i think if you turn down the particle count and shaders you will get a big improvement during liftoff.

[Navy4422]

Asus G75 has an i7-3600 with a Nvidia GT 650 2gb dedicated card. They run about $1200. That being said i am currently running on an I7-2600k @ 4.4ghz, 8gb ram, and two 6870's with 2gb and still suffer from random lag spikes in the game where it is unplayable.

running the g73 here so it does good though im not quite fond of asus right now, but still get lag off my desktoi7-2600k 4.8ghz gtx 580 lightning and 16gb 1866mhz ram

i think if you turn down the particle count and shaders you will get a big improvement during liftoff.

Thanks for the info might have to try that

[joedude69]

I would say i3 is enough but any thing under Intel HD 3000 is not as good. with 3000 i get 30fps ish with any rocket under 150 parts, But than again thats on lowest setting.

[RedDwarfIV]

My three year old Toshiba Satellite L300 just says 'nope' at the prospect of anything larger than an orbiter.

[Sonicboom]

My pc doesn't like the land of kerbal. Only space and the planets xD. Im hoping to get good graphics with my 8500 gt video card.