KSP2 Hype Train Thread

[Stephensan]

Just now, TLTay said:

I've been reading both here and the reddit, and I've got to say that the hype is off the charts.

As you can clearly see, the commenting metrics are indicating strong customer engagement. Our test subjects fitted with blood pressure and heart rate monitors are indicating heightened levels of excitement. Emotional language analysis of customer posts indicate optimal customer engagement. Customers are so excited by the product that many are planning to build or upgrade their PC to the tune of hundreds or even thousands of dollars.

This will surely be great success.

suddenly, pineapples

[GoldForest]

1 minute ago, Stephensan said:

suddenly, pineapples

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!

[Vl3d]

8 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

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!

Let's goooooooo!!! Min. settings baby!!!

[Stephensan]

4 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Let's goooooooo!!! Min. settings baby!!!

now, LOWSPECGAMER, where you at, lmao...

 

oh.... oh wait, he has changed his channel...

[GoldForest]

6 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Let's goooooooo!!! Min. settings baby!!!

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. 

[Vl3d]

3 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

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.

I'm happy for you! I hope you find yourself enjoying the amazing vistas of new planets when you explore.
And even if the sysreqs are high.. the game still needs (alien) weather visual effects!

[Alexoff]

8 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

To be fair - this is PC gaming.

Let's be honest - the game doesn't look like 2023, more like 2010. There are no reflections in the game, no retracing either, planets up close don't look much better than in KSP1. Even scattering is gone from the alpha version!

6 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Sure, and that does not need an 2060 but building stuff to go interstellar probably needs based on internal tests.

Are these system requirements for version 0.1 or for version 1.0 from 2026? Or maybe it's for those who added +1000 not yet created mods?

[GoldForest]

25 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

Let's be honest - the game doesn't look like 2023, more like 2010. There are no reflections in the game, no retracing either, planets up close don't look much better than in KSP1. Even scattering is gone from the alpha version!

Are these system requirements for version 0.1 or for version 1.0 from 2026? Or maybe it's for those who added +1000 not yet created mods?

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.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

6 hours ago, DwightLee said:

Exactly, I am 63 years old, been doing this since the beginning of computer gaming. If you want to be on the cutting edge of gaming, you have to keep a pretty up to date PC.  I am running a 3080, and I fully expect to need feel the need to replace it in another couple of years. 

Hooray!  I’m not the most elderly decrepit old geezer on the forum!  I’m only fifty-five.  Please tell me to get off your lawn?

Seriously though, completely agreed (and I am amazed at the orgy of raw fury over at the discord).  I wound up ordering a new laptop for this game an hour after the specs dropped.  This wasn’t my first rodeo, and I’d briefed my wife it was coming months ago.  I remember back in my day, when I had to walk both ways through the snow uphill to buy a new machine for Half-Life 2…

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

It's the obscene pricing for GPUs that are driving this furor. 

 

 

[lodiped]

3 hours ago, GoldForest said:

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!

What are you talking about? Literally everybody knows the COD code is absolutely bloated. And it's not even their fault. They need to churn out so much detail they can't even begin storage optimization. KSP is nowhere NEAR the amount of clutter COD has. Also, who said anything about COD itt?

I know it's EA but the truth is this game is not optimized as of yet. And it doesn't look nearly as good enough for the specs it's asking.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

4 hours ago, GoldForest said:

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!

Sadly, my new machine won’t arrive until the 28th, but I am still going to try to run it on my current laptop.  I booked launch weekend off and I fully intend to celebrate.

[Alexoff]

35 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

The sneak peeks have just been at low settings

I've heard stories like this somewhere...

36 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

ray tracing isn't that important

Then why 3080? This video card is specifically designed for retracing.

37 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

As for scattering, again, the devs run LOW settings for anything they are not working on.

Why wasn't scattering turned on for the trailer then? Where can I see scattering and "beta" in the same picture?

[Guest]

6 hours ago, zeekzeek22 said:

Something like 90% of people who paid for KSP1 never landed on Mun. Which means 90% of people who will drop money on KSP2 will not have the persistence to get to the point of 500 part colony fleets. The 10% that do, will likely be just fine.

This make me think about the whole "accessibility" argument and how tricky it is, KSP2 main features chase that 10%, the players that never left Kerbin SOI aren't likely to go interstellar any time soon, if ever, even with the better tutorials.

How does the same apply to graphics?

 

This is a game set to last for years to come, as someone pointed out, the minimum required hardware is half a decade old already, and it doesn't exactly cut out, as far as we know, even older but more powerful stuff.

It's going to cut out a large part of the community, true, but that's a sad truth in gaming in general, your hardware is going to be obsolete, it's only a matter of time. Frankly I'm suprised with how long the 1000 series generation has lasted in the minimum requirements for games.

[GoldForest]

18 minutes ago, lodiped said:

What are you talking about? Literally everybody knows the COD code is absolutely bloated. And it's not even their fault. They need to churn out so much detail they can't even begin storage optimization. KSP is nowhere NEAR the amount of clutter COD has. Also, who said anything about COD itt?

I know it's EA but the truth is this game is not optimized as of yet. And it doesn't look nearly as good enough for the specs it's asking.

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.

13 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

I've heard stories like this somewhere...

Then why 3080? This video card is specifically designed for retracing.

Why wasn't scattering turned on for the trailer then? Where can I see scattering and "beta" in the same picture?

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? 

Edited February 18, 2023 by GoldForest

[lodiped]

That's... the same amount of scattering as KSP1... Have you seen Parallax? I mean...

[GoldForest]

1 minute ago, lodiped said:

That's... the same amount of scattering as KSP1... Have you seen Parallax? I mean...

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?

Edited February 18, 2023 by GoldForest

[atomontage]

As I awake, I smell smoke and ashes... I try real hard to open my eyes. What I saw next is beyond my imagination.

I see twisted train cars and what seems to be rapidly disassembled locomotive far away.
I see people with GTX 1080Ti and blood and cries on their faces wandering hopelessly and whispering 'why?' as if someone could answer them.
The ground is wet but there was no rain. It is quite white and bloomy but the sun is setting. The sky is full of grey fluffy clouds that seem to not reflect any light.

The vastness of catastrophe could not be ever put into words.

The Great Derailment Event.

[Nazalassa]

15 hours ago, KalleHeHa said:

this is sad, i bougt my pc only 5 years ago and its already obsolete.

I bought it last September and well... nVidia T550 + 8Gb DDR5 RAM + intel i5 1235U seem quite low, compared to minimum requirements (I'm trying to correctly guess, I can be wrong)

Edited February 18, 2023 by Nazalassa
"buyed" is not English lol

[WelshSteW]

4 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Let's goooooooo!!! Min. settings baby!!!

 

I'm going to embrace my inner Kerbal, and just try it with what I've got, see what happens  

 

[GoldForest]

1 minute ago, Nazalassa said:

I bought it last September and well... nVidia T550 + 8Gb DDR5 RAM + intel i5 1235U seem quite low, compared to minimum requirements (I'm trying to correctly guess, I can be wrong)

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.

[purpleivan]

Hmmm... looks like mine is something around a minimum spec build here, which has surprised me a bit. However, I do plan to make a major system rebuild that will match the recommended spec for GPU and go considerably beyond it for CPU.

I have and AMD Ryzen 5 2600X CPU, so considerably higher spec than minimum, but not up to the recommended. However,  my GPU, my trusty old GTX 1070, is below minimum spec, although not by much (about 10-15% lower than the RTX 2060 in most game benchmarks).

CPU thoughts

The recommended spec for the CPU surprised me as I thought it would be a lot higher than that of my Ryzen 5 2600X, rather than just the 3600X of the same series.

Given that physics load in KSP1 was the defining keyfactor for performance, I expected a larger bump in the requirements of KSP2 for its CPU, relative to its predecessor, so expected the recommended CPU spec to be further beyond what I have now, as when pushed physics wise in KSP1, my Ryzen 5 definitely feels some pain. So I'd expect that either their physics is quite a bit less CPU intensive than that of KSP1, or that their expectations of what will be thrown at it, in terms of ship complextity, is lower than mine.

GPU thoughts

That minimum GPU spec is a bit of a surprise to me, as I use my trusty 1070 for KSP1 with a bunch of graphical addons, including KS3P (so lots of fullscreen fx goodies), and I have a good experience with that (running at 1080p), as well as a decent experience with many other games, although most with the graphical settings turned down a notch or two.

The recommended GPU is what I would expect, at a 30 series Nvidia card, but having minimum spec just 1 generation lower is bit of a surprise. Because of this I suspect that there won't be much range in the scaling of graphical features, to account for lower than the recommended GPU's, if turning from max to min only gets you from a 30 series to a 20 series card.

Other thoughts

To me it's hard to see the minimum GPU spec that's been set, as not being a departure from KSP1's implicit "physics is King" status, to a more mainstream gaming one of "graphics is King". This is especially true when it's coupled with what seems to me, an unexpectedly low recommended CPU spec, that seems to be very much out of sync with that for the GPU.

It seems strange to me that in a physics heavy game, that the recommended CPU can be picked up for under £100, but the GPU is around £1000. Yes GPU prices having been crazy the last few years, and we're talking about the recommended end of the range, but for a physics based game, the balance seems to have shifted in major way towards to graphical side of things.

KSP1 has always had always had a pretty low entry level in terms of GPU, which has allow it to be played on a very wide range of machines, in many cases having much lower spec than that required by other games. However, that has definitely changed now, as the minimum spec for KSP2's GPU is a £250-£300 card and recommended is about £1000.

That, plus many comments in this thread, tell me that a very large proportion of those who have enjoyed KSP over the years, will not be moving on to KSP2. At least not in the near future.

[Alexoff]

28 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

As for scattering in the trailer... are you kidding me? 

Are you kidding? Where did atmospheric scattering go?

And what has happened to the surface of the planets since 2021? Or was it a pre-alpha and you shouldn't expect something like that in the game?

 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, lodiped said:

That's... the same amount of scattering as KSP1... Have you seen Parallax? I mean...

I've not played but I've seen plenty of Parallax footage, aside from using it to fill the environment with "micro-scatter" like grass and dunes, does scatterer have the same kind of variability we saw in the screenshots of KSP 2?

Because it may not be dense, but we've seen rocks on the Mun go from small pebbles to giant boulders in the background.

And in the few frames of that rocket crashing on Duna you can see the ground scatter and textures coming into view in a way more delicate manner than the "bubble of ground scatter" I've seen chase the player in Parallax footage.

[Alexoff]

Just now, Master39 said:

the same kind of variability we saw in the screenshots of KSP 2?

Where is it in ksp2? Can this be seen in the beta trailers?