I am actually nervous about KSP 2

[Guest]

I am nervous about KSP 2.

Kerbal Space Program has been probably one the best simulations/games I have every played and I have played many hours over the past year and a half I have played it. But there is one thing that seems to intrigue me about KSP 2. We don't have any info on how big the game is going to take up storage, we don't know how much RAM we will need. And here is what Steam says about it:

Here is what KSP1's requirements are

And this is where I am concerned. With other systems I have installed here is all my available memory

Now this is where I STOP asking questions

 

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Guest

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

  

47 minutes ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

how much space we will need to play

With KSP all space belongs to us!
The game is exactly about this.

 

[The Aziz]

It's 2021 game. I wouldn't expect minimum requirements to be less than 8G and at least a decent i3 cpu or AMD equivalent.

Most modern games take over 40GB. But ksp isn't exactly a tripleA title, but I wouldn't say it would need less than let's say 10-15GB.

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

It's 2021 game. I wouldn't expect minimum requirements to be less than 8G and at least a decent i3 cpu or AMD equivalent.

Most modern games take over 40GB. But ksp isn't exactly a tripleA title, but I wouldn't say it would need less than let's say 10-15GB.

Looks like I am expanding memory this summer

[Incarnation of Chaos]

It may just be me having different priorities, but the sheer number of people here who in 2020 consider 8GB of RAM a decent amount boggles my mind. Even back in 2014 when I was putting together systems I decided that 16GB was my new minimum. 

[IncongruousGoat]

5 hours ago, The Aziz said:

It's 2021 game. I wouldn't expect minimum requirements to be less than 8G and at least a decent i3 cpu or AMD equivalent.

Most modern games take over 40GB. But ksp isn't exactly a tripleA title, but I wouldn't say it would need less than let's say 10-15GB.

I think the OP was asking about RAM requirements, not size on disk.

[softweir]

6 hours ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

3. Is this why this is my framerate can be often slow

It's unlikely to be the ram. I got a slight improvement in framerate by going from 8GB to 16GB, but I think most of the improvement was because the CPU can now use parallel RAM banks, with faster transfer rates. (The extra memory made starting the game a bit faster because Windows had to do less virtual memory page-swapping.) Updating to the latest drivers also improved things slightly. Swapping for a better graphics card made scene transitions slightly quicker, but improved framerates only very marginally. I am about to try overclocking my system, but I doubt I will get much improvement without seriously upgrading my CPU cooling. I might need to consider a new CPU and MOBO. 

If KSP 2 does need more ram than KSP then you will need to upgrade.

[kerbiloid]

If KSP 2 needs more RAM, it would upgrade its userbase.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, IncongruousGoat said:

I think the OP was asking about RAM requirements, not size on disk.

All help comes to be useful

[GoldForest]

16 hours ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

Now this is where I start asking questions

1. Do we have some kind of news from KSP 2 devs about how much space we will need to play

2. Is there a cloud option that we know of (It wouldn't work for me really but still...)

3. Is this why this is my framerate can be often slow

 

1) We have no news.

2) Clouds seem to be in the game as we've seen screenshots of clouds, though they might just be seen from orbit and you can't fly through them.

3) KSP's framerate is mostly tied to physics, and KSP physics loves single-core performance, meaning the faster your CPU, the better the game runs. Will this be the case in KSP 2? Probably. The devs have not given us any information on the performance of the game, but then again, the game is not finished. Performance changes all the time. 

The end result? Sit and wait like the rest of us. The game has been delayed to fall 2021, so I suspect a October or November release. The closer we get to those months, the more information we will have. 

Then again, there is PAX and E3 next year, I definitely believe we'll get a new trailer and a dump truck of information then. 

Edited June 12, 2020 by GoldForest

[OOM]

There is no official news. But since this is a modern game, it can be assumed that it will require 8 gigabytes of memory, 4 processor cores and a video card with a level of at least gtx 1050 \ rx 460 for 2 GB. But if we take into account additional graphic modifications, as well as devices with a large number of details, then the requirements, of course, will be higher.

From the personal experience of the original KSP - i7-8700, vega 64, 32gb ram, playing on SSD. The game still does not pull with 100% graphic modifications. Well, this is most likely a very poor 2011 optimization. I hope that KSP2 will be able to rationally distribute the load on the processor \ graphics card and use 6+ cores \ threads

Edited June 12, 2020 by OOM

[Incarnation of Chaos]

18 hours ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

3. Is this why this is my framerate can be often slow

 

Nah; even on my machines with 16-32GB the game slows down regardless once i exceed ~300 parts. The majority of the load in KSP is on a single CPU thread due to physics, and that's actually unlikely to change due to every indication being them still using Rigid-Body physics.

However, they have a lot of low hanging fruit for optimizing WHAT is placed on that thread as i learned recently to reduce the load {Insert a thanks here to the creator of kerbalism b/c i don't remember your name}. And there's the much-vaunted and anticipated "Physics LOD" system that will virtually weld large numbers of mostly static parts during gameplay, and treat them as a single part until something happens. So it's going to be very hard for them to reach the same levels of LELOMGLAG that KSP1 does even if they barely try.

That all being said; i noticed that the best ways to help are basically brute-forcing the entire issue with piles of system RAM and Graphics RAM. And considering that the new consoles are pushing SSD's hard, despite me thinking much of their hype is just marketing i don't doubt that within a few years we'll be seeing 32-64GB of RAM becoming commonplace just to accommodate slower storage (And DDR5 is optimized for density, so it wouldn't be economical to produce lower capacities).

[GoldForest]

2 hours ago, OOM said:

I hope that KSP2 will be able to rationally distribute the load on the processor \ graphics card and use 6+ cores \ threads

KSP 2 might use single core physics. It's easier and actually better in most cases, faster too. Doing multi-core physics can lag the machine and cause bugs.

[OOM]

27 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

KSP 2 might use single core physics. It's easier and actually better in most cases, faster too. Doing multi-core physics can lag the machine and cause bugs.

It's a pity, but in this case, all Ryzen and Intel processors (without K-overclocking) are a pretty weak spot for KSP.

Edited June 12, 2020 by OOM

[Incarnation of Chaos]

24 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

KSP 2 might use single core physics. It's easier and actually better in most cases, faster too. Doing multi-core physics can lag the machine and cause bugs.

That's multi-core programming in a nutshell though, the reason KSP2 isn't likely to do it is more about how it's physics simulation will be implemented than the potential bugs.

They could use a different system based on particles or w/e, but then you'd need a small supercomputer to run it alongside a team of actual astrophysicists to maintain the source code xD

It basically comes down to Effort V Cost V Time to breakeven, and what KSP2 needs fundamentally to accomplish the design goals. It just happens that their current physics model aligns well with that, and poor optimization and 6+ years of cruft is what's really holding it back in KSP currently.

I know you know all of this, but i just wanted to expand on it so others would get a better picture.

1 minute ago, OOM said:

It's a pity, but in this case, all Ryzen and Intel processors (without K-overclocking) are a pretty weak spot for KSP.

Any processor made after 05 hasn't benefited from massive clock speed increases, so this isn't as bad as it might first appear.

[Rocketology]

We know KSP 2 will be coming to the newly announced next gen Xbox and PS5, so you can use this as a guide post to minimum PC specs as well as other, new (and upcoming), larger, Unity engine games requirements. And we know that they are aiming for AAA status with KSP 2, hence the $60 price tag (this was announced with the initial KSP 2 announcement).

Taking all that into account, it'll give you a very rough idea of what to expect in terms of PC specs. But also realize, the game is 18 months or more away from release, so WAY too early for specs to be set in stone. Also way too early to build or update a system around it, IMHO.

[K^2]

KSP2 shouldn't be that much hungrier for RAM. It's still a Unity game. It still has a pretty simple collision scene. I expect that KSP2 will require more of an upgrade from graphics than CPU/RAM. That said, 8GB RAM might not cut it, and even if it does, 16GB will be a better experience for sure. I would consider an upgrade.

Make sure you check what kind of RAM you have. If you have an older computer, it might have DDR3, which will simply not work with DDR4 memory. Likewise, if you're going to upgrade your CPU/motherboard, you'll likely end up with modern DDR4 board, so you'll have to buy new RAM as well. Otherwise, I was surprised to find that prices for both are reasonable right now, with pair of 8GB sticks going for under $80. There was a bit of a shortage recently, and prices were worse for a while.

Edited June 12, 2020 by K^2

[Incarnation of Chaos]

1 hour ago, K^2 said:

KSP2 shouldn't be that much hungrier for RAM. It's still a Unity game. It still has a pretty simple collision scene. I expect that KSP2 will require more of an upgrade from graphics than CPU/RAM. That said, 8GB RAM might not cut it, and even if it does, 16GB will be a better experience for sure. I would consider an upgrade.

Make sure you check what kind of RAM you have. If you have an older computer, it might have DDR3, which will simply not work with DDR4 memory. Likewise, if you're going to upgrade your CPU/motherboard, you'll likely end up with modern DDR4 board, so you'll have to buy new RAM as well. Otherwise, I was surprised to find that prices for both are reasonable right now, with pair of 8GB sticks going for under $80. There was a bit of a shortage recently, and prices were worse for a while.

Much worse; i remember 16GB kits selling for almost 200 with 8GB selling for around 100. Now you can grab 16GB DDR4 for 80, and those prices aren't likely to decrease due to them finally getting DDR5 close to full production. So the next few months would be an excellent time to consider maxing out RAM if your CPU/GPU/Storage configuration is still working well for you.

[Guest]

On 6/11/2020 at 6:25 PM, Incarnation of Chaos said:

It may just be me having different priorities, but the sheer number of people here who in 2020 consider 8GB of RAM a decent amount boggles my mind. Even back in 2014 when I was putting together systems I decided that 16GB was my new minimum. 

Well that is not possible for my budget right now. I am also not the gamer type anyway. I never bought this computer for gaming. Besides... I can always just press 4x in the game anyway 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Guest

[DunaManiac]

On 6/12/2020 at 3:29 PM, Rocketology said:

We know KSP 2 will be coming to the newly announced next gen Xbox and PS5

Has that been confirmed? Im not on top of KSP2's news so can you please inform me where it says that?

[Rocketology]

23 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

Has that been confirmed? Im not on top of KSP2's news so can you please inform me where it says that?

It's in one of the original links in this post, but it will be releasing after the pc version.
 

 

[GoldForest]

26 minutes ago, Rocketology said:

It's in one of the original links in this post, but it will be releasing after the pc version.
 

 

It says nothing about PS5 or XBSX. It says KSP2 will becoming to PS4 and XBO

[Rocketology]

On 6/19/2020 at 4:31 PM, GoldForest said:

It says nothing about PS5 or XBSX. It says KSP2 will becoming to PS4 and XBO

With the bump in dev time, it's pretty safe to assume the new consoles over the old, as it wouldn't make business sense otherwise.

 

[GoldForest]

8 minutes ago, Rocketology said:

With the bump in dev time, it's pretty safe to assume the new consoles over the old, as it wouldn't make business sense otherwise.

 

Nope. Cheaper and easier to do it for old consoles. We'll get a XBO and PS4 release before we get an XSX and PS5 release. We may get backwards compatible versions for the next next gen consoles.

[Rocketology]

10 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Nope. Cheaper and easier to do it for old consoles. We'll get a XBO and PS4 release before we get an XSX and PS5 release. We may get backwards compatible versions for the next next gen consoles.

By the time KSP 2 releases, the new consoles will be more than a year old or more (and the release date *could* get bumped again),and the console version will be coming months after  the PC version release (unless their original release timeline of PC first, consoles later is altered). Then take into account that they have expanded the scope and depth of what what they are aiming for with KSP 2, and the hardware of current gen consoles may not cut it. Especially as the current gen consoles, even with their updated versions will be more than 4 years old by the time KSP 2 releases, which is old in tech terms. 
Then add in that MS & Sony will want to be selling as many of the new consoles as possible to recoup costs and saturate the market, it makes sense that they would push for KSP 2 to be released on the new consoles over the old.
That being said though, I wouldn't completely rule out a current console release of KSP 2, but that depends on a few things, how many copies of KSP 1 sold on console, and will current console hardware be able to push an enjoyable experience with the expanded scope and depth of what KSP 2 is shaping up to be?