I really hope KSP 2 keeps support for older systems.

[KSPMan123211]

Seriously, i can't get a newer computer just to play KSP, And it's one of my favorite games, and I really want to be able to play KSP 2.

[The Aziz]

You realize that system requirements are most likely going to be higher than what you get in ksp1?

[Incarnation of Chaos]

They've stated in the past that KSP2 should run as good or better than KSP1 on similar hardware; now only time will tell if that'll remain the case.

But i would advise you to poke around some budget computer building guides/youtube channels; because i think many people really overestimate what it costs to make a gaming computer. Especially if you're willing to work with second-hand kit, because if there's one thing i can say is certain it's that eventually you will run into a game that you won't be able to play that you've been looking forward to for a while and will end up doing it anyway.

 

[shdwlrd]

If you're that worried about your PC not being able to run KSP2. Since it would be released 3rd-4th quarter next year. Start saving money now and worry about upgrading or replacing your PC after it's released.

12 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

But i would advise you to poke around some budget computer building guides/youtube channels; because i think many people really overestimate what it costs to make a gaming computer. Especially if you're willing to work with second-hand kit, because if there's one thing i can say is certain it's that eventually you will run into a game that you won't be able to play that you've been looking forward to for a while and will end up doing it anyway.

I agree with doing this, or using previous generations new components. Just do your research before buying anything. Don't skimp on the video card, get a good mid-tier card and you should be good.

Also just that you know, for gaming, you don't need a bleeding edge or even a high end machine. They are nice to have, but unnecessary. A 5-6yr old system with a modern mid-tier video card does offer a good gaming experience. 

[DunaManiac]

17 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

If you're that worried about your PC not being able to run KSP2. Since it would be released 3rd-4th quarter next year. Start saving money now and worry about upgrading or replacing your PC after it's released.

Actually, I did the math. If you take away 4 or 5 dollars a day out of your income, then by September 2021 then you'll have enough money to buy a decent gaming PC.

[SpaceFace545]

7 minutes ago, DunaManiac said:

Actually, I did the math. If you take away 4 or 5 dollars a day out of your income, then by September 2021 then you'll have enough money to buy a decent gaming PC.

I’m in high school, I sadly don’t have a monthly salary. But I do have enough to get a gaming pc

[Aniruddh]

I have a feeling ksp 2 will be more gpu intensive but less cpu intensive, it will also demand more memory. The ksp 2 devs have stated that they are optimising the game's physics which mostly reduces cpu usage; but they are adding clouds, better terrain and other graphics on which there is generally less to optimise; there are more textures (parts) in ksp 2 which have to be loaded into memory.

I'm planning to sell my old laptop and buy a new gaming pc when ksp 2 comes out as well.

[harrisjosh2711]

Ksp is almost a decade old. And the graphics show it.... No way im paying $60 if ksp2 doesnt look better than my modded ksp1. Which looks like this. 

I have a mid range system that run me about $1300 and that space station does not slow my game down.

Edited July 4, 2020 by harrisjosh2711

[Guest]

4 hours ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

No way im paying $60 if ksp2 doesnt look better than my modded ksp1. Which looks like this. 

I would pay the price for the bases and stations and the performance increase alone.

[harrisjosh2711]

36 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I would pay the price for the bases and stations and the performance increase alone.

I can understand that. Performance drove me crazy before I switched from a gaming laptop to a liquid cooled desktop. Hence, I think heat was the primary bottle neck because my laptop will still play all the modern titles.

This ship is over 800 parts..... no lag....

Since performance is not an issue for me. I couldn't justify $60 for interstellar travel and bases. I can get that with mods. Im working on a gigantic base in my current game. And im very happy with the modded textures. That's just my personal input. Ksp seems to have a large # of players using aged hardware, so perhaps that may be the target audience. Though, the amount of development still being put into KSP1 makes me question that logic.

Edited July 4, 2020 by harrisjosh2711

[Incarnation of Chaos]

27 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I would pay the price for the bases and stations and the performance increase alone.

I concur

Because i actually don't care about how KSP LOOKS, and those looks ultimately don't affect gameplay either. But Kracken attacks, Landing Legs and Gears randomly turning into reactionless drives and catapulting me out into solar orbit, hard part caps due to crushing performance losses past a certain point no matter how much hardware you feed it and things randomly exploding upon loading a save and oh so much more are all things that if KSP2 manages to rectify them and keep the spirit of the original game i'll happily pay the price.

I'm glad KSP is still going to be out there for those who want it though, and there's nothing wrong with sticking with it in the meantime. I do feel like it'll end up being a similar situation with KSP and KSP2 as there was with TESV LE vs TESV SSE; it took several months before Bethesda even got the Creation Kit (Modding Tools) redone for SSE. And then there were a couple key dependencies for mods that took much longer to rebuild, and as a result SSE lagged far behind modded LE for some time (Even now there's some mods that aren't ported over).

But after that several year spool time? The performance improvements of SSE on more modern hardware, the ability to use > 2.8GB of RAM and the improved stability absolutely CRUSHED LE for me. I wouldn't ever go back to LE now; especially since my system has gotten several times more powerful since then.

KSP2 likely won't beat modded KSP in the beginning, but that's fine since it's a "Long tail" game as iv'e seen multiple people say. It'll take a while, but eventually KSP2 will become the definitive version if they can provide anything close to what they've claimed in terms of performance and stability.

[harrisjosh2711]

6 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

I concur

hard part caps due to crushing performance losses past a certain point no matter how much hardware you feed it

That isnt true. Above i've posted a picture of a 800+ part ship running with the clock green. I will not play a game if it lags. My hardware is all new, but not top of the line.

Edited July 4, 2020 by harrisjosh2711

[Incarnation of Chaos]

1 minute ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

That isnt true. Above i've posted a picture of a 800+ part ship running with the clock green. I will not play a game if it lags.

It is, and you will find yours eventually.

 

[harrisjosh2711]

7 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

It is, and you will find yours eventually.

 

Well of course, but thats any video game. I dont think most people build 800+ parts ships. I downloaded that just to test my system.

I feel your guys pain though. My laptop slows to a crawl playing ksp, and it shouldn't. With that said, no amount of optimization is going to make a vast difference if your pc stinks.

Edited July 4, 2020 by harrisjosh2711

[Incarnation of Chaos]

2 minutes ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

Well of course, but thats any video game. I dont think most people build 800+ parts ships. I downloaded that just to test my system.

But most others don't have as sharp a dip at the end of the curve is i guess my overall point.

Once you reach whatever your individual system is capable of; the difference between "Playable" and "Slideshow" isn't actually that many parts. While in most other games the performance hit tends to scale much slower as demand increases, so it's less severe.

My system with a Ryzen 1700 begins to show signs of noticeable stress around ~600 parts, and i try to keep most of my ships around that part count if possible. KSP2 would allow me to double, triple or even quadruple that partcount without a decrease in performance , and that's something i would definitely be interested in.

[harrisjosh2711]

14 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

But most others don't have as sharp a dip at the end of the curve is i guess my overall point.

Once you reach whatever your individual system is capable of; the difference between "Playable" and "Slideshow" isn't actually that many parts. While in most other games the performance hit tends to scale much slower as demand increases, so it's less severe.

My system with a Ryzen 1700 begins to show signs of noticeable stress around ~600 parts, and i try to keep most of my ships around that part count if possible. KSP2 would allow me to double, triple or even quadruple that partcount without a decrease in performance , and that's something i would definitely be interested in.

I get that. I guess I haven't played enough on my new system to hit that "slideshow" yet. I certainly did on my laptop. I see some people on youtube and it takes them something like 5 real seconds to one game second..... And I'm like. "How can you play like that?" With that said, I feel like many people aren't giving squad the credit they deserve. A decade later and we are still getting free content. Once take 2 takes full control those comets gonna be $5.99. Music pack $2.99...... They all say its not gonna happen.... Then it does.

Edited July 4, 2020 by harrisjosh2711

[Incarnation of Chaos]

4 minutes ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

I get that. I guess I haven't played enough on my new system to hit that "slideshow" yet. I certainly did on my laptop. I see some people on youtube and it takes them something like 5 real seconds to one game second..... And I'm like. "How can you play like that?" With that said, I feel like many people aren't giving squad the credit they deserve. A decade later and we are still getting free content. Once take 2 takes full control those comets gonna be $5.99. Music pack $2.99...... They all say its not gonna happen.... Then it does.

We'll see; I'm far more worried that KSP2 won't launch with the degree of features we were promised than T2 milking it though. They have GTA Online and numerous other franchises to "Drive recurrent user spending" as a corporate windbag would put it. I just don't see there being a big business incentive to try to clamp down and monetize KSP2 for them, but as with most of this we'll only really see who's right in time.

And i think it's not just that people aren't giving Squad credit; it's mostly that all of the free content in the world doesn't help when the games longstanding and unresolved bugs and issues actively get in the way of people enjoying it. I think after a certain point; some just get fed up with it all.

I do see SQUAD making an effort, i have seen the numerous improvements between 1.6.1 and 1.8.1 and praised them. But i still have to use KSPWheel and a set of cobbled-together and unsupported patches to make the stock landing gear and legs behave reasonably, i still have to watch part count even on stupid powerful systems, i still have to use FAR to get somewhat realistic aero modeling, i still have to wait several minutes for a decently modded install to load...etc.

And there's so many features that i consider "Basically Stock" that i get from mods, and the wonderful people who make and maintain them can decide whenever they want to pull chocks and stop. That's always a lingering source of worry for me personally, and one of another reasons i hope KSP2 doesn't turn into a flop or a cash grab. So much of my time with KSP has been dependent on thousands of combined man-hours of time that these people decided to volunteer without ever being asked or requesting anything in return for their efforts, and it could all be gone with a single request on their end when i woke up some day.

Making things like multiple planetary systems, near future tech and colonization stock will reduce that drastically, along with opening new avenues for future modders to explore and pursue.

So yeah; i'll give SQUAD plenty of credit. But I'm also extremely worried that KSP is held together by a pretty tangled series of mods with various difficulties in recreating them if something were to happen, not to mention that those mods actually often depend on OTHER mods to allow them to function by working around SQUAD's implementation of some things.

KSP2; if it delivers would fix that or at least reduce it heavily. I don't think blind optimism is warranted, and there's plenty of reasons to be skeptical of the entire project. But there's a very good reason i want them to succeed, and why iv'e criticized both KSP and the development of KSP2 so heavily where it needed to be.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

Since performance is not an issue for me. I couldn't justify $60 for interstellar travel and bases. I can get that with mods.

Mods aren't integrated into a organic and well designed progression.

Don't get me wrong, what modders achieved with KSP is truly amazing, but that's how far you can get with KSP1 and it pales in comparison with the already confirmed feature set of KSP 2.

Yes, with some heavy modding you can turn KSP in a game where bases and stations aren't cosmetic only, with colonies, mines and extraplanetary launchpads, but KSP 2 gets a better, more optimized and bigger version of that out of the box and that it's just the starting point.

Having all the assets already in the game means that replicating the functionality and balance of KSP1 LS or Colony mods is MM config territory.

While you can get something similar to what KSP 2 is going to be with KSP 1 mods, KSP 2 will be a couple of mods away from being a fully fledged 4x or city building multiplayer game.

Edited July 4, 2020 by Guest

[harrisjosh2711]

@Incarnation of Chaos im not particually worried about take 2 monetizing ksp2 so long as its worth it. Ever other game i play allready has, and it keeps development going for games that would have long been abandoned. I mostly was just highlighting the fact that there is a vast difference in business culture between the two organizations. 

But, if you want ksp2 to succeed like ksp1- who is still growing in popularity after a deccade, the graphics cant look twenty years old. Which they will in a decade if they are on par or just slightly better than ksp. Ksp is a very old video game that can run with an intergrated graphics card. No modern game can do that.

1 minute ago, Master39 said:

Mods aren't integrated into a organic and we'll designed progression.

Don't get me wrong, what modders achieved with KSP is truly amazing, but that's how far you can get with KSP1 and it pales in comparison with the already confirmed feature set of KSP 2.

Yes, with some heavy modding you can turn KSP in a game where bases and stations aren't cosmetic only, with colonies, mines and extraplanetary launchpads, but KSP 2 gets a better, more optimized and bigger version of that out of the box and that it's just the starting point.

Having all the assets already in the game means that replicating the functionality and balance of KSP1 LS or Colony mods is MM config territory.

While you can get something similar to what KSP 2 is going to be with KSP 1 mods, KSP 2 will be a couple of mods away from being a fully fledged 4x or city building multiplayer game.

Totally agree. But ksp2 will die out within 3-5 years if its graphics look 15 years old, imo.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

2 hours ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

@Incarnation of Chaos im not particually worried about take 2 monetizing ksp2 so long as its worth it. Ever other game i play allready has, and it keeps development going for games that would have long been abandoned. I mostly was just highlighting the fact that there is a vast difference in business culture between the two organizations. 

But, if you want ksp2 to succeed like ksp1- who is still growing in popularity after a deccade, the graphics cant look twenty years old. Which they will in a decade if they are on par or just slightly better than ksp. Ksp is a very old video game that can run with an intergrated graphics card. No modern game can do that.

Totally agree. But ksp2 will die out within 3-5 years if its graphics look 15 years old, imo.

I don't see how this is the case when you already acknowledged that KSP is over a decade old and still growing. People don't come to this game for the graphics, they come to live out their own fantasies of space exploration, learn more about physics or just to blow **** up and laugh about it. I mean i don't want KSP2's graphics to be ****, but they shouldn't be the primary focus either.

And KSP2 already looks MUCH better than stock KSP from the trailers, so assuming they're not completely lies then we shouldn't have too much to worry about on that avenue anyway. And there's quite a variety of "Modern" games that you can run at 60+ FPS on an IGPU; though the bulk of them are Esports titles and would have to be ran at Low or Medium settings. Though the primary reason why KSP specifically can run on such limited hardware is because the majority of the load is on the physics calculations; which are done via the CPU.

They actually have quite a bit of headroom to pump graphics without actually raising the ceiling for system requirements too much if they want as a result. They'll likely go beyond that even, and those with more limited hardware can just turn down the respective settings. The biggest shift is KSP2 is being developed on DX11 natively, so they'll have modern graphics features on tap from day one. Even if they're not utilized, modders would still be able to call their functions via unity that were exposed via API's and implement their own solutions.

KSP moved to DX11 recently (Same time they added reflections if i recall), so there hasn't been anywhere near the time or drive among SQUAD or the modding community to use DX11's features. Though there's some really cool stuff already out there using it.

[The Aziz]

8 hours ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

a mid range system 

 

8 hours ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

$1300

 

3 hours ago, harrisjosh2711 said:

 liquid cooled desktop. 

I think you overestimate what a mid range system is for most people.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

1 minute ago, The Aziz said:

I think you overestimate what a mid range system is for most people.

 1300 USD is still considered "Mid-Range", but it's definitely in the upper category.

But even a 600 USD dollar desktop could tear into KSP2, you can get quite a bit of performance these days for not too much money.

[Bej Kerman]

On 7/3/2020 at 3:20 AM, KSPMan123211 said:

Seriously, i can't get a newer computer just to play KSP, And it's one of my favorite games, and I really want to be able to play KSP 2.

Unfortunately these things happen. As games get more advanced, they can't keep bending over for dated systems.

[harrisjosh2711]

6 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:

I don't see how this is the case when you already acknowledged that KSP is over a decade old and still growing. People don't come to this game for the graphics, they come to live out their own fantasies of space exploration, learn more about physics or just to blow **** up and laugh about it. I mean i don't want KSP2's graphics to be ****, but they shouldn't be the primary focus.

There really is no competiton is why people are still coming to ksp. Though aged, its still fun. Consoles play a large part in this as well. Which leads to my next argument.

If you cant afford pc gaming, which is notoriously expensive, buy a console.

I really dont want to argue about it because i understand u guys point of view. Im just giving you mine. We are simply on opposite sides of the fence as my pc is ready for next gen gaming. Call it me being selfish if you wish. I paid alot of $$$ for my system. I expect games made in 2020 to use it.

Also, for those who cant buy new hardware, KSP1 is still in active development. If you want to play the newest games you're going to have to upgrade. It stinks, but it is reality.

Edited July 4, 2020 by harrisjosh2711

[mcwaffles2003]

This may sound insensitive but I really hope they don't sacrifice ability to fluidly upgrade into the future for when this game is 5-10 years old just to make sure people with 10 yr old computers today don't need to upgrade.