Will Kerbal Space Program 2 be optimised for low end pc

[Ryan@123]

Hello Everyone,

I looked up to the developers show case yesterday but one thing ravages me THE HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW KSP 2.As the graphics are awesome so it may be a problem for many AMD and Intel low end processors and graphics card like GT 730 or GT 710.Will KSP 2 run on low end system like mine(for reference)

I3 9100F

GT 1030

16GB ddr4 ram.

Thanks

[The Aziz]

It's 2020. Developers should not worry about old potatoes, just because the first game worked on them (5 years earlier). 

That said, the game is supposed to be launched on ps4/xb1, and that is an old hardware today, though still quite capable.

 

...I'm looking at your specs though, 16gigs with an i3 and 1030? How.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

38 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

It's 2020. Developers should not worry about old potatoes, just because the first game worked on them (5 years earlier). 

That said, the game is supposed to be launched on ps4/xb1, and that is an old hardware today, though still quite capable.

 

...I'm looking at your specs though, 16gigs with an i3 and 1030? How.

Prebuilt "Gaming PC" or laptop I'm betting.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

1 hour ago, Ryan@123 said:

Hello Everyone,

I looked up to the developers show case yesterday but one thing ravages me THE HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW KSP 2.As the graphics are awesome so it may be a problem for many AMD and Intel low end processors and graphics card like GT 730 or GT 710.

 

Also just want to bring this up, and because these come up so much in particular. Even when these cards were released, they were NEVER intended as cards for heavy use. These were cheap, bottom bin silicon that could be thrown in OEM PC's to provide multiple display support and accelerate media or Excel calculations. The GT 1030 is a much better card, and far more suitable for a "Entry-level GPU" (I'd argue that a RX 570 is far better, and at 150 used blows this out of the water but there's plenty of reasons why you might not be able to use it).  But the GT 730 and GT 710 should not be the benchmark, as they weren't ever intended to be.  And these chips are ANCIENT; being based on 40nm and launched in 2014.

These are essentially math coprocessors on a process that was outdated even back then that you want KSP2 to "Optimize" for; imagine if all games did this? We'd never see anything past the bloody X360 era at best, and likely PS2 graphics would be more the standard. Like i get people want to be able to run KSP2 on a reasonable machine....but...have you looked at parts lately? Because i feel like most of this is from people who haven't seen just what a 200 dollar modern GPU can do these days.

 

[Ryan@123]

Guys I use a Dell Inspiron 3470 SFF and very limited to GPU(definitely stuff changes with external GPU which I may get like a Rx 590 or a GTX 1660 super and a new PSU.I hope that the my cpu(i3 9100F) could handle it well,if not then the last resort i5 9400F.Also I meant by the fact a standard of graphical performance as KSP 1 was playable for such hardware which ksp2 will not be.But what about GT 1030,as I have heard that we can even play the Battlefield V (which puts even the most powerful GPU at it paces) at low.But my major concern is the CPU.Older i3 and Pentium will certainly cry while running but what about a new (or recent) coffee lake refresh i3 9100F.Certainly the devs of KSP (one of the most cheerful devs I have ever seen) have enabled multi-core performance hence I guess this game to run on a true quad core smoothly or atleast in a playable manner with it 4.0ghz all core turbo.(and 4.2ghz single core turbo)

Edited August 2, 2020 by Ryan@123

[Ryan@123]

Yes I agree with all of you.But my first concern is regarding the GPU.We know how KSP stressed on GPU power.A freaking weak GT 710 weaker than Intel's skylake igpu could run it at 45fps Which will definately never be the case this time.Hence I was thinking the level of graphical performance one must have in the pc in order to play it.Besides fro. GPU we know that KSP will and always be cpu intensive,hence the cpu also matters.I have heard that the devs have done some optimisation such that there is reduced lag with massive rockets.This possibly indicates multi core support but since this game mostly would support directX 12 which is limited to 6threads then how would a recent true Quad core hold up like a i3 9100F or a i7 7400 or a r5 1400 or r5 1500x

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, Ryan@123 said:

GuysI hope that the my cpu(i3 9100F) could handle it well

Its 9th gen a quad core with a 4.2GHz boost, It will probably be fine.

 

1 hour ago, Ryan@123 said:

But my first concern is regarding the GPU

Play at whatever resolution/other settings doesn't slow down your comp. You wont be playing max settings 4k but a GT 1030 should have enough VRAM to get 1080p at low/med settings in modern titles

[TLTay]

I hate to say this, but if they're reusing the original solar system, it really needs to be BEAUTIFUL this time to impress anyone with the same planets over again. It will doubtless be more taxing, as it is 10 years newer. 

[Ryan@123]

5 hours ago, TLTay said:

I hate to say this, but if they're reusing the original solar system, it really needs to be BEAUTIFUL this time to impress anyone with the same planets over again. It will doubtless be more taxing, as it is 10 years newer. 

Yeah correct but the devs have hinted about new solar system and kerbol will get a new planet called puff hence It will be significantly ram heavy.Along with the major fact that it will be more taxing on the GPU with Direct X 12 support.Meaning that unlike previous ksp the UHD 630, Vega 3 won't run it at max in 720p but it would be unplayable.I guess the minimum will be GTX 550ti or GTX 460.(at directX 11 support) or a GTX 750(at directX 12 support if they do it minimum)

[TLTay]

4 hours ago, Ryan@123 said:

Yeah correct but the devs have hinted about new solar system and kerbol will get a new planet called puff hence It will be significantly ram heavy.Along with the major fact that it will be more taxing on the GPU with Direct X 12 support.Meaning that unlike previous ksp the UHD 630, Vega 3 won't run it at max in 720p but it would be unplayable.I guess the minimum will be GTX 550ti or GTX 460.(at directX 11 support) or a GTX 750(at directX 12 support if they do it minimum)

New planets appear to be in different solar systems, with the original Kerbal system staying roughly the same/revamped with better graphics.

Seeing as the consoles that it will be releasing on are roughly equivalent in graphics processing power to a GTX 750/750ti, that would probably be the minimum to shoot for. GT1030 *might* get the job done at 30fps 720p low detail. The 460 and 550ti I doubt will be able to handle it. I wouldn't upgrade anything until we see what the requirements will be, unless you need it for another game.

[K^2]

It's hard to say for sure how much KSP2 will push the hardware, but even original PS4 and XB1 have GPUs with substantially more performance than a 1030, never mind the mid-gen upgrades. If we're looking at nVidia 10th gen, 1050 might be min spec for KSP2 if the baseline is going to be first generation PS4/XB1.

Of course, KSP tends to be playable even at lower frame rates, so if original consoles can handle 25-30FPS, the 1030 should be capable of at least 20FPS+, and maybe that's good enough. If they target PS4 Pro and XB1X as baseline, then 1030 will probably not do well at all, dropping bellow 10FPS into slideshow territory.

[SpaceFace545]

21 minutes ago, K^2 said:

It's hard to say for sure how much KSP2 will push the hardware, but even original PS4 and XB1 have GPUs with substantially more performance than a 1030, never mind the mid-gen upgrades. If we're looking at nVidia 10th gen, 1050 might be min spec for KSP2 if the baseline is going to be first generation PS4/XB1.

Of course, KSP tends to be playable even at lower frame rates, so if original consoles can handle 25-30FPS, the 1030 should be capable of at least 20FPS+, and maybe that's good enough. If they target PS4 Pro and XB1X as baseline, then 1030 will probably not do well at all, dropping bellow 10FPS into slideshow territory.

The game is going to come out next fall where the Xbox series x and ps5 are both going to be out so those could become the baseline aswell

[Minmus Taster]

On 8/2/2020 at 4:12 AM, Ryan@123 said:

Hello Everyone,

I looked up to the developers show case yesterday but one thing ravages me THE HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW KSP 2.As the graphics are awesome so it may be a problem for many AMD and Intel low end processors and graphics card like GT 730 or GT 710.Will KSP 2 run on low end system like mine(for reference)

I3 9100F

GT 1030

16GB ddr4 ram.

Thanks

Our PC's will explode DOWNLOADING this game.

 

[K^2]

4 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

The game is going to come out next fall where the Xbox series x and ps5 are both going to be out so those could become the baseline aswell

Game is coming out on PS4 and XB1. There is no reason to base min spec for PC on something more powerful, especially, under Unity. The only question is whether base models will be supported, or only Pro/X.

[Guest]

On 8/2/2020 at 2:36 AM, The Aziz said:

It's 2020. Developers should not worry about old potatoes, just because the first game worked on them (5 years earlier). 

That said, the game is supposed to be launched on ps4/xb1, and that is an old hardware today, though still quite capable.

 

...I'm looking at your specs though, 16gigs with an i3 and 1030? How.

My computer came out around PS4 and XB1. And I personally think even if my computer meets the expectations I am still upgrading. The fact is computers age fast. I feel my computer specs will not be matched for KSP 2. Honestly I am going to stay grateful for what I have to play on (when half the world doesn't even have the ability to access the internet).

Edited August 3, 2020 by Guest

[The Aziz]

3 hours ago, K^2 said:

Game is coming out on PS4 and XB1. There is no reason to base min spec for PC on something more powerful, especially, under Unity. The only question is whether base models will be supported, or only Pro/X.

Do you have any examples of such thing? Because that I believe would create an outrage in playerbase of any game if one would be made specifically for upgraded versions of the console. Enhanced versions for more powerful hardware, sure, but not this.

[Moach]

truth be told, games nowadays haven't pushed hardware as hard as they used to (relatively, that is)

 

I remember back in the early 2000's when we had to go buy a new GPU every 6 months or so - Moore's law was in full furious effect back then.

What happened? Why has it slowed down?

Well, it's hard to make a game look any better than what's considered "average" nowadays without an exponential investment in artwork development.  A graphics engine can showcase any number of supposed eye-candy features, but what makes for what players consider "awesome graphics" is really just sheer hard work from a team of sometimes hundreds of artists.  (check the end credits of a game like GTA 5, and see how many designers it takes to put that much detail into such a large area)

Since most relatively decent mid-level GPUs can handle something like that reasonably well, even if with some compromise on graphics settings, it follows that to push hardware any further would require so much more detail that it just doesn't make any sense to take on the gigantic effort of developing it.  How realistic does it have to get before it really doesn't make any much difference anymore?

I personally think we've gotten to that point a few years ago.  There are games who make a point of showing characters with every single pore detailed on their skins.  An eye-grabber and wow-maker on cutscenes. But does it make the game any more fun?  Most often, not really.  Most games don't really need that level of detail anyways. Better use that hardware for something more practical;  Hence, GPU physics.  But even then, how many tumbling bricks does it take before any more won't add anything to the experience?   That point has also already been reached, in most cases, as most games with that kind of thing going often have them affect only certain objects, whilst others have to remain unnaturally indestructible, lest players be able to bring down the whole level on their heads and make the game unwinnable....

 

Point is, It's really, really hard to push hardware these days.  Not only has the industry kept up with software quite well, but software itself has also developed new "tricks" and optimization techniques, such that older hardware can do more than it could when it was made.   

 

Makes sense, the more players are able to play any game, the more will buy it. 

 

"You'll need to get a new GPU" is hardly an enticing sales pitch.

 

 

[K^2]

1 hour ago, The Aziz said:

Do you have any examples of such thing? Because that I believe would create an outrage in playerbase of any game if one would be made specifically for upgraded versions of the console. Enhanced versions for more powerful hardware, sure, but not this.

I can't get into specifics, because this is starting to get very NDA very quick, but the gist of it is that what you can and can't ship is primarily based on your contract with Sony/Microsoft. When Sony/Microsoft say that they will continue support of base consoles, that is reflected in contracts with developers. These contracts frequently get modified for exceptions for certain features that simply can't work with base hardware or without certain specific upgrades. And as time goes on and we enter next gen era, there is no explicit reason why Sony and Microsoft might not start allowing games that only run on Pro/X models of their consoles.

And there is going to be a lot of pressure to scale back support for base models. There are a lot of games coming out for next gen that can ship for PS4 Pro and XB1X as well with some features scaled down, but only if base models can be dropped entirely. Early on in PS5/XBSX era this will probably be helping generate extra revenue. First of all, market penetration of new consoles will be low, so license fees from selling to previous generation will be a substantial share of profits. Second, it's a rare time slice when secondary market of used hardware sales is actually beneficial to Sony and Microsoft. If I can sell my PS4 Pro to a neighbor who only has the original PS4 right now, so that I can afford a PS5, that's still a PS5 sale for Sony. No only does Sony get hardware sales, but they can now sell PS5 version of a new game to me and PS4 Pro version of the same game to my neighbor, where porting this game to base PS4 might simply not be feasible.

It's even more pressure on Microsoft with their Smart Delivery. If I'm a dev working on a XBSX game, and I come to Microsoft saying, "Hey, we can probably pay this external studio to port our SX game to XB1X, so long as we don't have to support base XB1. Otherwise, we simply can't make it work, and it will be XBSX only," that's a lot of pressure on Microsoft to cave.

We'll have to wait and see if we are going to start Pro/X only games being approved, and maybe you're right, and they'll decide that possible backlash is not worth the sales generated. But I wouldn't just dismiss the possibility at this point.

[Ryan@123]

Yes I agree KSP 2 will push hardware to limits(but I hope that it doesn't push to the extent Battlefield series or GTA series does).In game debate they played a GTX 1050 as minimum and i3 560 as minimum.In recommended GTX 1060 and i5 4th gen Haswell overclockable(i5 4650k is guess).As for my hardware I can't upgrade my cpu quickly as for GPU I am trying to find a GTX 1050ti but none of them will fit in my prebuilt dell Inspiron 3470 SFF.Only external GPU is the option or placing the GPU in the pcei-x1 slot as it's dual slot GPU.

As for my case I can UPGRADE TO A I7 9700K which I will but the GPU I am unsure But if GT 1030 can't handle it then I will do a external GPU setup

Edited August 4, 2020 by Ryan@123

[Ryan@123]

Also we are forgetting one thing if there was no covid-19 the game would have been released by 2020,hence we can approximately guess that ps5 and xbox1x will run ksp2 maxed out at 4k but for older pc(I mean 9th gen Intel and low end 10 series GPU like GT 1030 and GTX 1050 not ti version) it would be the minimum the bare minimum for KSP2 but due this covid-19 the time has increased so has the time for development and making the base game more efficient and working for optimisation for pc which are on the low end of stuff because if they release as the ps5 base line it would be like Microsoft flight simulator 2020 requirements.Hence I guess the GTX 750 to be THE BARE MINIMUM.but these are all speculation.Its always best to wait for the devs to announce the requirements.But I certainly hope that it would not list ps5 system requirements as the bare minimum but certainly better than the recommended requirements of KSP 1.  ryzen 3 1300X,GTX 750TI 8gb ram seems to the optimal minimum for ksp2.

Edited August 4, 2020 by Ryan@123

[Nuke]

current gen low end hardware is probably fine. a high performance rig from 10 years ago is probably also fine. 

[K^2]

34 minutes ago, Ryan@123 said:

Also we are forgetting one thing if there was no covid-19 the game would have been released by 2020

That's almost certainly not true. Based on work already being behind, then getting transferred over to Intercept, odds of us seeing the game in 2020 were nil without pandemic being a factor.

Also, the impact of WFH policies has not been THAT great. Speaking as someone in a lead position on a somewhat larger project with a fall 2020 ship date, it has certainly been a challenge, but not a "Miss your target by a year," kind.

I think, impact on morale and exhaustion levels has been way higher than it has on actual progress. Which is still a factor to consider, and I'm actually more worried about games that were further out in their development cycle. But it's also something the industry overall is adapting to rather better than anyone expected, and in the long run, might become a new norm without detriment.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, K^2 said:

That's almost certainly not true. Based on work already being behind, then getting transferred over to Intercept, odds of us seeing the game in 2020 were nil without pandemic being a factor.

They talked about how when the game got revealed that they got suddenly a lot of request like clouds so they started adding some of those. my guess is that the delay mostly came from Covid-19. It totally slowed down progress. We heard December 2020 before covid happened.

On more of the related part of this topic; I think my 8 GB of ram and my I5 will do fine. I think that's a good minimum 

My graphics card on the other hand (not the 520 the 5500)...

Edited August 4, 2020 by Guest

[shdwlrd]

1 hour ago, Ryan@123 said:

Yes I agree KSP 2 will push hardware to limits(but I hope that it doesn't push to the extent Battlefield series or GTA series does).In game debate they played a GTX 1050 as minimum and i3 560 as minimum.In recommended GTX 1060 and i5 4th gen Haswell overclockable(i5 4650k is guess).As for my hardware I can't upgrade my cpu quickly as for GPU I am trying to find a GTX 1050ti but none of them will fit in my prebuilt dell Inspiron 3470 SFF.Only external GPU is the option or placing the GPU in the pcei-x1 slot as it's dual slot GPU.

As for my case I can UPGRADE TO A I7 9700K which I will but the GPU I am unsure But if GT 1030 can't handle it then I will do a external GPU setup

After seeing what the rear "expansion" slots and the main board layout on that machine, it looks like you're SOL with getting a video card in your machine. Since KSP2 isn't supposed to release for about a year, save your funds and get a replacement machine close to the release date. It doesn't need to be fancy, you just have to pick a system that gives you ample room to add a video card if you want. 

[Harry Rhodan]

5 hours ago, Ryan@123 said:

I can UPGRADE TO A I7 9700K which I will

Physically yes, but neither the cooling system nor the PSU are meant to cope with this thing and you also can't overclock or just undervolt it because this OEM board doesn't have any options for that. Like the others already said: save for a good PC rather than trying to fit some already outdated stuff into your old one.