I'm worried about the possible system requirements of KSP2

[GoldForest]

2 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

It's not the GHz that KSP 1 loves, it's the single core performance that usually is accomplished due to high GHz. And although KSP 1 has become more multicore since it's start, the best processor you can buy for it is the one with the highest single core performance, no need to look at I5, I3, I7, I9, no need to look at the GHz it reaches eather, just need to look at the single core performance. 

Yes, I5,I7 etcetera will get a higher single core performance than the mentioned I3, but the difference is small.

Development of single core performance is slow across the years, development is going multicore due to that. From which KSP1 does not profit.

I3's with high single core performance are suited well for KSP1, and won't let you suffer. 4 cores and 8 threads is good enough.

Basically the reason I only upgraded my computer just now after 9 years, due to lack of development of single core performance.

 

That's what I meant, probably should have clarified, my bad. 

Even then, the single core boost clock on the I3-10100 is 4.3 which is super low compared to the 13th gen intel and 5th gen Ryzen.

You say Ghz doesn't matter, but it does. The faster the single core is, the better it will perform. A single 5ghz core will beat out a single 4.5ghz core in part count easily, and that's what matters in KSP really, is part count performance. This might be more important in KSP 2 than it is in KSP 1 due to the size of colonies and interstellar ships. Though, with interstellar ships, it looks like the team is creating very large single part peices to keep part counts down, so interstellar ships might not be such a bane on CPUs.

[LoSBoL]

25 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

That's what I meant, probably should have clarified, my bad. 

Even then, the single core boost clock on the I3-10100 is 4.3 which is super low compared to the 13th gen intel and 5th gen Ryzen.

You say Ghz doesn't matter, but it does. The faster the single core is, the better it will perform. A single 5ghz core will beat out a single 4.5ghz core in part count easily, and that's what matters in KSP really, is part count performance. This might be more important in KSP 2 than it is in KSP 1 due to the size of colonies and interstellar ships. Though, with interstellar ships, it looks like the team is creating very large single part peices to keep part counts down, so interstellar ships might not be such a bane on CPUs.

GHz Indeed doesn't matter, it's single core performance that matters. If you look at the 12 series, an I7-12700k outperforms a I3-12300 with just a mere 11 percent single core performance wise. That's the gain in performance you can expect with KSP 1 by going for an I7 instead of an I3. If that 11% is worth the nearly 3 times the price depends on personal preference and off course budget.

That 11% difference is not going to make a world of difference in part count. How KSP 2 is going to profit is yet to be seen.

When you are not looking at just KSP 1 to upgrade, I was surprised to see that multicore has been taking a huge flight in games, I've just installed Cyberpunk and was amazed to see that it is using all 20 threads of my I7-12700KF, and not by a little but at least at 80% utilisation.

 

[GoldForest]

1 hour ago, LoSBoL said:

GHz Indeed doesn't matter, it's single core performance that matters. If you look at the 12 series, an I7-12700k outperforms a I3-12300 with just a mere 11 percent single core performance wise. That's the gain in performance you can expect with KSP 1 by going for an I7 instead of an I3. If that 11% is worth the nearly 3 times the price depends on personal preference and off course budget.

That 11% difference is not going to make a world of difference in part count. How KSP 2 is going to profit is yet to be seen.

When you are not looking at just KSP 1 to upgrade, I was surprised to see that multicore has been taking a huge flight in games, I've just installed Cyberpunk and was amazed to see that it is using all 20 threads of my I7-12700KF, and not by a little but at least at 80% utilisation.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Ghz, imo, does matter. Maybe not as much as other factors, but it does matter. The faster something gets done, the better the game will perform. 11% can mean the difference between playing KSP in Microsoft Powerpoint or playing it with a smooth descent frame rate. 

[LoSBoL]

We're not in disagree, the processor that runs the fastests is very likely to have the fastest single core performance.

That 11% percent however, is not in the slightest the difference between a slideshow and smooth running KSP 1.  A recent I3 has plenty of single core performance and fully suited to run KSP 1 without any issues. A recent I3 (lets say from the 8th intel generation) is perfeclty suited to run KSP without comprimising part count. As it is with single core performance, you do get a lot of deminishing returns when the difference is a mere 11% between an I3 and and I7. You're quite  underestimating how much single performance you get with an Intel I3. It's core count that destinguishes them from eachother, cores you wont benefit a whole lot from when KSP 1 is concerned.

[miklkit]

22 hours ago, Master39 said:

Speaking about trust I think your statement shouldn't be left here like this without some extraordinary evidence to support it.

And I'm saying it as someone who currently has a full "Team Red" PC (technically 2 if you count the SteamDeck too).

You trust intel?  That sounds like a personal problem to me.  Millions in fines should be a clue.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, miklkit said:

You trust intel? 

Nope, but I also don't trust your unfounded theories.

Big claims require big proofs.

You talked about articles, mods made to circumvent the cheat, modders and forum involved.

If it's true it shouldn't be difficult to provide a link to those mods, those articles, the forums and maybe a list of affected games.

 

Again, I have a full AMD build, not defending Intel here, just trying to keep the discussion anchored in reality.

[GoldForest]

14 minutes ago, miklkit said:

You trust intel?  That sounds like a personal problem to me.  Millions in fines should be a clue.

We're not talking about trust, we're talking about the articles you supposedly looked at. We're asking for the links, that is all. 

Oh vey, never comment when your brain is working on empty kids... 

Edited December 11, 2022 by GoldForest

[Vanamonde]

Please stick to the potential system requirements of KSP2. 

[K^2]

6 hours ago, Laikanaut said:

Before this I used an old Intel processor which was much slower, from the era when Intel CPUs were very strong, and I noticed zero difference in KSP after upgrading to this i3, and I didn't expect to because the game was never CPU bound on that system either. The upgrade was due to age, not performance.

People overestimate the CPU requirements for gaming all the time, but I always get the bare minimum and never end up CPU bound. If KSP 2 is different then it will be a first, and I can easily upgrade, but I highly doubt this will be the case.

KSP is very much CPU-bound. It's graphics is absolutely barebones, while nearly everything the game does sits on a single thread, and quite a few tasks are poorly optimized. Build a ship large enough to tank your frames, then open up profiling tools. You'll see GPU that's absolutely chilling and CPU with one core pinged to 100%.

We expect KSP2 not to suffer as much from single-thread bottlenecks, but it's still going to be a far more CPU-demanding game than most out there.

[K^2]

4 minutes ago, Laikanaut said:

My approach to system building is to avoid test scenarios that would never occur otherwise.

High part counts are a very common scenario for a typical player. If you play KSP differently, that's fine, but it's not how most people play it.

KSP2 is also going to, by the very design, encourage higher part counts. Colonies, stations, ships carrying resources to remote bases, interstellar ships - all of this is putting the game into the scenarios where KSP struggled, and unlike KSP, it will be hard to avoid if you want to experience everything KSP2 has. Like I said earlier, we are expecting a lot of optimization, but this is still where we expect the bottlenecks for most people. In part because most gaming PCs out there have beefy GPUs with just enough CPU to keep the rendering pipelines fed. Ditto consoles, actually.

[GoldForest]

2 minutes ago, Laikanaut said:

From section 3 of the roadmap onwards. It's still entirely possible that the game is abandoned after initial release, it certainly wouldn't be the first early access game to end up that way.

So when I'm actually building colonies and interstellar ships, and if at that point my frame rates start dropping and I see CPU usage spiking, I'll finally have a good reason to get a decent CPU, and maybe get a new motherboard as well since 10th gen Intel CPUs may no longer be available to buy new by that point.  For the next motherboard I'd really like some temperature sensor pins so I can run a proper full loop water cooling setup with fan curves adjusted to the coolant temperature, otherwise I seem to need some kind of fan controller.

I doubt KSP 2 will get abandoned. It's a passion project and those are rarely abandoned. Not only that, Squad is there still. Between Nate Simpson and Squad, I don't see anyone letting this project die. It will see full release, of this I'm sure. 

Also, not a lot of motherboards come with built in probe sensors leads anymore. Those that do are usually the expensive top of the line motherboards like ASUS' Extreme boards. Even then it's like one, maybe two connections.

[tstein]

There is always mitigations possible. The  heaviest simulation is in atmosphere. So make  smaller rockets and assemble in orbit and you probably are avoiding  a lot of the simulation bottleneck. The Procedural parts will probably reduce a lot the number of parts as well (Fuel sections with previously 5 parts will be one now. Procedural structure beams will also  reduce the number of parts.

 

Also the only physics that is hard to implement in multi core are the forces in the  ship   between the parts. The  orbits and global acceleration of a vessel regarding space bodies is trivial to handle with multiple cores.

[GoldForest]

16 minutes ago, tstein said:

There is always mitigations possible. The  heaviest simulation is in atmosphere. So make  smaller rockets and assemble in orbit and you probably are avoiding  a lot of the simulation bottleneck. The Procedural parts will probably reduce a lot the number of parts as well (Fuel sections with previously 5 parts will be one now. Procedural structure beams will also  reduce the number of parts.

 

Also the only physics that is hard to implement in multi core are the forces in the  ship   between the parts. The  orbits and global acceleration of a vessel regarding space bodies is trivial to handle with multiple cores.

The only procedural parts that have been confirmed are wings and radiators. There may be procedural solar panels based off some modeling work we've seen, but until we get official confirmation, I would take that with a grain of salt. 

[GoldForest]

[snip]

Yeah, KSP 2 was scheduled to launch 2 years ago, and it would have had nothing like it does today. Delays are better than getting a half-cooked product. And you keep saying it has less features than KSP 1, no it doesn't. It will ship with more features. Better map view, better physics, better parts, more parts. Yes, career mode and resources are coming later, but that's okay. We're getting a lot more than we're losing. I think it's better that career mode and resources are coming later. It gives the team more time to work on them.

And no one's telling you you should upgrade, just to keep in mind that your CPU might not hold up well in KSP 2. I suggested you should have probably gone with a higher end CPU, but I never said you should upgrade. And not might be, will be. I don't know why you think KSP 2 is going to get abandoned during EA. It's a passion project of everyone there! You don't easily abandon a passion project. The people there are so passionate, I believe they would fight tooth and nail to get KSP 2 out to the masses, in a complete state. 

KSP 1 didn't have roadmap, and there were no set dates for updates either, yet, Squad still delivered those updates, yes? That's the nature of Early Access. You can't make a set release timeline. You have to just sort of wing it. And Squad stopped giving release dates to their updates long ago because they found it was hard to meet a set date. It's best to just do the update at their own pace and release it when they think it's ready. KSP 2 will be the same way. Don't expect launch dates for any of the updates. I'm not, and I'm sure plenty of others aren't either. 

As for unfulfilled promises, what unfulfilled promises? Afaik, they have made no promises, except that KSP 2 will be a better game than KSP 1 was. And you can't call that unfulfilled because the game isn't even out yet.

Edited December 12, 2022 by Vanamonde

[tstein]

47 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

The only procedural parts that have been confirmed are wings and radiators. There may be procedural solar panels based off some modeling work we've seen, but until we get official confirmation, I would take that with a grain of salt. 

It is just a very  reasonable extrapolation since after you solve procedural  wings (that generate forces) procedural structs are so logical and absurdly easy to do that you woudl need a very very  dumb manager to create some reason for that never to be added.

[GoldForest]

1 minute ago, tstein said:

It is just a very  reasonable extrapolation since after you solve procedural  wings (that generate forces) procedural structs are so logical and absurdly easy to do that you woudl need a very very  dumb manager to create some reason for that never to be added.

True, but again, until we get official confirmation, I will treat it as the only procedural parts we have are wings and radiators. 

[Vanamonde]

Some comments removed. 

Please stick to the potential system requirements of KSP2. 

[miklkit]

[snip]

As for performance of KSP2, I have 2 other Unity based games and they both run much better than KSP does.  They are both open world games with lots going on including building and vehicles that can be modified.  Hopefully KSP2 will run better too, if they are indeed starting from scratch.

AMD 3800x @ 4.375ghz, AMD 6750xt, 32gb DDR4 ram @ 3600mhz.  This should be good enough.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Vanamonde
added specs

[Vanamonde]

Comments not about the system requirements of KSP2 will continue to be removed. Stick to the subject. If you want to discuss chip security, please make a thread for it in the off-topic Lounge sub. 

[SciMan]

45 minutes ago, Laikanaut said:

Is it permitted to not be worried about the system requirements for KSP 2? Is anyone else confident in their build? Post your specs?

edit: forgot to add mine. i3-10100, 16GB RAM, GTX 1650. I'm confident I'll get >30fps stable @ 1080p ultra with lower part counts

Well if you're confidant, I'm even more confidant.

i7-9700k, 32GB DDR4 3200mhz (cl14-14-14-34), RTX 3070 Ti.

I should be able to run this game at least 60fps 4k resolution.

What I'm less confidant about is if my current 40" 4k 60hz monitor will last until then, I've got a couple columns of backlight LEDs that are either not working or operating at incredibly reduced output, and if I leave the monitor on too long another column starts flickering. I know it's not the LCD itself, because all things are just as clear as ever, it's just darker than it should be in spots.

I already have the replacement picked out, it's actually an upgrade, because instead of being just 4k 60hz, this new one is 4k 144hz maximum, but it's EXPENSIVE at $1k ($1,000) USD.
Thankfully it's christmas time, and I'm asking for "something green" this year because I don't expect any one gift I get to be able to offset the cost of this monitor I want, but if I can pile all the gifts together, I might be able to tip the scale enough to balance out the price of that monitor.

[K^2]

I have an i9 10850K, which has a slightly better overall and much better single thread performance than any of the consoles on the market, so I'm definitely safe for the baseline experience, but I'll be honest, I'm still expecting some stuttering on the edge cases. The nature of the game is that no matter what your hardware is, you can cook up a scenario where you won't be getting your smooth 60, and possibly not even the bare minimum 20 for some moments of it. But that's just sandbox games in general.

For graphics, I have a 2080Ti, so in terms of rendering, yeah, 4k @60 should be viable on the visuals side if the simulation can keep up.

[Gargamel]

3 hours ago, Laikanaut said:

Is it permitted to not be worried about the system requirements for KSP 2?

 

On 12/13/2022 at 2:16 PM, Vanamonde said:

Comments not about the system requirements of KSP2 will continue to be removed. Stick to the subject. If you want to discuss chip security, please make a thread for it in the off-topic Lounge sub. 

Your question was answered in the post immediately before yours. 

[Astronomer]

I think one PC requirement for KSP 2 that is often overlooked is a good controller, like a Thrustmaster HOTAS or at least an Xbox one controller. For PC specs I think it's safe to say that you will need a stronger CPU than any other game would need. I would also recommend an NH-D15 cooler for almost any system. DLSS and FSR will further emphasize the need for a strong CPU instead of the GPU.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Astronomer

[K^2]

3 hours ago, Astronomer said:

I would also recommend an NH-D15 cooler for almost any system.

Honestly, at that price point you can start looking at AIO liquid cooling. If your case has a place to drop in at least a 120x240 radiator, there are a lot of decent inexpensive options, and AIO is as easy to install as a conventional cooler.

[GoldForest]

5 hours ago, K^2 said:

Honestly, at that price point you can start looking at AIO liquid cooling. If your case has a place to drop in at least a 120x240 radiator, there are a lot of decent inexpensive options, and AIO is as easy to install as a conventional cooler.

A good air cooler and an aio have pretty much the same performance, so you don't really need an AIO. And Noctuas are very good air cooler.