I'm worried about the possible system requirements of KSP2

[Nazalassa]

11 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

I beg your pardon?

KSP 1 load times are tied to the frame rate!?

Yes.

[MechBFP]

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

I beg your pardon?

KSP 1 load times are tied to the frame rate!?

Yup. There is at least 1 mod that you can download that disabled vsync during loading screens if you want it enabled otherwise in the game. I think @Poodmundmade it if I am recalling correctly. 

Edited December 4, 2022 by MechBFP
Triple post

[GigFiz]

The one I've wondered about is how it is going to handle super high part counts. Because on the one hand, they've all seen how that goes in KSP currently, so that is something that has to be a major concern/performance focus, but on the other hand, with the ability to make waaaaaayyy bigger ships (and in fact, the need to for interstellar ships), we will have the ability to, and very likely will be, building stuff with astronomically higher part counts.

Now, this is KSP, so people are going immediately seek out how far they can push things before the game blows a gasket (as is proper), so the question becomes how far that is  before performance issues start to arise, what the bottlenecks are going to be, and how it's going to look like on high end vs low end setups.

I am not a programmer, so, while I have read that KSP does some behind the scenes stuff in stupid or just weird ways, I don't know how much of the issue arises from that vs programming/computational power challenges inherent to the nature of a program such as KSP, and I am definitely curious to know

Edited December 5, 2022 by GigFiz
phrasing in one spot

[K^2]

58 minutes ago, GigFiz said:

The one I've wondered about is how it is going to handle super high part counts. [...] I am not a programmer, so, while I have read that KSP does some behind the scenes stuff in stupid or just weird ways, I don't know how much of the issue arises from that vs programming/computational power challenges inherent to the nature of a program such as KSP, and I am definitely curious to know

KSP handles fuel cross-feed in a very stupid way. To the point where it can be the main reason for abysmal performance of ships with very high part count. I haven't heard anything, but we're hoping Intercept fixed that in KSP2.

There are also things that are genuinely challenging, like the ship physics. There are optimizations that KSP didn't take, and we know that Intercept at least considered some of these at some points. So the expectation is that things will be better. There are additional optimizations that can be taken by switching from PhysX to Havok physics in Unity, but I've heard no indication that this has been done. There are good reasons to believe the game started out oh PhysX, and it would be a significant undertaking to convert the components to work with Havok instead, but it could have happened I suppose.

[gsantos9489]

On 12/4/2022 at 5:31 PM, MechBFP said:

Yup. There is at least 1 mod that you can download that disabled vsync during loading screens if you want it enabled otherwise in the game. I think @Poodmundmade it if I am recalling correctly. 

Maaan, I did NOT know that, and I play KSP for a long while (since 0.24)...

If anyone is interested, I've found the mod repository, didn't tested though.

Here is the link for it: https://github.com/Poodmund/LoadingVSyncDisabler

[Vl3d]

On 12/4/2022 at 1:28 PM, MechBFP said:

KSP 1 load times are tied to frame rates as well

But what does this mean exactly?

[MechBFP]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

But what does this mean exactly?

It means if you limit your frame rates the game takes longer to load. 

[GoldForest]

2 hours ago, Vl3d said:

But what does this mean exactly?

Poodmund did a few tests. These are his findings:

Quote

Statistics

Unlimited FPS:
Start 0m 7s
Finish 0m 51s
Load Time: 0m 44s

---

Limited to 30 FPS:
Start 1m 12s
Finish 3m 34s
Load Time: 2m 22s

You can see that unlimited FPS version loaded over 3.2 times faster. That's a significant improvement. 

[Domonian]

Seeing as the release on last-gen consoles has been dropped, I think it's safe to assume that a PS5/Xbox X should be able to hold 60fps on high (or a mix of medium and high) graphics settings at 1080p. Given that the PS5 has a GPU roughly equivalent to an RTX 2070 and a CPU roughly equivalent to a Ryzen 7 3700X, things are looking a little bleak for those with very low-end specs. For 60fps at 1080p on  low settings, a GTX 1050 and i3/r3 of similar release date may be required. I don't think it's going to be very kind to low-spec systems, and my estimated specs for 60fps on low may not be able to maintain 60fps with large/complex vehicles or colonies. This is simply speculation on my part, based on the visual quality we've seen so far, and the graphical tech (like volumetric clouds and reflections) they've shown off. 

[GoldForest]

59 minutes ago, Domonian said:

Seeing as the release on last-gen consoles has been dropped, I think it's safe to assume that a PS5/Xbox X should be able to hold 60fps on high (or a mix of medium and high) graphics settings at 1080p. Given that the PS5 has a GPU roughly equivalent to an RTX 2070 and a CPU roughly equivalent to a Ryzen 7 3700X, things are looking a little bleak for those with very low-end specs. For 60fps at 1080p on  low settings, a GTX 1050 and i3/r3 of similar release date may be required. I don't think it's going to be very kind to low-spec systems, and my estimated specs for 60fps on low may not be able to maintain 60fps with large/complex vehicles or colonies. This is simply speculation on my part, based on the visual quality we've seen so far, and the graphical tech (like volumetric clouds and reflections) they've shown off. 

Nate said in the interview with PCGamer that they want to make performance on Mid-teir machines as good as possible. Mid-tier would be your X060s for Nvidia/X600s for AMD. As for CPUs, I doubt KSP 2 wouldn't do well on say a 6000 series I5s from Intel and a 1st Gen Ryzen R5s from AMD. PS5 and XBSX might have powerful graphics, but there's a downside, they're APUs instead of dedicated graphics. The chip may have the performance of a 2070, but it's not going to hit that performance all the time, if not most of the time due to thermal throttling. Though, with that being said... KSP 2 isn't graphically intense, it's more CPU intense, so 1080P 60/4K 30 wouldn't be that hard to reach or even beat as the target. If you have a high ghz CPU, like ~4.5, with a mid to low mid tier GPU, you should be fine. 

Also, 1050 is no slouch. It can get 60+ FPS at max settings 1080P in quite a few games and maintain at least 30+ in other games. 

UserBenchmark: Nvidia GTX 1050 vs RTX 2070

[AtomicTech]

 

On 12/4/2022 at 10:35 AM, Nazalassa said:

Yes.

Greatest game in the history of gaming.

[Domonian]

15 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Though, with that being said... KSP 2 isn't graphically intense, it's more CPU intense

I agree with almost everything else you said, but KSP2 is going to be graphically intense (although not more intense than on the CPU). Volumetric clouds, atmospheres, surface/material details and scatter, and lighting are all going to suck away at any GPU. The biggest offender is definitely volumetric particles, such as clouds and certain atmospheres. Getting everything looking good and looking right (with lighting specifically) is highly demanding of the GPU. Just take a look at Microsoft Flight Simulator. Obviously, it's not to that quality or to that scale, but KSP2 will definitely need something like a 2060 or better to run at 60fps on 2k or 4k at high settings. This is purely based on what we've seen so far visuals-wise, as well as what we see in other games and their performance. In the end, it likely will just be "how much optimization can they push down the pipeline so I can view my 4000m long mothership at 120fps." 

Regardless, its good to know that the bar is a bit higher for consoles, and by proxy lower to mid-spec systems (meaning they need to optimize it more to be acceptable). Personally, I've got a 2080Ti and an i7 8700k at 5.0ghz and will be running at 2k, so I'm not too concerned with performance, but volumetric particles are what I see being the big frame killer (with the exception of multi-thousand part craft). Hopefully they balance the workload right so I can use all of my GPU and CPU, rather than just all of my CPU. Depending on the computer, increasing graphics quality might increase frame rates; I know it happens on some games for me, typically those that are more reliant on the CPU than the GPU. 

[GoldForest]

13 minutes ago, Domonian said:

I agree with almost everything else you said, but KSP2 is going to be graphically intense (although not more intense than on the CPU). Volumetric clouds, atmospheres, surface/material details and scatter, and lighting are all going to suck away at any GPU. The biggest offender is definitely volumetric particles, such as clouds and certain atmospheres. Getting everything looking good and looking right (with lighting specifically) is highly demanding of the GPU. Just take a look at Microsoft Flight Simulator. Obviously, it's not to that quality or to that scale, but KSP2 will definitely need something like a 2060 or better to run at 60fps on 2k or 4k at high settings. This is purely based on what we've seen so far visuals-wise, as well as what we see in other games and their performance. In the end, it likely will just be "how much optimization can they push down the pipeline so I can view my 4000m long mothership at 120fps." 

Regardless, its good to know that the bar is a bit higher for consoles, and by proxy lower to mid-spec systems (meaning they need to optimize it more to be acceptable). Personally, I've got a 2080Ti and an i7 8700k at 5.0ghz and will be running at 2k, so I'm not too concerned with performance, but volumetric particles are what I see being the big frame killer (with the exception of multi-thousand part craft). Hopefully they balance the workload right so I can use all of my GPU and CPU, rather than just all of my CPU. Depending on the computer, increasing graphics quality might increase frame rates; I know it happens on some games for me, typically those that are more reliant on the CPU than the GPU. 

Oh, right, forgot all those features. Even still, I'm sure you'll be able to turn all that stuff off, while keeping high settings for other stuff. 

Also, 4000m long mothership? What you planning on doing, transporting millions of Kerbals?!

[K^2]

36 minutes ago, Domonian said:

Obviously, it's not to that quality or to that scale, but KSP2 will definitely need something like a 2060 or better to run at 60fps on 2k or 4k at high settings.

For 4k, definitely. But I do want to point out, for anyone who might be worried, that most of these new fancy visual techniques scale directly with the pixels on the screen, so if you have a somewhat older graphics card, you can bring down the resolution to 1080p and still have a very playable framerate. All of the features KSP uses we've seen running in PS4/XB1 games at 1080p at 30FPS without hick ups. (Well, without GPU-caused hick ups.) So that stuff scales pretty well.

[Domonian]

1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

Also, 4000m long mothership? What you planning on doing, transporting millions of Kerbals?!

I might not do it, but I don't want to underestimate the KSP Community. 

51 minutes ago, K^2 said:

But I do want to point out, for anyone who might be worried, that most of these new fancy visual techniques scale directly with the pixels on the screen, so if you have a somewhat older graphics card, you can bring down the resolution to 1080p and still have a very playable framerate

Yes! I wouldn't be surprised to see the option to turn off volumetric clouds (or volumetric particles in general, possibly with a mod) and reduced surface scatter, reduced reflections, etc. The bare minimum for 1080p 60fps (low settings, obviously) is likely "have a graphics card from post-2010" and "have an i3 CPU or better from the same time." Obviously, large craft and colonies may cause frame drops, but since the most popular GPUs from Steam's hardware survey are all GTX 1050s or better (most have 1060s or better), the majority of players should be able to run the game just fine, albeit at lower settings than enthusiasts with better hardware. 

[shdwlrd]

I find it amusing that people are stressing about graphics performance for a game where high frame rates isn't necessary. KSP isn't a shooter, platformer, or VR where the higher the frame rates are, the better you can play or eliminate motion sickness. Unless Intercept makes heavy use of ray tracing, I wouldn't worry much about graphics performance. (You can have all those pretty reflections without ray tracing btw.)

I would be more concerned about the physics and background performance than anything else. It's the physics and background performance that makes KSP unenjoyable for me to play anymore. 

The only real concern I have is that KSP2 will only run good on Intel processors. I've switched to AMD processors because Intel was too expensive at the times I upgraded. (I don't buy bleeding edge tech and AMD was the better performer for the amount I was willing to spend.) I would really like to see comparable performance between the two. As it stands now, I don't play KSP1 because even with Ryzen based processors, KSP still runs like crap. (Fortunately this isn't the case for most games I play. Most games have had a performance bump from thanks to the newer processors.)

[DrCHIVES]

I really wouldn't worry too much about this.  Keep in mind that while we all love KSP1, it's a coders nightmare I'm sure.  This was a game that started with no intentions of getting anywhere.  Update after update it gained popularity but the fundamentals of the base structure of the game had been written on top of for so long bug management became a major issue.  And not just bug management but simply overall efficiency and optimization.  The devs started from the dirt and have built the sequel up taking in lessons learned from the first game.  While the graphics do look much more impressive, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Unity is not known for very many games that have been gpu hogs.  The reality has and will remain to be that ksp2 like 1 will be a cpu and ram dependant game.  If your computer could run ksp 1, I have no doubt that ksp 2 will be able to run at the same capacity if not better than the first.  The team has made major advances in dealing the stresses of the part based physics system and I have no doubt that whatever you built in ksp1 will run better in ksp2.

[K^2]

17 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

The only real concern I have is that KSP2 will only run good on Intel processors.

This is becoming less of a problem, since the biggest advantage of Intel was single threaded boost, and KSP2 just can't swim on a single thread. They'll have to have good threading. Consoles are also AMD, so these processors get way more love than they used to.

But I won't pretend like it's not a factor. Intel has a huge game support engineering team that they send to work with major studios and engine devs, and they are a joy to work with. They'll never sabotage AMD, and they will help teams get general CPU optimizations, but they live and breathe Intel, so it's not a surprise that benefits of such partnership impact Intel performance more. AMD needs to step up their game in this regard.

[miklkit]

"They'll never sabotage AMD"

Except they have.  Intel has paid millions is fines and $1.25 Billion directly to AMD.  This is why I buy only AMD products.

[K^2]

1 hour ago, miklkit said:

"They'll never sabotage AMD"

Except they have.  Intel has paid millions is fines and $1.25 Billion directly to AMD.  This is why I buy only AMD products.

I know there have been incidents before, but the teams I've worked with have been very diligent about that sort of thing. To the point of actually pointing out poor performance of some specific libraries on AMD systems and helping us fix it. I don't know if it's the fear of more law suits, or if there has been a genuine culture shift within the company, but the Intel teams I've worked with have been absolutely amazing at making sure that everyone who plays our games will have a better experience.

I am absolutely confident in saying that some of the games I have helped ship would have worse performance on AMD PCs and consoles if we did not have Intel engineers helping us optimize the CPU performance on Intel's dime. Everyone playing these games is having a better time because Intel helped us. Intel did get an advertising deal out of it, I'm sure it wasn't at a loss to them, but if Intel didn't approach us, we would not have had engineering time to get all of these optimizations, and the overall performance of our games would have been worse.

As a customer, you can absolutely make your own decisions on how you feel about the company and whose hardware you chose to buy. As a developer, Intel's assistance has been invaluable, and I would absolutely accept it on any future projects without hesitation. And yes, that does mean that these games are likely to have an optimization bias in favor of Intel, but I also know that it will be worse across the board if I do not accept that help.

[miklkit]

It is not mentioned in any of the articles i looked at yesterday, but intel engineers that were helping devs installed a yes/no switch in their software.  Yes it is intel and gets all the optimizations or no it doesn't get much.  Savvy AMD users used a small bit of code to spoof that switch and got noticeably better performance in our FXs.   Many many games have that switch, but they are old now and I no longer play them.  Then there is that intel scandal that was discovered in November 2017........

It is all about trust and intel has none.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, miklkit said:

 

It is all about trust and intel has none.

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).

[K^2]

5 minutes ago, Laikanaut said:

given that games rarely max out any but the oldest CPUs, I doubt even my i3 will struggle with it. KSP 2

KSP is in its own class for CPU usage compared to most games. KSP2 will be as well. I would not benchmark it based on "games rarely max out the CPU". Most games don't have a lot for the CPU to do, comparatively speaking. You run the enemy AI (which is barebones in almost every game), animation and LoD/occlusion checks, and maybe a bit of physics. Everything else is the same gameplay code that ran on an 8 bit era consoles, so yeah, CPU doesn't have a lot to do, unless there's an optimization problem with one of the previous major categories.

KSP2 has to deal with ship trajectories, part collisions and stress, aerodynamics, thermals, resource usage by ships and colonies, LoD tiles across multiple planets, and all of that has to work under warp and potentially in multiplayer. That's kind of a lot, and we don't know at this point how well the game will run across the hardware requirements.

The only thing we know for sure is that KSP2 has to run well on PS5 at an absolute minimum, but that has quite a bit more juice than any i3. Even with a i3 12300, I am far from confident that KSP2 will run well. We don't have enough info to say for sure that it will struggle, but also no concrete confirmation that it will be adequate. With older i3 CPUs, my uncertainty starts turning more into a skepticism.

For reference, The PS5 CPU is most comparable to Ryzen 7 3700X. It has comparable multithreaded performance to Ryzen 5 5600X, Core i7 11700K, or Core i5 12600 to give you some spread. This is a lineup where I would say the confidence is high for good, stable performance across a variety of ships and situations, because if it's not, PS5 is in trouble. The requirements could be a lot lower, and it might, indeed, dip well into the i3 territory, but I wouldn't rely on that.

tl;dr Bottom line, if you have an i3 CPU, especially an older one, and we don't get precise min spec before Early Access, I would proceed with caution, and maybe wait a day or two to see how it runs for other people before committing.

[GoldForest]

4 hours ago, Laikanaut said:

In the past I struggled to justify anything more than a bare minimum CPU (currently i3 10100), because I know how underutilized even that is in all my use cases. I can't even bother running any stress tests on it because it never even gets close to half utilization in all real world scenarios, and I already (by accident) went overkill putting an AIO on this thing. So it's ready to be put to the test on KSP 2 at least, and hopefully runs alright on low part count vessels at least. I'm more optimistic about this than the GPU choice (GTX 1650) but we will see.

 

You're going to suffer. KSP 1 loves ghz due to its physic engine. The faster rhe CPU, the better. You're really limiting yourself with that 4.3 ghz top speed. Should have gone 10600k or better yet, 13600k or 7600x. 

You're I3 is not suited for KSP 1 or 2 really. I would expect low part count performance. 

[LoSBoL]

3 hours ago, GoldForest said:

You're going to suffer. KSP 1 loves ghz due to its physic engine. The faster rhe CPU, the better. You're really limiting yourself with that 4.3 ghz top speed. Should have gone 10600k or better yet, 13600k or 7600x. 

You're I3 is not suited for KSP 1 or 2 really. I would expect low part count performance. 

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.