how do u think the ksp 2 hardware requirement will be?

[quangdinh]

how i think ksp 2 hardware requirement will be:

8gb of ram

intel core i5

1gb of gpu

10 gb hard disk space
fhd screen
windows 10 and up

[Kapitalizing Every Word]

2 hours ago, quangdinh said:

intel core i5

I actually hate it when they put it like this. what generation? what about AMD? I think that lacks info

 

2 hours ago, quangdinh said:

1gb of gpu

I don't think so the graphics we saw in the trailers where quite heavy as a minimum maybe a powerful 2GB GPU and the recommended at least a 1050 ti  (I think)

[K^2]

2 hours ago, quangdinh said:

intel core i5

1gb of gpu

Core i5 has been around for over a decade, so there are a lot of CPUs in that category. A 2011 Core i5-2500 will certainly not run KSP2. On the other hand, the latest entry in that series, Core i5-12600K, outperforms CPU in PS5, so I would hope it will have no trouble running KSP2. In between, there is some gray area.

Similar situation in graphics, except 1GB is not a lot of VRAM. I actually suspect KSP2 will want more than 2GB due to planet textures, atmospherics, and procedural vegetation. But also, it will almost certainly want DirectX 12 features. So a lot of older GPUs are going to be out just on that.

A good starting point is to look at gen 9 consoles. PS5 has a CPU very similar to Ryzen 7 3700X and a GPU somewhere between Radeon RX 6600 XT and 6700XT. It also has 16GB of RAM, but that's shared between CPU and GPU. So a system with 8GB of system RAM and 8GB of VRAM on, say, RX 6600 XT should be very close to what you get on PS5. I wouldn't recommend this as an actual build for this game, but it's a good place to start the conversation.

Of course, KSP2 is likely to be much more forgiving of graphics than CPU, so you can definitely get away with an older graphics card. It's hard to say where the cutoff is going to be, but if we go with DX12 feature set, you are looking at GeForce 600 series or Radeon 7000 series as hard cutoff. But these came with little VRAM and are rather slow by modern standards. Depending on how much you can tune down the settings, the lowest I can imagine it going is GeForce GTX 960 or Radeon R9 380, both of these at 4GB of VRAM.

On the CPU side, I think developers will be coming close to the wire on console specs, with PS5 being the bottleneck. In that case, you don't want to go far bellow PS5 caps. That would mean aforementioned Ryzen 7 3700X or Intel Core i7-10700K. There is a bit more room to breathe with newer chips. As I said in the opening paragraph, Intel's 12600K should do just fine, and so will Ryzen 5600X. Both of these are at a lower price point now than the older alternatives mentioned. That said, these are still mid-high CPUs, so I do hope the game runs on lower spec or it might leave a lot of people unhappy.

[t_v]

Depending on how they manage dynamic loading, the RAM at any one time can probably be kept down to roughly the sum of the textures on screen, which is one planet+ probably 100 different part models, which could theoretically fit into 2 gigabytes, if they recycle textures (I don’t need to have a different texture for different sized blocks of metal, I can just have a “metal” texture)

[asap1]

getting it to run on ps4 and xb1 will be impressive.

[dave1904]

6 hours ago, K^2 said:

Core i5 has been around for over a decade, so there are a lot of CPUs in that category. A 2011 Core i5-2500 will certainly not run KSP2. On the other hand, the latest entry in that series, Core i5-12600K, outperforms CPU in PS5, so I would hope it will have no trouble running KSP2. In between, there is some gray area.

Similar situation in graphics, except 1GB is not a lot of VRAM. I actually suspect KSP2 will want more than 2GB due to planet textures, atmospherics, and procedural vegetation. But also, it will almost certainly want DirectX 12 features. So a lot of older GPUs are going to be out just on that.

A good starting point is to look at gen 9 consoles. PS5 has a CPU very similar to Ryzen 7 3700X and a GPU somewhere between Radeon RX 6600 XT and 6700XT. It also has 16GB of RAM, but that's shared between CPU and GPU. So a system with 8GB of system RAM and 8GB of VRAM on, say, RX 6600 XT should be very close to what you get on PS5. I wouldn't recommend this as an actual build for this game, but it's a good place to start the conversation.

Of course, KSP2 is likely to be much more forgiving of graphics than CPU, so you can definitely get away with an older graphics card. It's hard to say where the cutoff is going to be, but if we go with DX12 feature set, you are looking at GeForce 600 series or Radeon 7000 series as hard cutoff. But these came with little VRAM and are rather slow by modern standards. Depending on how much you can tune down the settings, the lowest I can imagine it going is GeForce GTX 960 or Radeon R9 380, both of these at 4GB of VRAM.

On the CPU side, I think developers will be coming close to the wire on console specs, with PS5 being the bottleneck. In that case, you don't want to go far bellow PS5 caps. That would mean aforementioned Ryzen 7 3700X or Intel Core i7-10700K. There is a bit more room to breathe with newer chips. As I said in the opening paragraph, Intel's 12600K should do just fine, and so will Ryzen 5600X. Both of these are at a lower price point now than the older alternatives mentioned. That said, these are still mid-high CPUs, so I do hope the game runs on lower spec or it might leave a lot of people unhappy.

If the 12600K has trouble running KSP2 then we all have a problem.  

[K^2]

5 hours ago, dave1904 said:

If the 12600K has trouble running KSP2 then we all have a problem.

To be fair, I can see a world where it has a problem running KSP2 under Windows 10. Gen 9 consoles run 8/0/16 (P/E/T) core config, and 12600K is a 6/4/16. A game optimized for a gen 9 console will have workload spread across 14 performance threads of the 7 cores that are usually available to the game. So on 12600K, that means at least two threads ending up on efficiency cores, which can royally screw up frame timing if they aren't scheduled properly. And scheduler that can properly distribute work between P and E cores is a Windows 11 feature. So some games that are well-optimized and still push PS5 processor to the limit can struggle on 12600K under Windows 10 simply due to scheduling issues. This might get addressed with a future Windows 10 patch, or maybe 12xxx owners will just have to accept the awful UI of Windows 11.

That said, KSP2 is a Unity title, so I highly doubt the core load is going to be anything remotely that even. So long as your main and physics end up on P cores, which it really should even with W10, I think you'll be fine even if some game threads end up on E cores. In which case W10 or W11 shouldn't make a difference, and 12600K will do just fine either way. So it's probably a moot point anyways.

And yeah, if 12600K can't run KSP2 well, then neither can the consoles. So we really ought to hope.

 

11 hours ago, t_v said:

Depending on how they manage dynamic loading, the RAM at any one time can probably be kept down to roughly the sum of the textures on screen, which is one planet+ probably 100 different part models, which could theoretically fit into 2 gigabytes, if they recycle textures (I don’t need to have a different texture for different sized blocks of metal, I can just have a “metal” texture)

We've seen examples of some techniques that are generally VRAM hungry. This is why I specifically call out volumetrics, like clouds and such, and procedural vegetation. Vegetation placement, for example, looks a lot like technique used by Horizon Zero Dawn, in which case, it's a GPU placement based on multiple additional density maps that have to be in VRAM. And any sort of volume rendering techniques take up a lot of memory. And this is on top of the planet surfaces, which will require LoDs for absolutely everything. And I wonder if Intercept will end up using virtual textures to optimize that, which will eat up even more VRAM. I haven't seen anything to absolutely confirm the latte, mind, but it would be a good idea, and it is something recent versions of Unity support.

What might allow KSP2 to run on a lot less VRAM is if some of these features can be disabled or allowed to run at much lower resolution. E.g., the shadow map cascades look way higher resolution in KSP2 than KSP, but also, it is something you can, at least in theory, tune to the capabilities of a particular graphics cards, and you'll simply have slightly worse-looking shadows.

 

9 hours ago, asap1 said:

getting it to run on ps4 and xb1 will be impressive.

I honestly don't think that's happening anymore. They'd have to do a full back-port, potentially cutting a lot of features. By late 2022, I'm not entirely sure it will be worth the effort. Yes, I know there will still be a lot of PS4 and XB1 players out there, but given that KSP2 isn't going to be sold as many copies as some more popular title, I don't think it will be enough to offset the costs of back-porting. I fully expect KSP2 to ship as a gen 9 title. Even XB Series S support is a big question.

Edited November 23, 2021 by K^2

[Brofessional]

It's still going to be more CPU dependent just like KSP1. It's got a lot more eye candy but if you turn the graphics settings down I don't expect it will take that powerful of a GPU to run. Which is good because purchasing a new GPU isn't an option for most people right now.

[Alexoff]

KSP 2 does not show any incredible graphics technologies like ray tracing to require a powerful video card such as 3070. On the other hand, the game engine is a unity, and in this engine physical interactions are calculated by only one core. Therefore, the game will most likely be limited by the size of the RAM and optimization, since the processor developers increase not so much the performance of individual cores as their number.

[dave1904]

8 hours ago, K^2 said:

be

I'll know soon enough. Have a 12900K since 1 week buy corsair won't ship 3 euro retrofit screws for the cooler lol. Then I can compare a 10700k and 12900K for KSP1 for now. Hope it's not one of those games. Gamersnexus said that even the e cores are actually quite good.

Edited November 24, 2021 by dave1904

[K^2]

2 hours ago, dave1904 said:

I'll know soon enough. Have a 12900K since 1 week buy corsair won't ship 3 euro retrofit screws for the cooler lol. Then I can compare a 10700k and 12900K for KSP1 for now. Hope it's not one of those games. Gamersnexus said that even the e cores are actually quite good.

The numbers look great. I just don't know how much difference it will make on KSP1. That game's really badly optimized to use multiple cores. It basically runs as fast as the fastest thread you can give it, so I don't think 12th gen will make a lot of difference.

Though, one thing I have to say is that the fact that E cores can take on any of the background tasks means that you should see full turbo speeds on your P cores while running KSP1, so you'll really be giving it the fastest core you possibly can. That's on top of 12900K being a little faster thread-for-thread than 10700K to begin with. So I'm sure you'll see an improvement. It just won't be as much improvement as it can make for other games. Hopefully, including KSP2.

[dave1904]

2 hours ago, K^2 said:

The numbers look great. I just don't know how much difference it will make on KSP1. That game's really badly optimized to use multiple cores. It basically runs as fast as the fastest thread you can give it, so I don't think 12th gen will make a lot of difference.

Though, one thing I have to say is that the fact that E cores can take on any of the background tasks means that you should see full turbo speeds on your P cores while running KSP1, so you'll really be giving it the fastest core you possibly can. That's on top of 12900K being a little faster thread-for-thread than 10700K to begin with. So I'm sure you'll see an improvement. It just won't be as much improvement as it can make for other games. Hopefully, including KSP2.

I actually only got it for the single core performance.  Ksp2 will still depend on single core performance. Hopefully I'm wrong but I just feel it. 

[Jack Mcslay]

Consider they're targeting to be able to make the game very appealing to children (which are not very often given U$500+ gaming PCs), and it's stated to be able to run on PS4 and X1 which are 8 years old by now, I think I can assume that the game will be pretty flexible in graphics settings

[asap1]

1 hour ago, Jack Mcslay said:

Consider they're targeting to be able to make the game very appealing to children (which are not very often given U$500+ gaming PCs), and it's stated to be able to run on PS4 and X1 which are 8 years old by now, I think I can assume that the game will be pretty flexible in graphics settings

I hope that's the case(I have a ps4)

[magnemoe]

On 11/24/2021 at 1:56 PM, Jack Mcslay said:

Consider they're targeting to be able to make the game very appealing to children (which are not very often given U$500+ gaming PCs), and it's stated to be able to run on PS4 and X1 which are 8 years old by now, I think I can assume that the game will be pretty flexible in graphics settings

I do not know consoles handles unlimited building games where you can build yourself into problems.
Now this problem already exist very much in KSP 1 who is on PS4 and One. 
It was  much more an problem with the PS 3 and 360 generation because they had extremely limited memory and you could end in an situation there your save became unusable. 
Skyrim was pretty infamous for this as the save files can be pretty large and then be unable to be played. 
 

[The Aziz]

PS4 can handle pretty demanding games, if they're properly optimized. Yes, they're limited to 30 frames and pc versions of the same games usually have more options, but are also more demanding in terms of hardware. Someone mentioned Horizon, it ran at stable 30fps on console, but on PC my old i5-4460 (or maybe it was i7-4790 already) and GTX 950 were struggling. Same game, right?

And ksp2, despite being made in unity, should be much better optimized than its predecessor. But then, yeah, it's 2022, last gen is slowly ending it's life, but still has a lot of players, so it's only a financial decision. So who knows. I don't expect a NASA PC for it to work smoothly, but not a potato either.

[SciMan]

I'm hoping that my i7-9700k will be able to keep up.

Despite not having needed to try it yet, I do have the possibility of overclocking my CPU if I need to (my motherboard and CPU both support it, and my CPU is already water cooled via a custom water cooling loop (not an AIO) so I have that handled too).
Basically, my system could probably be performing much better, I just haven't bothered to go in and start tweaking settings to make it do so.

Either way, if I don't have good enough performance from my system, I can still upgrade to an i9-9900k which are still available despite the shortages because it seems to be a chip that nobody really wants (guess that's because it's a couple generations old by now).

I have no doubts that the rest of my system specs are just fine for KSP 2, I have a 3070 ti and 32GB of DDR4 (because I like to play games with lots of mods).

Edited November 26, 2021 by SciMan

[dave1904]

On 11/24/2021 at 10:30 AM, K^2 said:

I just don't know how much difference it will make on KSP1

I am surprised how much difference it made. Did not do proper benchmarks of the 10700k but with 130 mods I am getting far more consistent performance and fps is around 10-20% better . My guess is that most of the performance is coming from the fact that the 12900k is always running at 5ghz. Something I believe you even mentioned. 10700K was only boosting for a could of secs. I was worried it wouldn't perform but it does and I am using ddr4 and win10. 

Take the 10-20% FPS improvment with a grain of salt. I did not document anything and we all know how human memory is. More importantly the game lags and stutters far less. I wonder if that has anything to do with the consitent turbo boost. No idea. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by dave1904

[quangdinh]

On 11/23/2021 at 6:40 PM, Kapitalizing Every Word said:

I actually hate it when they put it like this. what generation? what about AMD? I think that lacks info

 

I don't think so the graphics we saw in the trailers where quite heavy as a minimum maybe a powerful 2GB GPU and the recommended at least a 1050 ti  (I think)

gen 11 and up i guess?
and amd ryzen 5?
im not  tech nerd

[K^2]

7 hours ago, quangdinh said:

gen 11 and up i guess?

As much as I hope Intercept gets good performance out of KSP2 on 11th i5, I don't think it's a guarantee. They absolutely have to get good performance on PS5 to have a viable product, and that would about match performance of 11th gen i7. So I'm comfortable calling 11th gen i7 as adequate for sure. Not supporting 11th gen i5 will hurt the sales, certainly, but given how important consoles sales are likely to be, I can imagine a scenario where they go for a higher minimum if they simply have no resources to make more optimizations and don't want to cut features.

To be clear, the above is unlikely, and KSP2 will probably be fine on 11th gen i5. Maybe it will get a little more laggy than PS5/XBSX on larger ships and colonies. But there isn't enough information, either from what we've seen, or from what I know about the game development, to say with high confidence that this will be supported.

And this gets murkier as we talk about older CPUs. 12th gen performance is a pretty big leap, which is why I've said above that I fully expect 12th gen i5 to do fine. But 9th to 11th gen, at least, it's all been way more gradual. So it's very hard to say where the cutoff will be. In fact, even after we see min-spec, it will probably be hard to translate it to older CPUs. Ditto laptops - there are just way too many variables between core counts and boost performance to say what will be critical for KSP2. All I can be certain about is that KSP2, like KSP before it, will be one of these games where your CPU matters way more than your GPU, and that's likely to leave a lot of setups that can handle most modern games adequately well in the dust, unfortunately.

[SciMan]

Boy I'm glad I left my i7-9700k at stock clocks and water cooling (custom loop not AIO), and that I have a beefy power supply, because that means I have plenty of overhead to be able to overclock should I have the need to do so to get adequate performance out of my now seemingly relatively old CPU. And even if that fails, I can still upgrade just the CPU to an i9-9900k without having to change the motherboard.

But if it does come down to changing the motherboard, I'll probably go with Intel's 13th or better generation CPU, and windows 11, because by then hopefully all the bugs with both of those things will have been worked out (but I'm suspicious of Windows 11 because of the "every other version of Windows is crap" paradigm that they seem to have stuck to ever since windows Vista).

 

[K^2]

34 minutes ago, SciMan said:

I can still upgrade just the CPU to an i9-9900k without having to change the motherboard.

I don't know if that's going to be cost-effective. Unless you go used, 9900KF is still likely to set you back nearly $400, while a 12600KF is under $300. Granted, LGA 1700 mobos start at about $200 right now, but by the time KSP2 comes out, you'll have better priced options, and will probably be able to go with 12600KF for a comparable price to 9900KF. And 12600KF beats the pants off 9900KF in every category that matters. If you are forced to upgrade, I think you're better off going for newer hardware.

Of course, you might have other constraints in your setup, and/or access to various deals, so that all depends. I might also be off on my prediction for price dynamics in the future. Most importantly, if you'll be deciding on an upgrade after KSP2 is already out, hopefully, you'll be able to get some benchmarks on how it performs on different processors and factor that into your consideration. So wait-and-see is probably best approach here.

[SciMan]

Yeah to be honest I'm already leaning away from the i9-9900k route. And I prefer K to KF processors because even if I never use the IGPU, it existing will allow me to keep the computer running (at least to browse the web if not to game on) should something happen to my graphics card. Even tho I have 2 spare GPU's waiting to be slotted in if this one fails. Even tho I sincerely doubt that this GPU will fail.
EDIT: Those two backup GPUs aren't anything special these days. They're the pair of GTX 970's that my previous computer used. The GPU in my current PC as of right now is a RTX 3070 Ti because that's what was available when my turn came up to get a GPU. If I could have had my choice, I would have gone with a plain old 3070, or stepped up to a 3080 (or more likely a 3080 ti).

I take my hardware redundancy and backups seriously. The data doesn't matter as much to me, I can re-download everything I need again, but if the computer's not working then I'm denied my main source of entertainment (I don't watch TV, instead I use streaming services on my computer, for instance).

Edited December 27, 2021 by SciMan

[sunnypunny]

official min specs tend to be inflated to be safe. i highly doubt an 11th gen i5 would be minimum, that's some beastly CPU power and judging by the dev posts i'd anticipate the sequel being reasonably well optimised. i used to run KSP on an i5-2400s and it was fine, and i'm sure my 11th gen i3 will be fine for KSP2. my GT1030 currently runs dota2 on max settings @ 1080p but i think it will need an upgrade for KSP2, that's about it though. that said i'm sure there are players out there who love to install hundreds of mods and create vessels with thousands of parts just to stress test all 32 CPU cores, but i'll leave them to their shenanigans

 

[KSP_linux0191]

Here is my guess:

OS: Windows 10 and up, Mac OS X, uh, something and up (don't know much about Macs), Linux, Ubuntu; v20.04 and up, Debian; 10 or 11 and up, Other; made in 2019 or later

Processor: i5  i7 10th or 11th gen and up

RAM: 16+GB DDR4 stock, 32+GB DDR5 modded

Graphics: Ryzen 5 4+GB VRAM

I think that KSP 2 will be setting new hardware standards, not following them.

Edited January 1, 2022 by KSP_linux0191