Looks great, but.......

[GDJ]

I apologize if this has been asked before:

With all the development of KSP2 shown, and if the screenshots are a good representation of the game in its final and presentable form, what kind of computer will I need to run it properly?

I seriously doubt my 2012 Mac Mini i5 is going to cut it or even get past the loading screens.

[MechBFP]

It is hard to say. Originally it was being developed for the old generation of consoles (i.e. PS4, XBox One), but it looks like they may no longer be developing it with those consoles in mind. However we don't have firm confirmations one way or the other yet.

As such the requirements would be, at a bare minimum, a PC at least equivalent to a PS4/XBox One. I suspect they will be higher.

Edited November 6, 2022 by MechBFP

[Bej Kerman]

6 minutes ago, Laikanaut said:

I just researched Cyberpunk since it's one of the most demanding recent games, and used benchmarks of that to estimate roughly what KSP 2 will need (expecting it to be a bit less demanding)

Okay, can you guide us through the logic you used to determine that Cyberpunk could be considered anywhere close to a good benchmark for KSP 2?

[The Aziz]

There's only a tiny chance a 2012 hardware could handle 2022 game with decent visuals. Time to upgrade has come.

[GDJ]

56 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

There's only a tiny chance a 2012 hardware could handle 2022 game with decent visuals. Time to upgrade has come.

Oh very true. This 10 year old computer still does a lot of things very well, but games it started to fizzle out about 4 years ago. 

Looking at the new Mac Mini M1 with the maximum RAM (16 G) or Mac Studio Base model (hotter M1 processor and 32G RAM).  Either one of those should work just fine....for a while.
 

[t_v]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Okay, can you guide us through the logic you used to determine that Cyberpunk could be considered anywhere close to a good benchmark for KSP 2?

The theory is that the minimum spec required to run a demanding game like Cyberpunk should be enough to run pretty much any game that is less demanding, like KSP 2. So going for that level of hardware would ensure a decent experience over the next few years. 

[Bej Kerman]

51 minutes ago, t_v said:

3 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Okay, can you guide us through the logic you used to determine that Cyberpunk could be considered anywhere close to a good benchmark for KSP 2?

The theory is that the minimum spec required to run a demanding game like Cyberpunk should be enough to run pretty much any game that is less demanding, like KSP 2. So going for that level of hardware would ensure a decent experience over the next few years. 

"You'll need a computer powerful enough to run 90% of games" doesn't exactly narrow things down or serve as a benchmark for KSP 2.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

"You'll need a computer powerful enough to run 90% of games" doesn't exactly narrow things down or serve as a benchmark for KSP 2.

Until they come out with system specs that's about the best we're going to get. Judging by the in-game KSP footage, Cyberpunk 2077's requirements are likely a very good "comfortable" spec to look to.

[Bej Kerman]

8 minutes ago, regex said:

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

"You'll need a computer powerful enough to run 90% of games" doesn't exactly narrow things down or serve as a benchmark for KSP 2.

Until they come out with system specs that's about the best we're going to get. Judging by the in-game KSP footage, Cyberpunk 2077's requirements are likely a very good "comfortable" spec to look to.

Well Cyberpunk is a completely different game and it's much more taxing on the GPU than the CPU. Comparing it with KSP 2 is pointless.

[mcwaffles2003]

Fo minimum im guessing...

13900K, RTX 4090, 64Gb DDR5,and 250GB NVMe storage

Spoiler

It's a joke

 

[Rutabaga22]

35 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

13900K, RTX 4090, 64Gb DDR5,and 250GB NVMe storage

 

You forgot that it required RGB on your PC

[The Aziz]

I have RGB, CPU weaker by 2200, half of the RTX, half of the RAM, but I could add some of the remaining 700GB from the NVMe to RAM. So that means it could work on about half the fps for me, good.

[Joey634]

Well yeah....

Everyone know that RGB are like racing stripes for your car... it's makes everything go faster.. RBG fans, RGB, Rams, RGB GPU's, RGB Stirps, RGB Motherboards, RGB Coolers(AIO), RGB Power supplies, RGB SSD's, RGB Cables.. just to name a few... 

That's at least a 2-4% performance boost for each components. right there. LOL

Did I forget something?

[The Aziz]

You forgot about RGB keyboards, mouses, and gaming chairs fitted with RGB.

[Xelo]

My screen supports RGB, hopefully that's good enough. 

[whatsEJstandfor]

On 11/6/2022 at 7:07 AM, GDJ said:

Oh very true. This 10 year old computer still does a lot of things very well, but games it started to fizzle out about 4 years ago. 

Looking at the new Mac Mini M1 with the maximum RAM (16 G) or Mac Studio Base model (hotter M1 processor and 32G RAM).  Either one of those should work just fine....for a while.
 

While the M1 is great, I'm not sure I'd trust the GPUs in those to keep up for gaming. And, incidentally, bear in mind that KSP 2 won't immediately release on macOS, so if you do go with a Mac, you'll be waiting longer to play it as well.

Edited November 7, 2022 by whatsEJstandfor

[intelliCom]

I know this is a very unreliable way to judge performance, but considering KSP2's likely optimisation over KSP1, it'd be safe to say that whatever framerates you get in KSP1 would be 3/4ths in KSP2 (e.g., 60 FPS --> 45 FPS)

If you can barely run KSP1 at 30 FPS, I'd suggest upgrading.

[Superfluous J]

On 11/6/2022 at 1:53 PM, Bej Kerman said:

Well Cyberpunk is a completely different game and it's much more taxing on the GPU than the CPU. Comparing it with KSP 2 is pointless.

Exactly as pointless as (but much easier than) coming up with actual specs based on speculation and conjecture.

Are you saying you expect any random (though not every single) computer that can comfortably run Cyberpunk, to NOT be able to run KSP at least on minimum specs?

[Bej Kerman]

2 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

Are you saying you expect any random (though not every single) computer that can comfortably run Cyberpunk, to NOT be able to run KSP at least on minimum specs?

No.

[Alexoff]

On 11/7/2022 at 12:14 AM, mcwaffles2003 said:

Fo minimum im guessing...

13900K, RTX 4090, 64Gb DDR5,and 250GB NVMe storage

  Hide contents

It's a joke

 

It will be fun if this turns out to be a joke and something more powerful is needed to see a rocket of 300 parts at 60 fps

[SciMan]

You could throw that computer at KSP 1, even with overclocking all of it, and you'd still get a yellow MET clock with a 300 part rocket.

That's not the hardware's fault, that's the game engine literally not being able to cope with the very thing it was supposed to cope with.

Point being, beyond a certain point with KSP, it just can't take advantage of the better hardware, no matter if you put it on a supercomputer or not, the game engine's not built for the supercomputer so it might not even start up correctly.

Same with KSP 2, you throw too much at it and it'll just not run good, no matter what computer you give it to work with.

Running KSP 2 at 4K native resolution and 120 or 144 hz is probably where game will start to complain about not having enough GPU horsepower if you don't have at least an RTX 3070.

Part count is where the CPU matters, that 13900k will probably have 2-3 cores just twiddling their thumbs 90% of the time you're playing KSP 2. But out of those other 5 cores, at least one of them will be needing to use every last megahertz it has on a 1000 part vessel, but I think we'll be able to see 1000 part vessels have good framerates even on modest CPUs because of that whole "physics LOD" thing they were talking about a while back.

[darthgently]

I'm guessing that by tuning down graphics, limiting mods, etc you'll probably be able to get away with a lot less computer than some mentioned above.  But of course that will be a bit less game also, lol

[GDJ]

1 hour ago, darthgently said:

I'm guessing that by tuning down graphics, limiting mods, etc you'll probably be able to get away with a lot less computer than some mentioned above.  But of course that will be a bit less game also, lol

I've been doing that since 2013. I'm kinda tired of doing that, so that's why I asked the question.

Thanks anyways peeps. I'm going to close this thread.

[Nazalassa]

On 11/7/2022 at 4:06 PM, Xelo said:

My screen supports RGB, hopefully that's good enough.

Mine doesn't

Spoiler

ONE of mine. But I have little hope of using it to play KSP2, as they are probably not gonna release a Macintosh SE/30 version. So, never mind.

Spoiler

Plus, that Macintosh has a screen problem, I can't use it. But it doesn't matter. It's 36 years old now. It's older than me. It has lived through all these years.
Well done, little Macintosh!

[Redneck]

if you have to ask "will my computer run it?" You have pretty much already answered your own question. Remember a laptop is like a disposable lighter. when it runs out you pull the drive and the ram and throw it away