Vl3d Posted February 7, 2023 Author Share Posted February 7, 2023 1 hour ago, sumrex said: Not too worried here. I9-12900K 128 GB Dominator memory Z690 Taichi MB 24G ASUS TUF 3090 w 24G memory. But I am a nerd I was launching multi-thousand part ships back in .22 I plan to keep things up for my return in KSP 2. I am curious just how far it can be pushed. Now that's what I'm talking about. A PC worthy of KSP2. I hope we also get a KSP2 worthy of such a PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vl3d Posted February 10, 2023 Author Share Posted February 10, 2023 This is a PC used to play KSP2 at the Insiders / ESA event. What model is that, what specs? What video card is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldForest Posted February 10, 2023 Share Posted February 10, 2023 5 minutes ago, Vl3d said: This is a PC used to play KSP2 at the Insiders / ESA event. What model is that, what specs? What video card is that? Consdering that graphics card looks to be a 4 slot, probably a RTX 4080/90. If not, then definitely a 3080/90. As for the model, it's a Pny XLR8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vl3d Posted February 17, 2023 Author Share Posted February 17, 2023 (edited) Let's goooooo! Keeping KSP1 alive! Opening the door for the future with KSP2! Edited February 17, 2023 by Vl3d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 11 minutes ago, Vl3d said: Let's goooooo! Keeping KSP1 alive! Opening the door for the future with KSP2! You know that higher minimum requirements don't mean much in terms of actual game fidelity, right? We're not exactly talking about old-gen consoles and the joke they called a CPU, and without the target resolutions this doesn't mean much anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vl3d Posted February 17, 2023 Author Share Posted February 17, 2023 9 minutes ago, Master39 said: You know that higher minimum requirements don't mean much in terms of actual game fidelity, right? No, but the recommended requirements means that when you put everything together and turn all options on, the game looks breathtaking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 8 minutes ago, Vl3d said: No, but the recommended requirements means that when you put everything together and turn all options on, the game looks breathtaking! Not even that, the game could just be terribly optimized and look terrible, or maybe the recommended settings are for 4k at 30FPS with some ray tracing feature on that uses way more resources than it's worth for the improvements it provides... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexoff Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 It's good that my computer is slightly worse than the recommended requirements, I should probably turn off retracing and I will get the 60 fps for 500 parts craft! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vl3d Posted February 17, 2023 Author Share Posted February 17, 2023 2 minutes ago, Master39 said: Not even that, the game could just be terribly optimized and look terrible, or maybe the recommended settings are for 4k at 30FPS with some ray tracing feature on that uses way more resources than it's worth for the improvements it provides... If it looks terrible on ULTRA, then I'll complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephensan Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 i really really really really really really (goes on for 3 hours) hope that it has DLSS, FSR, just in case right now.. 1 minute ago, Vl3d said: If it looks terrible on ULTRA, then I'll complain. Im on the same page, it better look killer with a 3070 overclocked. a 3 year old GPU that costs nine arms and four legs better run well, i don't to think that i need a 4000 series GPU to play 4k or 1440p. most of my games (beisdes minecraft) can play very well on 4k even without DLSS... the only game that i do DLSS is SCUM, due to doing 200% of 2160p, and then using quality to bring it back to sanity, giving me on med high settings 80fps+ on avg, with lows of 50~ fps. there is just zero specification on what the hardware they are suggesting should be able to do, and thats the largest issue.. im expecting right now the 3080 spec to run high @ 1440p60fps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcwaffles2003 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 I feel like there's some context missing here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcwaffles2003 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 (edited) @Nate Simpson Hey, so I get that pinging you isn't normally cool but with how the community seems to be beginning to explode I felt like this might be an excusable question. (currently watching discord melt down) With the minimum/recommended what they are, as I've posted above there was also the added nuance of what settings/resolution they corresponded to. KSP is really unique though in that requirements are greatly dependent on how big and in what way a player builds a ship. Is there any chance you can provide context to these numbers like part count/fps correlation to these specs? Cause I know that not many people here are used to getting even 30fps by the time they have a 300 part ship and if these specs are to include being in a 200 part ship next to a 1500 part station while maintaining 60fps I think people might understand more about what the system requirements mean. Edited February 17, 2023 by mcwaffles2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vl3d Posted February 17, 2023 Author Share Posted February 17, 2023 (edited) 7 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said: @Nate Simpson Hey, so I get that pinging you isn't normally cool but with how the community seems to be beginning to explode I felt like this might be an excusable question. (currently watching discord melt down) With the minimum/recommended what they are, as I've posted above there was also the added nuance of what settings/resolution they corresponded to. KSP is really unique though in that requirements are greatly dependent on how big and in what way a player builds a ship. Is there any chance you can provide context to these numbers like part count/fps correlation to these specs? Cause I know that not many people here are used to getting even 30fps by the time they have a 300 part ship and if these specs are to include being in a 200 part ship next to a 1500 part station while maintaining 60fps I think people might understand more about what the system requirements mean. I think it's clear that if you want to do the content while having a good experience.. building big enough colonies and interstellar ships.. then you need the min specs. To just play around in the Kerbol system with a low part count you can probably run the game without issues with sub-min specs. Edited February 17, 2023 by Vl3d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcwaffles2003 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Vl3d said: I think it's clear that if you want to do the content while having a good experience.. building big enough colonies and interstellar ships.. then you need the min specs. To just play around in the Kerbol system with a low part count you can probably run the game without issues with sub-min specs. This is precisely why I've asked. The spec requirements are highly variable and directly dependent on what you build since unlike other games it is a genuine simulator, in that it's running a bunch of different genuine, though admittedly corner cutting simulations. It calculates RBD, orbital dynamics, drag models, etc all in real time. I was honestly a bit shocked that an athlon x4 made it... like wth?! Edited February 17, 2023 by mcwaffles2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexoff Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 14 minutes ago, Vl3d said: I think it's clear that if you want to do the content while having a good experience.. building big enough colonies and interstellar ships.. then you need the min specs. To just play around in the Kerbol system with a low part count you can probably run the game without issues with sub-min specs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vl3d Posted February 17, 2023 Author Share Posted February 17, 2023 On 2/4/2023 at 12:59 PM, Vl3d said: Mr. Scott Manley built a new PC before the KSP2 release. I'm sure he'll be playing everything maxed out for the videos. He optimized for single core clock speed. CPU: Intel i7 13700K Motherboard: Aorus Z790 SSD: 2TB RAM: G Skill Ripjaws S5 DDR5 64GB Graphics: GeForce RTX 3070 Guess not even Scott Manley can't run KSP2 on ULTRA. (CPU: Intel i7 13700K | Motherboard: Aorus Z790 | SSD: 2TB | RAM: G Skill Ripjaws S5 DDR5 64GB | Graphics: GeForce RTX 3070) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephensan Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 3 minutes ago, Vl3d said: Guess not even Scott Manley can't run KSP2 on ULTRA. (CPU: Intel i7 13700K | Motherboard: Aorus Z790 | SSD: 2TB | RAM: G Skill Ripjaws S5 DDR5 64GB | Graphics: GeForce RTX 3070) they really should have showed photos of "frame by frame" same spot etc on low and high with fps. cause its getting worse and worse now with they said "only 1440p" 3080 like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rondalus Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 I think it's important to try and maximise graphical possibilities in KSP2. The developers want to attract as many new players, and older ones who were put off by the last game, and by giving players with higher-tier gaming rigs the ability to really harness the potential for eye-candy will involve more people in the long run. We must also remind ourselves that as time goes by, we want KSP2 to age really well with the evolution of technology. So even if most people's computers cannot handle the higher graphical options today, that isn't to say they won't be able to handle them tomorrow. Let's not look back in regret and thank ourselves for pushing the capabilities of this wonderful game :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tstein Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 1 hour ago, Rondalus said: I think it's important to try and maximise graphical possibilities in KSP2. The developers want to attract as many new players, and older ones who were put off by the last game, and by giving players with higher-tier gaming rigs the ability to really harness the potential for eye-candy will involve more people in the long run. We must also remind ourselves that as time goes by, we want KSP2 to age really well with the evolution of technology. So even if most people's computers cannot handle the higher graphical options today, that isn't to say they won't be able to handle them tomorrow. Let's not look back in regret and thank ourselves for pushing the capabilities of this wonderful game Notice that accordign to steam just a bit over 34% of the player base have computers that cover the mINIMUM spec and less than 5% that reach the recommended. So if they want to attract more people they need to LOWER the requirements much more than improve the graphics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts