Jump to content

KSP2 System Requirements

Dakota

By Dakota
in Announcements

 Share

Recommended Posts

Kerbart

Kerbart

Posted
Posted

Let's see, we've been promised:

  • Large vessels with amazing detailing
  • Better physics with thrust under timewarp
  • Micrometer precision at interstellar travel
  • Transparent cockpits with animated Kerbals inside
  • Clouds! Water! Trees!

And everyone seriously thought this all came for free?!

Seriously, y'all need a reality check. I'm just happy my local PC Seller has hardware meeting requirements for less than $1000, not as bad as I thought it would be. But I'll let others (that means, yes, YOU who are reading this) do the dirty work of finding out what works and what doesn't before I spend a dime on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheKrakenHerder

TheKrakenHerder

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Vl3d said:

KSP2 is doing something that has never been done before in gaming. The high tech requirements are not a surprise at all. Most players are just too used to KSP1. Open your eyes to the future - the "game that was promised" is finally arriving! UPGRADE!

Yeah, because everyone can afford a gaming PC that would cost upwards of $3K and just "UPGRADE". 
This is a massive slap in the face to the entire community. Elden Ring is less demanding than this. As many others have said, the game essentially just got cancelled for me, barring GeForce Now support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vl3d

Vl3d

Posted
Posted
Just now, TheKrakenHerder said:

Yeah, because everyone can afford a gaming PC that would cost upwards of $3K and just "UPGRADE". 
This is a massive slap in the face to the entire community. Elden Ring is less demanding than this. As many others have said, the game essentially just got cancelled for me, barring GeForce Now support.

You can't play on minimum settings, is it below your level?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SciMan

SciMan

Posted
Posted

I don't think that these system requirements were agreed upon by a group of people that truly had the right information on the market they are trying to sell to.

I have a GPU that's better than the minimum by quite a lot, in fact it's near the recommended specs. But MANY do not. Many that make amazing constructions in KSP 1, just don't have a system that can meet that minimum requirement. Not many people have 20xx series cards. Let alone 30xx or 40xx series cards.

Why? Simple. Those cards cost a lot of money.

Money is the one thing that basically nobody has right now, because we're spending it all trying to pay for food and fuel to keep a car running so we can go get food and get to our jobs.
A fancy GPU is in the economic goods category of "luxury goods". Same with a flagship smartphone. Or a VR headset, gold watch, diamond ring, etc.

All of it is stuff that you don't technically need to live a happy and healthy life. And right now, people are re-prioritizing their spending to focus on "needs" over "wants", because of the state of the economy and the continuing shortages of things.

Additionally a game that needs an RTX 3080 to run at 1440p... isn't by necessity a modern game. Look at New World and what it was doing to 3090 cards (it was melting them) simply because of something like the main menu not having a sane framerate cap on it (so the card would just crank out frames needlessly as fast as it possibly could, and I mean thousands of them per second as the main menu is a simple thing to render, and that's even if you had vsync on which theoretically SHOULD stop that). That and many other things wrong with that game basically killed it and now you never hear anyone talking about it on videos that get lots of views.

I don't want that to happen to KSP 2.

I think most people would accept it as fact (or a very small logical leap from facts) that the pandemic put a freeze on not just video game development but also the budget people have for upgrading their PC's.
That means that even a 2060 makes these system requirements seem a bit... out of touch with reality (and I mean that as in "as out of touch with reality as the head of the now bankrupt PC building company "Artesain builds" was).

The reality is that this game isn't being released initially on PS5 and Xbox series S|X.
The reality is that most of us are stuck with 5-7+ year old machines, and the GPU shortages didn't matter to the majority of us because none of us could afford those "new but you can't have them because they're sold out" GPUs were still far too expensive even AT MSRP, regardless of whatever the prices had become due to rampant scalping and just high demand but low supply.

I'm not coming in here with nothing but complaints tho. I have solutions.
Get a system that has a GTX 1080 in it but meets the CPU requirements. And see if it gives good enough performance at 1080p and 1440p.
If that doesn't work, bump the resolution down to 900p or even 720p.
I started playing KSP on a 900p LCD screen way back when, and those are still very affordable (and you can even get reasonably sized very high refresh rate panels at that resolution for not a lot of money, probably).

I have a 4k 144hz monitor. I'm not expecting KSP2 to be able to run at that resolution with just my RTX 3070 Ti. I'm no fool.
But even if no optimizations are made, further testing with even lower spec hardware configurations needs to be done simply to prevent people from panicking and swearing that they'll never afford hardware that can reliably play the game.

PS5 and XBox Series S|X aren't even "cheap" consoles like the PS4 and XBox One were. People wanted consoles that could game at 4k60 or 1080p120, and they got them.
But that makes them cost more.

And right now, everyone's counting pennies.

So please, test KSP 2 on a few "penny pinching" machines, if only to figure out that no you can't push the requirements any lower.
Even if it takes making the game "look like crap", people care more about being able to RUN the game than they care about it looking good.
If it has to be degraded to the point that it looks like VANILLA KSP 1, so be it.
IMO the name of the game is reducing the cost of that minimum-spec GPU, to the point that someone could feasibly afford it with one week's work at a part time job in the US working federal minimum wage.
If you can do that, 99% of the people interested in KSP 2 will likely already have the GPU needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bej Kerman

Bej Kerman

Posted
Posted
Just now, TheKrakenHerder said:

Yeah, because everyone can afford a gaming PC that would cost upwards of $3K and just "UPGRADE". 
This is a massive slap in the face to the entire community. Elden Ring is less demanding than this. As many others have said, the game essentially just got cancelled for me, barring GeForce Now support.

Remember that it's an Early Access title. Yes, it's surprising, but seeing how SpaceEngine's latest major update evolved from borderline unplayable during the early development stages to passable on release, it makes perfect sense. The minimum specs won't always be like this, nor are they a slap to anyone familiar with development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MechBFP

MechBFP

Posted
Posted (edited)

If you are curious how your GPU might perform take a look at this:

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html

Specifically the "Tom's Hardware Rasterization GPU Benchmarks Hierarchy" chart.

A 2060 is not super high performance. A 1070TI  for example is only 4 FPS less on average in their tests for 1080p Ultra.

Edited by MechBFP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bej Kerman

Bej Kerman

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, MechBFP said:

A 2060 is not super high performance. A 1070TI  for example is only 4 FPS less on average in their tests for 1080p Ultra.

That does make me wonder what the 2060 has that the 1070 doesn't, and why KSP 2 absolutely needs something of the 2000 series when there are 1000 series cards that compare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
snkiz

snkiz

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, MechBFP said:

A 2060 is not super high performance. A 1070TI  for example is only 4 FPS less on average in their tests for 1080p Ultra.

All the more reason to go with an older card listed as the min. Consumers shouldn't need an excel sheet to figure this out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MechBFP

MechBFP

Posted
Posted
Just now, Bej Kerman said:

That does make me wonder what the 2060 has that the 1070 doesn't, and why KSP 2 absolutely needs something of the 2000 series when there are 1000 series cards that compare.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Without any ray tracing features it really doesn't make much sense to me unless their 1080p low settings is only going to get 30 FPS, then every frame counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheKrakenHerder

TheKrakenHerder

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

You can't play on minimum settings, is it below your level?

I'm a Mac user, so already I have to wait until full release to play on my good machine. I was hoping to run this on Bootcamp, but the only problem is the storage requirements for the GPU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anth

Anth

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, snkiz said:

All the more reason to go with an older card listed as the min. Consumers shouldn't need an excel sheet to figure this out.

Agreed. that is where most of the confusion is coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vl3d

Vl3d

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TheKrakenHerder said:

I'm a Mac user, so already I have to wait until full release to play on my good machine. I was hoping to run this on Bootcamp, but the only problem is the storage requirements for the GPU.

Sorry to hear that. Still, give it a try maybe it works. Or at least find a 2060 machine, maybe you have a friend that would like to upgrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kerballlistic07

Kerballlistic07

Posted
Posted

I got KSP about 8 months ago, and decided not to download mods because I figured the KSP 2 release was soon enough that it wouldn’t be worth the trouble. (I had heard it was a hassle) Now that the KSP 2 requirements have been revealed, I’m downloading parallax, waterfall, and volumetric clouds as soon as I get home. And honestly, I hope other developers take this as a lesson not to reveal system requirements A WEEK before release. I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed is all. I’ve been waiting for KSP 2 longer than I’ve had KSP. I would buy a new PC but I don’t have the money for that right now. It will probably be at least half a year before I am able to get a pc that can run it. It brings me some comfort that I’m not the only one disappointed in this. Sorry for the rant guys.  ;.;

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SciMan

SciMan

Posted
Posted

Just putting this out there, above and beyond what I've already said, the system requirements for a new game are the WORST time to find out that you can't play it. Not being able to afford the game itself is one thing, maybe you can find a friend that will buy it for you.

But to expect a friend to buy you a literal $350 video card just so you can play the game, that's asking far and away too much from your friends.

Don't treat your friends as a bank, and if you're forced to borrow money from them, pay them back as if your life depended on it.
Your life may not in fact depend on it, but your friendship with that friend (and potentially other friends of yours) may very well depend on it.

Anyways, back on topic.
KSP 2 needs testing with older high-spec GPUs. GTX 1660, GTX 1080, heck even throw a 980 or 970 in there.

I personally want to know how this game performs with a GTX 970, because I still have my old PC that had two of those, and if my current GPU ever has a hardware fault I'd like to know I can still play KSP 2 at (much) reduced settings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kerbin Launch Coalition

Kerbin Launch Coalition

Posted
Posted (edited)

What in the name of Jesus is with these requirements? This marks the first ever time the RTX 3070 in the laptop I game on isn't in the 'recommended' hardware requirements. Apologies but what the hell, GPU side is requiring that amount of resources? Are we talking GPU based PHYSICS? That just doesn't make sense to be honest for a game like this based on how it 'looks'.

 

Keep in mind an RTX 3080 is like, in principle, around two and a half times as powerful as an Xbox Series X. (*In terms of outright theoretical performance, GPU vs. GPU*).

 

 

Edited by Kerbin Launch Coalition
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doggydog

Doggydog

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Rocket Farmer said:

I doubt 80% of gamers have less than the minimum here.

On the GPU side (which is the pricier item) we are talking a 7th tier GPU that was released 5 years ago and can be bought for around $350.

Steam hardware survey shows otherwise, About 35% of steam users would meet the Minimum, and only ~4% meet the recomended. 

Edited by Doggydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SSTO Crasher

SSTO Crasher

Posted
Posted (edited)

In Retrospect, the dream is crushed, I had hoped for 3 years to be able to get in on day one, now I know I can't.

The Boulevard of Broken Dreams is being walked, I hope it has a positive destination.

Edited by SSTO Crasher
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...