Bej Kerman Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 (edited) 4 minutes ago, SSTO Crasher said: 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. Good Job Intercept "Good Job Intercept"? Seriously? This is just how development goes. The minimum requirements will get better. What you are seeing is an Early Access product. Features then optimisation. As far as things go, KSP 2 EA is more a VIP ticket to see development work first-hand, which T2 is doing to see returns after years of dev, than it is a game. In fact, that's exactly what it is. Things that are in-dev need dev-grade hardware to be used properly. KSP was a very special case - developers don't usually try to juggle features and optimisation, and that could be credited as one of the reasons KSP 1 suffered heavy technical debt and performance issues. Edited February 18, 2023 by Bej Kerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbin Launch Coalition Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 Just now, Bej Kerman said: "Good Job Intercept"? Seriously? This is just how development goes. The minimum requirements will get better. What you are seeing is an Early Access product. Features then optimisation. I'd agree with that. I'm thinking this is just an EXTREMELY conservative, beta sorta requirements just to cover all their bases. If not, I'll be surprised! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snkiz Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 Just now, Kerbin Launch Coalition said: EXTREMELY conservative, So they didn't consider at all what that would do to sales? I know they'd rather sell it at the higher price. But this is the kinda thing that ruins a reputation. At this rate they won't be getting the feedback they were hoping for either if no one thinks they can run the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bej Kerman Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 3 minutes ago, Kerbin Launch Coalition said: I'd agree with that. I'm thinking this is just an EXTREMELY conservative, beta sorta requirements just to cover all their bases. If not, I'll be surprised! I mean, I'm not a developer, but I did get to closely follow the development of SE's general relativity update, watching dev streams now and then, and I got to watch the relativistic geodesic ray-tracing go from looking extremely pixelated (low ray-count I bet) and choking a desktop 3090, to running decently on my own hardware as well as looking pretty, even with volumetric and relativistic metric quality all the way down. Safe to say KSP 2 will do basically the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbin Launch Coalition Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 5 minutes ago, snkiz said: So they didn't consider at all what that would do to sales? I know they'd rather sell it at the higher price. But this is the kinda thing that ruins a reputation. At this rate they won't be getting the feedback they were hoping for either if no one thinks they can run the game. To be honest though how I see it, is to run the game at 'below' maximum settings is GTX 1070/RTX 2060 sorta area. I'd expect the RTX 3070 in my laptop to 'probably' be able to do maximum settings at 1080P (but not 1440P) which I can live with personally. I'm sure performance will improve over time and there's been no suggestion of what sort of framerate that is for each respective set of requirements. It could be a case of RTX 3080 does maximum settings, 1440P and never dips below 60FPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intelliCom Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 5 hours ago, dok_377 said: The game just got cancelled for me, I'm so done. 5 hours ago, Gurkonier said: I will buy it, even if my GTX 1070 detonates on launching the game. The duality of man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthgently Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 It is a good point that these are recommendations for EA, which will necessarily have some unoptimized code in it. Part of the purpose of EA is probably too triage what to optimize first by listening to squeaky wheels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket Farmer Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 28 minutes ago, Doggydog said: Steam hardware survey shows otherwise, About 35% of steam users would meet the Minimum, and only ~4% meet the recomended. ? He said 80% won’t make minimum and I indicate that the number is a lot higher than that. You then prove me right by calculating it’s at least 35% then say I’m wrong? Also your count of Steam units was too low as you forgot the AMD units so the actual count is closer to 43%. So thank-you for proving me right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JcoolTheShipbuilder Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 I will attempt to play on my laptop that has a GT 1660 ti... will need to backup data first just in case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bej Kerman Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 5 hours ago, dok_377 said: The game just got cancelled for me, I'm so done. It wasn't releasing in the first place? This isn't a release. It's a window into the game's development that T2 is selling to see returns, and, spoiler alert, optimisation happens after features have been added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JcoolTheShipbuilder Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 Just now, Bej Kerman said: It wasn't releasing in the first place? This isn't a release. It's a window into the game's development that T2 is selling to see returns, and, spoiler alert, optimisation happens after features have been added. that is what I was thinking.. they would optimize a ton after everything is added.. or a lot of stuff is added and they optimize each section of the games code or something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domonian Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 Moore's law hits hard sometimes. Just realized my 2080Ti is 4 years old... dang. Not time for an upgrade, but its definitely no longer at the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket Farmer Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 The 2060 limit is interesting. I’m guessing either they have ray tracing (which means 2060 and up) or those volumetric clouds really eat the GPU power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruedii Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 (edited) Is it safe to assume that a Radeon 5500XT would be sufficient, as it's only slightly lower speed. (I got the high VRAM model, so VRAM capacity won't be the issue.) I would presume there would be some "undesirable" issues with it, like slower loading times. I also presume you are going steam deck certified at launch, even if you aren't releasing Linux native initially. Edited February 18, 2023 by Ruedii Line spacing for clarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewson563 Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 (edited) I will attempt to play on my laptop that has a GT 1050 ti... will need to backup data first just in case Edited February 18, 2023 by andrewson563 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerballlistic07 Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said: "Good Job Intercept"? Seriously? This is just how development goes. The minimum requirements will get better. What you are seeing is an Early Access product. Features then optimisation. As far as things go, KSP 2 EA is more a VIP ticket to see development work first-hand, which T2 is doing to see returns after years of dev, than it is a game. In fact, that's exactly what it is. Things that are in-dev need dev-grade hardware to be used properly. KSP was a very special case - developers don't usually try to juggle features and optimisation, and that could be credited as one of the reasons KSP 1 suffered heavy technical debt and performance issues. Ok, hot take coming in guys. I feel like KSP has always been inclusive. I mean for Jeb's sake, the minimum requirements are a Core 2 Duo, Windows 7, and 4 GB of RAM! They were going to put it on the Wii U at one point! So, all the people playing on potato pcs (myself included) are feeling rather, oh, I don't know, "betrayed." Like, not gonna lie, if they posted the requirements months ago, I wouldn't be as mad. It's the fact that they posted them a LITERAL WEEK AWAY FROM RELEASE. This gives us potato people very little time to prepare. So no, I wasn't expecting my computer to fall in the recommended specifications, but I at least thought Squad would care enough to make it playable in the minimum. Edited February 18, 2023 by Kerballlistic07 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Aziz Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 There's been people going "ohgod I'm gonna have to buy a new pc haha" "does this require NASA computer lol?" For three years, but now when they're actually facing it just like they jokingly predicted, there's "ohno I'm gonna have to buy a new pc :(((((" I'm done, goodbye, see ya on the other side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razark Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 Running KSP on a NASA computer was actually pretty bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexoff Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 The most interesting question is why there are different recommended amounts of free memory on ssd? Will we be able to upload different builds of the game, with better and worse textures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jebycheek Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 5 hours ago, KerbolExplorer said: What resolution and fps are this specs based on?, an rtx3080 on recommended seems to high considering that the graphics aren't that groundbreaking Yeap exactly. the game looks like ksp1 plus，but the recommend card is for star citizen ultra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bej Kerman Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 6 minutes ago, jebycheek said: Yeap exactly. the game looks like ksp1 plus，but the recommend card is for star citizen ultra. Oh, great. More of the "it's just KSP 1 modded!" misconception. Can't wait to not hear that when people get their hands on the game and see that no matter how bad development has been going, it will be a million times better than the unstable poorly-planned janky Sibelius-grade bug-overrun heap of smeggy spaghetti we've been trying to mod into something playable for the past ten years. Just to avoid repeating myself, I will quote myself, again. (sorry Kerbart, for overrunning your notifications panel, but it needs saying - however, I'm not rephrasing myself for every Joe that undermines KSP 2 and puts KSP 1 on a pedestal). Quote 9 hours ago, Bej Kerman said: "Modded KSP does the same thing!" VAB Workspaces? Physics LOD? Background resource flow? Orbital speed collisions? I'm not judging people who won't be getting KSP 2 and will try to make do with what they can cobble KSP 1 into, I'm just saying it's fallacious to say KSP 2 isn't going to be much more than what modded KSP 1 can do. Sorta undermining the half-decade Intercept has spent analysing KSP 1 to figure out what can be done to improve KSP 2. Not directed at you Solar, just something to add onto what you said Even if KSP 2 runs at 20fps by default and drops to 15fps with massive vessels, it'll be a better start-fps:lag-fps ratio than KSP 1 dropping from 60fps to 10fps because you switched to a massive (not even that massive, just big) vessel once. 9 hours ago, Kerbart said: Yes! KSP1 evolved into what it was out of a 2D model and a "let's see how far we can take this" approach. For all intends and purposes, what we see next week can be regarded a finished product. Yes, it's early access, and not the final release, yadda, yadda. But also: in about every occasion since the EA announcement, Intercept has stated that it's about gathering feedback, not about rushing an unfinished product to market. There's a lot of claims I think are baseless (see below) but that I will expect. Features are missing, but in its core the game should be close to final potential (barring bugs to fix). Framerate, partcount: what we get is it, I doubt there will be significant improvements in the future. But also: Intercept had the ability to learn from KSP1, so I do expect things to be a whole lot better than what we currently have. As to the complaints over framerate, pixels and other "I'm concerned" posts: I just have a hard time taking those serious. We haven't seen a lot of the game in its final form, and I don't see value in drawing conclusions from publicity shots (intended for hype) without knowing what their context is. In a week we'll know, and if the embargo lifts indeed on the 20th, we'll know after the weekend. 9 hours ago, Kerbart said: Without wanting to open that can of worms, but it's similar to the DLC discussion. Knowing that the game runs this out of the box without spending 15 minutes on loading mods, one mod showing weird behavior because another mod clashes with it is worth something too. Not to mention the traditional complaining of Version 1.x has been out for three weeks, why is mod XYZ not updated yet? (or mods being abandoned all together, although The modfather will likely adopt them if they were popular enough). Aside from what you mentioned — tons of features mods can't all provide — the ability to have all that without mods is something to look forward to. All this should be considered - the vast list of fundamental changes to the game, the UX, the background processes - not just how the gameplay looks on the surface and all the roadmap features you hoped to be using 3 years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolarAdmiral Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Kerballlistic07 said: Ok, hot take coming in guys. I feel like KSP has always been inclusive. I mean for Jeb's sake, the minimum requirements are a Core 2 Duo, Windows 7, and 4 GB of RAM! ... It's the fact that they posted them a LITERAL WEEK AWAY FROM RELEASE. This gives us potato people very little time to prepare. The Core 2 Duo was only 5 years old at the time of ksp's release. And if you bought 4gb of ram with a brand new core 2 it might have cost you over $400. (Just the ram, in the year the Core 2 came out) Also, lots of games don't post requirements until 1 week before launch. Edited February 18, 2023 by SolarAdmiral Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerballlistic07 Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 Just now, SolarAdmiral said: The Core 2 Duo was only 5 years old at the time of ksp's release. And if you bought 4gb of ram with a brand new core 2 it might have cost you over $400. Also, lots of games don't post requirements until 1 week before launch. That's true. I know not everyone will agree with me, but that's why I said "Ok, hot take coming in guys." The biggest thing I was trying to highlight in that post was that KSP has always been inclusive for potato players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bej Kerman Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 38 minutes ago, Kerballlistic07 said: So no, I wasn't expecting my computer to fall in the recommended specifications, but I at least thought Squad would care enough to make it playable in the minimum. Er... Squad? Also, do understand that games during their development stages have always been demanding. This is what development is. Developers need good hardware so they can build their features then work on refining them so that it'll run better on consumer hardware. These aren't KSP 2's release requirements (which will look better than the current requirements), these are the requirements needed to run pre-optimisation code for a product that is not yet ready for the public, a product that is being forced through its EA period by Take Two because they've been funding development for the better part of a decade and haven't yet seen returns on their investment. 42 minutes ago, Kerballlistic07 said: The Enrichment Center reminds you that although circumstances may appear bleak, you are not alone. All Aperture Science personality constructs will remain functional in apocalyptic, low power environments of as few as 1.1 volts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolarAdmiral Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Kerballlistic07 said: That's true. I know not everyone will agree with me, but that's why I said "Ok, hot take coming in guys." The biggest thing I was trying to highlight in that post was that KSP has always been inclusive for potato players. Sure. My hot take, is a five year old pc is getting dangerously close to potato territory. The core 2 duo was a 5 year old pc by the time ksp came out. You would have paid $400 brand new just for enough ram to run ksp when it came out in the future. Now we have a minimum recommended for a RTX 2060, which is 4 going on 5. (And maybe it will still run alright but not great on lower end systems. Maybe it will be optimized over the next year or two.) It's kind of the same. Edited February 18, 2023 by SolarAdmiral Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts