Jump to content

KSP2 System Requirements

Dakota

By Dakota
in Announcements

 Share

Recommended Posts

jebycheek

jebycheek

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Oh, great. More of the "it's just KSP 1 modded!" misconception. Can't wait tonothear that when people get their hands on the game and see that no matter how bad development has been going, itwillbe 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).

 

Nope. I'm just saying that it looks like ksp1plus, I'm actually looking forward to try what they have  carved for so many years.

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

Bej Kerman

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, Kerballlistic07 said:

So, all the people playing on potato pcs (myself included) are feeling rather, oh, I don't know, "betrayed."

All the people playing on potato PCs never got to play the game beyond planting a flag on the Mun because of the horrible anti-optimisation (patented by, and a trademark of, Squad). I wouldn't say it's as inclusive as it's touted as when the exponential physics strain puts the Kraken Ceiling for mid and high range devices very close together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bej Kerman

Bej Kerman

Posted
Posted

JGV3Znt.png

If you think KSP 2's minimum requirements were egregious, well, this image speaks for itself. "Performance" and "KSP 1" do not belong in the same advertisement. If KSP 2 devs are to be shamed for asking that you run their pre-optimisation code on a 2060, then why didn't anyone talk about Squad downplaying how restrictive KSP 1's issues are?

"You aren't playing the game properly!!!!! You aren't meant to be making stupid big rockets!!!!! Optimize your part count!!!!!!!"

Shut up, hypothetical person. It's right there in the advertisement that Squad wanted you to do with KSP 1 what they very well knew would slow it down to a crawl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kerballlistic07

Kerballlistic07

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

All the people playing on potato PCs never got to play the game beyond planting a flag on the Mun because of the horrible anti-optimisation (patented by, and a trademark of, Squad). I wouldn't say it's as inclusive as it's touted as when the exponential physics strain puts the Kraken Ceiling for mid and high range devices very close together.

It isn't exactly hard to get beyond the Mun with a potato computer, and I don't understand why you think it is. I've been nearly everywhere in the system with my potato pc (excluding Eeloo and Moho because I don't have the patience or time right now). The most limiting part of the game for potato players is probably part count. Like I said before, I know not everyone will agree with me, but I still want to voice my opinion and concern to Squad and others, even if few agree with me on it. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bej Kerman

Bej Kerman

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, SolarAdmiral said:

 

 

q6kkfplusoia1.jpg

Yep, that's KSP1plus right there. Basically the same game.

Darn right!

KSP 1 only looks mildly polished compared to how it looked in, say, 0.18. KSP 2's improvements have been more in line with what I expect from a game made by paid developers.

Just now, Kerballlistic07 said:

It isn't exactly hard to get beyond the Mun with a potato computer, and I don't understand why you think it is. I've been nearly everywhere in the system with my potato pc (excluding Eeloo and Moho because I don't have the patience or time right now). The most limiting part of the game for potato players is probably part count. Like I said before, I know not everyone will agree with me, but I still want to voice my opinion and concern to Squad and others, even if few agree with me on it. :) 

Average framerate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SolarAdmiral

SolarAdmiral

Posted
Posted
Just now, Kerballlistic07 said:

It isn't exactly hard to get beyond the Mun with a potato computer, and I don't understand why you think it is. I've been nearly everywhere in the system with my potato pc (excluding Eeloo and Moho because I don't have the patience or time right now). The most limiting part of the game for potato players is probably part count. Like I said before, I know not everyone will agree with me, but I still want to voice my opinion and concern to Squad and others, even if few agree with me on it. :) 

Are we talking a 2023 potato or a 2011 potato though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bej Kerman

Bej Kerman

Posted
Posted
Just now, SolarAdmiral said:

Are we talking a 2023 potato or a 2011 potato though?

Oh, now that's a point. If Squad was more open about how the game plays, let's say for example, with a massive nuclear vessel that has to be built almost entirely out of stupid tiny MkI tanks, maximising its part count because the devs weren't bothered in the slightest doing fuel switching so that NERVAs could effectively use bigger tanks, and you based the minimum requirements on what CPUs were like in 2015 and the fact that the physics is horribly underoptimised, then we might have seen similar complaints about KSP 1's CPU needs.

Just now, Kerballlistic07 said:

Not entirely sure... But if I had to say, probably 20-25ish (KEYWORD -ISH)

And was that with a proper vessel or did you employ part minimising techniques, not for the sake of tacking an engineering challenge, but for the sake of getting it to run well on the codebase Squad dumped?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kerballlistic07

Kerballlistic07

Posted
Posted
Just now, Kerballlistic07 said:

Not entirely sure... But if I had to say, probably 20-25ish (KEYWORD -ISH)

I also don't play with super high graphics settings, but I'm installing parallax 2.0 right now so that'll change.

5 minutes ago, SolarAdmiral said:

Are we talking a 2023 potato or a 2011 potato though?

This is my exact laptop: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/compare/2135512?baseline=2135512

It was hard to find info on it so sorry :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KerbalOnKerbin

KerbalOnKerbin

Posted
Posted (edited)

I still don't get why everyone's so mad about the specs. Like come on! It's an EARLY ACCESS game! They'll improve it over time! Sheesh, so many people think "EA" just means "Early Release" these days... Like I have a RX 550 GPU and I ain't cryin since I'll just keep playing KSP1 until I get my new PC (in about a week after release)

Edited by KerbalOnKerbin
extra context
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SolarAdmiral

SolarAdmiral

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Kerballlistic07 said:

It was hard to find info on it so sorry :/

Ha no worries. Well going by the fact it comes with Windows 10, the oldest it could possibly be is 2015.

So, the reason it can play KSP despite being a potato, is that it came out 4 years after the game.

Basically, your pc wouldn't have been a potato in 2011.

Edited by SolarAdmiral
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bigyihsuan

bigyihsuan

Posted
Posted (edited)

I have spent the entire day reading forum posts and Discord messages complaining about the recommended specs. If sort of childish complaining is what the KSP community has come to, so be it.

I am firmly in the camp of "These specs are most probably over-estimated, and needs more low-power PCs to determine the minimum. This is the first alpha release: optimizations will come in time, and the requirements will go lower as development continues."

Seriously, do the complaining people know the meaning of "Early Access"? Were you expecting a fully polished, 100% complete game as a first release in a series of in-development snapshots? People seriously need to temper their expectations.

Edited by bigyihsuan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SolarAdmiral

SolarAdmiral

Posted
Posted
Just now, Kerballlistic07 said:

I bought it beginning of 2020, and it is currently running Windows 11.

The link you sent said Win 10, probably just what it had when it first came out.

But yeh, if you buy a PC even a cheap one, you can reasonably expect it to run a game almost 10 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kerballlistic07

Kerballlistic07

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, SolarAdmiral said:

The link you sent said Win 10, probably just what it had when it first came out.

Yeah, it took until beginning of 2022 to finally update to Windows 11 :confused:

2 minutes ago, SolarAdmiral said:

But yeh, if you buy a PC even a cheap one, you can reasonably expect it to run a game almost 10 years old.

I didn't get KSP until around 8 months ago because I wasn't sure if it could run it! I finally decided to just do it and I'm glad I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldForest

GoldForest

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, bigyihsuan said:

I have spent the entire day reading forum posts and Discord messages complaining about the recommended specs. If sort of childish complaining is what the KSP community has come to, so be it.

I am firmly in the camp of "These specs are most probably over-estimated, and needs more low-power PCs to determine the minimum. This is the first alpha release: optimizations will come in time, and the requirements will go lower as development continues."

Seriously, do the complaining people know the meaning of "Early Access"? Were you expecting a fully polished, 100% complete game as a first release in a series of in-development snapshots? People seriously need to temper their expectations.

This. So much this. 

I've been seeing people posting expectations so high for KSP 2 and the more realistic/conservative among us trying to tell them "Temper your expectations." only for them to push back and ignore us. And now reality is hitting them, and it's hitting hard, and they're complaining about their own mistakes. All I can say is...

Hey, we tried to warn ya'll. You have no one to blame but yourself. Intercept isn't at fault, you are, for literally skyrocketing them to heights so unreasonable that you were too busy gazing at stars to see what was in front of you at ground level. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
K^2

K^2

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

@K^2 Curious about what insights you may have on this. What are the chances that the GPU is going to be doing more than just the graphics on KSP 2? I've run multiphysics simulations in certain types of CAD software and they can greatly improve the performance of how that software calculates what ever I've asked of it so long as my GPU has enough VRAM.

 

Basically, do you think they've offloaded some of the CPU intensive processes to the GPU, which would in turn drive up the GPU requirements?

Exceptionally unlikely.

GPU specs look exactly like what I expect if they just implemented clouds and sky lighting for the planets and haven't had the time to clean it up to make the light version for weaker GPUs yet. These will almost certainly go down before the final version and likely some time early during Early Access.

It's unfortunate that this will be a blocker for some people from enjoying KSP2 on day-one, but I don't think it's indicative of who'll be able to play the game eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldForest

GoldForest

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, AlphaMensae said:

Those specs are for a "high quality experience", so the minimum is 1080p at probably 120fps or so. There's going to be a zillion graphics configuration options, so you'll be able to play at 640x480 at 15fps on a GTX  470 looking like stock KSP1 if needed.

I doubt 120 fps is the target. 

Min specs usually aim for "Playable" experiences, not "High quality" experience, so that would be1080p 60 fps with low settings. 

It was even confirmed that the min specs were for 1080p low settings by PD Dakota. Low settings is not something I would consider "High quality."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anth

Anth

Posted
Posted

Hopefully people who have lesser systems will start posting in the forums and discord their results.

2060RTX and a 1070GTX aren't too far off each others performance wise so Intercept Games might have made a mistake and specified the 2060RTX for some reason

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlphaMensae

AlphaMensae

Posted
Posted
Just now, Anth12 said:

Hopefully people who have lesser systems will start posting in the forums and discord their results.

2060RTX and a 1070GTX aren't too far off each others performance wise so Intercept Games might have made a mistake and specified the 2060RTX for some reason

Yeah, a 20xx series is the same as the 16xx series but with RTX cores.

The Radeon minimum is a 5600XT, which does not have hardware RTX support, so ray tracing is *not* required. Which means 10xx cards will be ok, though just not at 1080p 60 fps probably.

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