KSP2 System Requirements

[AlphaMensae]

Just now, SolarAdmiral said:

I'm making a prediction now.

In 10 years, 2033, everyone will be bragging about how they're playing KSP2 on their "old potato" computers from 2028, and complaining KSP2 only looks good with tons of graphics mods installed.

This is something that was brought up elsewhere: Game devs/companies want to target the fuure to ensure the game will remain relevant over their lifetime.  Spes might be steep now, but in the future when we have RTX 6090s and 7090s, they will seem quaint.

I'm also reminded of a quote from John Carmack (of Id) in a Computer Gaming World article from 1995 on the upcoming Quake. This was a time when high-end 486 PCs were still widespread, and Pentium 100s, 120s and 150s were the "Ultimate Gaming Machcine".  When queried about system specs Id was aiming for with Quake, Carmack said "We wish they would all get Pentiums".  

[GoldForest]

5 minutes ago, jebycheek said:

I think this picture justified my point.it's KSP1plus alright.

Except you're wrong. KSP 2 is not KSP1+. It's so so much more than KSP 1. KSP 2 can be called an entirely new game. 

[jebycheek]

11 minutes ago, SolarAdmiral said:

Okay buddy, if you say so. Have you ever been satisfied with the graphical improvements between a game and its sequel?

Yes i do,and it was quite a lot, And I am not so rejecting about this one  as you presume i  would, It's not perfect now. It doesn't have to be ,so chill ,buddy.

9 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Except you're wrong. KSP 2 is not KSP1+. It's so so much more than KSP 1. KSP 2 can be called an entirely new game.

Well hopefully, Let's see about that.

Edited February 18, 2023 by jebycheek

[Yellowburn10]

Considering that what I have currently in my PC could be considered low-mid to midrange (specs below for reference), I'll be curious to see how well things will be running for me.

Spoiler

 CPU: Ryzen 5 2600 overclocked to 3.8 GHz, GPU: MSI GeForce 1650 Super, RAM; 32 gigs, and 2 tb hard drive

 

 

[GoldForest]

8 minutes ago, jebycheek said:

Yes i do,and it was quite a lot, And I am not so rejecting about this one  as you presume i  would, It's not perfect now. It doesn't have to be ,so chill ,buddy.

Well hopefully, Let's see about that.

Not hopefully, it is. If you can't see that, I'm sorry, but KSP 2 is factually better than KSP 1, even without anyone playing KSP 2 yet. You can tell from all the sneak peeks, videos, etc. 

[Anth]

30 minutes ago, AlphaMensae said:

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.

Should be interesting to see how far it dips below 60fps, but it will still depends on the CPU as well to some degree probably.

[Director_Valle]

Software companies also have another name for “System Requirements”, and that is “Certified Platforms”.

A software gets tested in a limited number of platforms where that software gets certified in. The current system requirements are likely those where KSP2 has been certified to work, that doesn’t mean it cannot work on “lesser platforms”, just that the devs haven’t certified it to run on such platforms. They simply cannot test every combination of hardware.

EA is part of that, you can bet that they’ll take a look at the platforms where people play it, and adjust the “system requirements”, to the lower specs where KSP2 will be able to run.

[Onoya]

Just saw the requirement, i'm surprised is that high XD I hope i'll be able to do ultra at 1080ti at 1080p, but i doubt it XD

[Turbo Ben]

So, if a 3080 is recommended for 1440p, will a 3090 handle 4K?

[Lithobrake]

I'll run it on my 1650 Super at 1080p, and raise the temperature of my bedroom by 10 degrees Celsius.

[ggman250]

Honestly if I can top 15 FPS on medium settings, I'm chilling

Having played heavily modded KSP 1 for around 3 years now, I'll be glad to play a game that the devs at least tried to optimize.

 

To be clear, I'm not trying to put down the original devs, they did really well with what they had, but I don't think it's outlandish to say what they had was pretty garbage

[GoldForest]

17 minutes ago, Turbo Ben said:

So, if a 3080 is recommended for 1440p, will a 3090 handle 4K?

Considering 3080 is recommended for 1440P at 60 fps on high settings, 3090 should be able to handle 4K medium to high settings getting around 60 fps. 

Also, to all the people freaking out about the specs, remember, devs always over allocate power. If you have a 16 series GPU or equivalent, you're more than likely going to be fine for most of the game. 10 series and 900 series or equivalent might start to struggle in medium and high demanding areas respectively. 700 series or equivalent might struggle with anything low demanding. 

[Krazy1]

1 hour ago, GoldForest said:

Not hopefully, it is. If you can't see that, I'm sorry, but KSP 2 is factually better than KSP 1, even without anyone playing KSP 2 yet. You can tell from all the sneak peeks, videos, etc. 

It's not a movie. It has to be functional. It's early access and  it won't even have science or a tech tree to start. KSP1 was quite buggy. I'm not in line to spend $50 on a demo game. 

[BezKartuza]

User with RX 580 graphics card: Looking forward to game
Developer:

[jebycheek]

10 hours ago, PD_Dakota said:

For additional context:
Minimum is 1080p at Low Settings
Recommended is 1440p at High Settings

These systems requirements are to ensure a high-quality experience while playing KSP2 in a variety of in-game scenarios.

KSP 2 will work across a wide variety of hardware beyond what is listed in our recommended specs, with performance scaling based on the size and complexity of the crafts you build. 

Throughout the Early Access period, our development team will continue to prioritize performance optimization to ensure an optimal gameplay experience for as many @Kerbonauts as possible.

We hear you and we take your feedback very seriously. You are a core part of the development process, so please continue to share your expectations for what you want your KSP2 experience to be. 

Do we have DLSS ？if not, would it will be in the future？

Edited February 18, 2023 by jebycheek

[GoldForest]

Just now, Krazy1 said:

It's not a movie. It has to be functional. It's early access and  it won't even have science or a tech tree to start. KSP1 was quite buggy. I'm not in line to spend $50 on a demo game. 

It is functional. We've seen that from the videos. No, but they are coming. KSP 1 was quite buggy, yes, because it was made by video game hobbyists and not video game professionals. Intercept has professionals. 

It's a lot more than a demo game, but fair enough. $50 dollars for early access is quite steep, though, you're saying $10 to $20 on the release price which may be $60 or $70. 

[Anth]

36 minutes ago, Onoya said:

Just saw the requirement, i'm surprised is that high XD I hope i'll be able to do ultra at 1080ti at 1080p, but i doubt it XD

1080ti should perform better than the 2060 (minimum specs) 

2060 is causing panic because it seems faster than the 1070 when in truth they are pretty close and the 1070 should have been the minimum specs and not a 2060

[Turbo Ben]

16 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Considering 3080 is recommended for 1440P at 60 fps on high settings, 3090 should be able to handle 4K medium to high settings getting around 60 fps.

That's good to know, thanks. I do have it on a custom loop and heavily OC'd, so hopefully be able to keep those settings high.

[BezKartuza]

3 hours ago, AlphaMensae said:

I'm also reminded of a quote from John Carmack (of Id) in a Computer Gaming World article from 1995 on the upcoming Quake. This was a time when high-end 486 PCs were still widespread, and Pentium 100s, 120s and 150s were the "Ultimate Gaming Machcine".  When queried about system specs Id was aiming for with Quake, Carmack said "We wish they would all get Pentiums"

Strange comparison. In Quake had implemented advanced new graphics and 3D. What's new in graphics implemented by the developers of KSP2? KSP1 with graphics mods  looks even no worse this beta version.

[Vl3d]

4 hours ago, GoldForest said:

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. 

I think I'm one of the very few people that are actually happy the requirements are so high. I will be able to run the game on ~minimum settings (I will try higher with lower part count), but I'm ok with it. I just want the game at it's peak to be visually stunning. We'll catch up to it hardware wise and it will help us optimisation wise as EA progresses.

Edited February 18, 2023 by Vl3d

[GoldForest]

3 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

I think I'm one of the very few people that are actually happy the requirements are so high. I will be able to run the game on ~minimum settings (I will try higher with lower part count), but I'm ok with it. I just want the game at it's peak to be visually stunning. We'll catch up to it hardware wise and it will help us optimisation wise as EA progresses.

Yeah, well you know how you were advocating for KSP 2 to have more marketing and to get a bigger playerbase for EA? Well, this just alienated everyone who still rocks a 1060 or below. There's going to be even less people during EA now because of this announcement more than likely. 

[pandaman]

I'm running a GTX 1650, and got a bit 'twitchy' on seeing the minimum specs, but I'll give it a whirl and see how it goes.  I'll know in a week if it runs or not.

My PC is a few years old now and I was expecting to need to upgrade to get the 'full effect' anyway and planning/waiting hopefully for another year or so.  I just wasn't expecting that I would be scraping below minimum specs. 

I could upgrade my GC and hope, but that seems a bit pointless given the age of my PC.

[Vl3d]

17 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Yeah, well you know how you were advocating for KSP 2 to have more marketing and to get a bigger playerbase for EA? Well, this just alienated everyone who still rocks a 1060 or below. There's going to be even less people during EA now because of this announcement more than likely. 

True. I even posted in the Marketing thread that I understand now why there was so little fanfare. Guess marketing was really pointless.. EA really is for Early Adopters.

[LHACK4142]

I gotta say...

I know, I know, KSP2 is a modern game for modern computers, and it'll get optimized later on, but this really gave my hype a gut punch. I was hyped to finally, after years of memory leaks, kraken attacks, and 3 minute reverts, be able to do all the awesome missions I had planned out but gave up on because of said problems. However, this prospect appears to be entirely gone. And what the heck is KSP2 using all that power for?? If I can get this:

on my GTX 1650, why will we get this:

on a fricken RTX 2060??

And whatever happened to this?

[Vl3d]

Just now, LHACK4142 said:

And whatever happened to this?

This is probably enabled only on high settings.