KSP2 System Requirements

[Kerbin Launch Coalition]

3 minutes ago, CytauriKerbal said:

That is good, still the minimum for Forza Horizon 5, but not bad. Makes me feel a little better, and I hope other feel better too.

That doesn't make me feel better, as *minimum* requirements? That's still a LOT of power for a bare minimum setup. Though it does make me, with an RTX 3070 feel a bit more comfortable, given it has a comfortable like 75% advantage over the 1070 Ti.

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, CytauriKerbal said:

When was this?

Just speculation but I'm guessing the weight of the requirements lay more on executive meddling from T2 than anyone from Intercept. Just a possibility, I just think Intercept not explaining what development entails and being initially conservative with minimum requirements comes more down to Take Two not wanting confusion to lay on the kiddies they are trying to market to and wanting new players to be able to run the game at max graphics with little slowdown than Intercept being incompetent, the latter I doubt.

[Kerbin Launch Coalition]

14 minutes ago, Brofessional said:

The relatively low CPU specs next to the high GPU specs makes me wonder if they aren't doing some of the physics calculation on the GPU this time around.

If that's not the case then the physics performance on the CPU must considerably better. If it is purely visual effects putting so much demand on the GPU then you will be able to run the game on lesser hardware just by turning things off.  We know min reqs are for 1080p low, but there is a big difference between low and off for computationally expensive effects.

People are ruling this out but I mean it makes huge sense, it doesn't look great, sorry not sorry, but it doesn't. BUT if physics is being off-loaded to the GPU it'd certainly explain the inexplicably high system requirements. Hasn't really been done before though has it?

[Cytauri]

My computer also fights with me as well. I bought terraria from Steam and clicked the play button in which it just didn’t run. I uninstalled and reinstalled it, restarted my computer, and restarted Steam, and it still did not work. I ended up returning it. I really hope that this is not what happens to KSP 2 for me at least.

Just now, Kerbin Launch Coalition said:

People are ruling this out but I mean it makes huge sense, it doesn't look great, sorry not sorry, but it doesn't. BUT if physics is being off-loaded to the GPU it'd certainly explain the inexplicably high system requirements. Hasn't really been done before though has it?

I agree fully with this.

[magnemoe]

18 minutes ago, Jacke said:

You're getting feedback in spades right now.  Those numbers are too high.  I will struggle to find that much storage space.  While I meet the memory standards, due to Windows having too many extra processes around, I know I'm likely to have problems with that too.

Deal with it now.  Before release.  Or see sales hurt for a long time.

If storage space if your main concern you are idiotic lucky 60 GB. is 0.06 TB,  get an larger drive or an external, You could run this on an USP stick but this is questionable. 
Graphic cards set you back around $400 for for minimum spec. 

https://www.amazon.com/Kingston-120GB-Solid-SA400S37-120G/dp/B01N6JQS8C/ref=sr_1_1?qid=1676753063&refinements=p_n_feature_three_browse-bin%3A14027457011&rnid=6797515011&s=pc&sr=1-1 
This is an 120 GB SSD at $16, yes an sold state disc.  

[rebel-1]

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, rebel-1 said:

MSFS has gone through all its pre-release optimisations, KSP 2 hasn't.

And the screenshot isn't even KSP 2.

Memes aren't funny when the punchline isn't rooted in reality, even less so when it's incendiary and targeted at a dev team that is already having trouble with demands.

[Cytauri]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

MSFS has gone through all its pre-release optimisations, KSP 2 hasn't.

And the screenshot isn't even KSP 2.

Memes aren't funny when the punchline isn't rooted in reality, even less so when it's incendiary and targeted at a dev team that is already having trouble with demands.

You are correct Bej. The person who posted that meme just meant to emphasize the needy requirements of KSP 2. Though, it is not fair to compare an early access game to a fully fledged game that has been out for almost 2 or 3 years.

Edited February 18, 2023 by CytauriKerbal

[Souptime]

[Jacke]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

MSFS has gone through all its pre-release optimisations, KSP 2 hasn't.

And the screenshot isn't even KSP 2.

Memes aren't funny when the punchline isn't rooted in reality, even less so when it's incendiary and targeted at a dev team that is already having trouble with demands.

It's still wrong that KSP 2 is so bloated at this point.  It's a page from the Frontier Developments School of Programming.  Where they pushed out a bloated Odyssey DLC that broke the game and the community.  Elite: Dangerous hasn't been the same since.  Frontier has taken over a year to improve Odyssey but it's still not properly optimised.  Much optimization should have been done before this point.

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Jacke said:

Much optimization should have been done before this point.

Then you do not understand how development works. Features then optimisation.

KSP 2 is not a complete product. It is still a prototype at this point and the developers have yet to reach the optimisation phase of EA.

3 minutes ago, Jacke said:

It's a page from the Frontier Developments School of Programming

That's insulting given that Frontier is well past Elite Dangerous' official release and has more than enough workforce to handle things better than they are.

[Jacke]

4 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Then you do not understand how development works. Features then optimisation.

Optimisation should not be completely delayed or it becomes harder to apply.  And with many games, it doesn't get properly applied at all.

I've seen this before in a slightly different form.  This is similar to the Odyssey DLC for Elite: Dangerous.  It was so bad it literally broke the game several times.  It did break the community.  So many players and YouTubers and Twitch streamers left to play other games.

It's worse for KSP 2 in that it's a new game.  And it will have steep competition from Juno and of all things, KSP 1.

Edited February 18, 2023 by Jacke

[Cytauri]

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

Then you do not understand how development works. Features then optimisation.

KSP 2 is not a complete product. It is still a prototype at this point and the developers have yet to reach the optimisation phase of EA.

Well, I guess now people can’t put feedback just because it’s not optimized for their PCs. People will now have to watch YouTube videos of the game and see what they dislike or want out of the game or in it.

[Anth]

3 minutes ago, Jacke said:

It's still wrong that KSP 2 is so bloated at this point.  It's a page from the Frontier Developments School of Programming.  Where they pushed out a bloated Odyssey DLC that broke the game and the community.  Elite: Dangerous hasn't been the same since.  Frontier has taken over a year to improve Odyssey but it's still not properly optimised.  Much optimization should have been done before this point.

We know nothing about the game yet. Making assumptions can be damaging to a community and to the developers.

Intercept Games claimed that KSP2 would run better than KSP1  and then they have a 2060 as a minimum spec for a video card which made people really concerned. Thats the facts at this point.

The 2060 is about on par of the 1070 or 1080 so perhaps they should have recommended that instead and we wouldnt be on page 13 of this post...

[Fluke]

12 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

MSFS has gone through all its pre-release optimisations, KSP 2 hasn't.

And the screenshot isn't even KSP 2.

Memes aren't funny when the punchline isn't rooted in reality, even less so when it's incendiary and targeted at a dev team that is already having trouble with demands.

Agree 100% MSFS had every temp on my 8350 and 1060 and mobo at max Temps in the beginning. Those specs were impossible to play with before massive optimization. I suspect KSP 2 will be similar. 

[Anth]

3 minutes ago, Jacke said:

It's worse for KSP 2 in that it's a new game.

Its a new game that is early access. Thats a big difference. 

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Jacke said:

I've seen this before in a slightly different form.  This is similar to the Odyssey DLC for Elite: Dangerous.  It was so bad it literally broke the game several times.  So many players and YouTubers and Twitch streamers left to play other games.

No, you aren't understanding. It's not similar. Not in the least. Apples and oranges. Elite Dangerous was released in 2014 and Frontier has added next to no major features. KSP 2 is still very early in development. Frontier has a complete product it is doing very little with to focus on the real cash cows. Intercept can't optimise at the same time they're working on the major features of KSP 2.

3 minutes ago, Jacke said:

It's worse for KSP 2 in that it's a new game.  And it will have steep competition from Juno and of all things, KSP 1.

KSP 1 can't do diddly darn bull. Development could not possibly be going so bad that Intercept beats Squad at making a pile of junk that doesn't work.

[whatsEJstandfor]

I've had more time to think on this and, assuming the specs don't change throughout EA, and assuming 1.0 launches, like, about a year from now, I suppose targeting a 2060 won't be that unreasonable. By then, the RTX 4000/RX 7000 cards will be much more and widespread, and the RTX 2000 series will be around 5 years old. That puts it more in line with recent graphically-demanding games. For example, Cyberpunk's minimum targeted spec was a 7-year old card. Halo Infinite's was about 5 years old. Elden Ring's was about 6 years old.

Why I was initially so confused is that I was treating this launch as THE launch. In that context, it just didn't make much sense to me why a card that's less than 2 years old from a generation just over 4 years old would be targeted for a game that, to be candid, has seldom yet looked like such cards were warranted.

Regardless, we'll all get to see what the practical minimum specs are for ourselves in a few days, and I'm no less excited than I have been since 2019.

[KerbolExplorer]

4 minutes ago, whatsEJstandfor said:

I've had more time to think on this and, assuming the specs don't change throughout EA, and assuming 1.0 launches, like, about a year from now, I suppose targeting a 2060 won't be that unreasonable. By then, the RTX 4000/RX 7000 cards will be much more and widespread, and the RTX 2000 series will be around 5 years old. That puts it more in line with recent graphically-demanding games. For example, Cyberpunk's minimum targeted spec was a 7-year old card. Halo Infinite's was about 5 years old. Elden Ring's was about 6 years old.

I'm fine with a game asking for an expensive card, as long as it is justified. In Cyberpunk's case the game is rendering an entire city, with it's people and such. KSP 2 however doesn't justify needing such specs to run, probably the 8492th time this has been said, but the game looks like KSP1 modded, and even with that it looks worse in several places (Compare KSP2's clouds to EVE's beta clouds).

I get it's early access, optimization tends to be left behind, but the amount of red flags on this game is outstanding, first the huge delay (this was supposed to come out in 2020, with all of it's features), then the studio change stuff, and now specs being way to high than they should really be of course the game isn't out, so it could be(and I hope) the devs vastly overestimating what the game needs to run.

[Kerbin Launch Coalition]

10 minutes ago, KerbolExplorer said:

I'm fine with a game asking for an expensive card, as long as it is justified. In Cyberpunk's case the game is rendering an entire city, with it's people and such. KSP 2 however doesn't justify needing such specs to run, probably the 8492th time this has been said, but the game looks like KSP1 modded, and even with that it looks worse in several places (Compare KSP2's clouds to EVE's beta clouds).

I get it's early access, optimization tends to be left behind, but the amount of red flags on this game is outstanding, first the huge delay (this was supposed to come out in 2020, with all of it's features), then the studio change stuff, and now specs being way to high than they should really be of course the game isn't out, so it could be(and I hope) the devs vastly overestimating what the game needs to run.

I mean, Star Citizen is playable at 4K with an RTX 3060 and that's never gonna be a finished game. 

 

I can see a number of people using Steam's refund policy like, not gonna lie.

[Ruedii]

1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

KSP 1 can't do diddly darn bull. Development could not possibly be going so bad that Intercept beats Squad at making a pile of junk that doesn't work.

KSP 1's early access release was closer to a proof of concept than anything else.

 

7 minutes ago, Kerbin Launch Coalition said:

I can see a number of people using Steam's refund policy like, not gonna lie.

Yes, especially the number of people refunding after trying early access, only to buy it again when the game is complete and optimized several years later.

This is so common in early access games, it has spurred an acceleration to get that first demo out to counter it by bringing expectations for the "current state" in line with reality.

Many early access games release their first demo BEFORE release for this reason.

I don't mind paying for an incomplete game, but many others do.

Edited February 18, 2023 by Ruedii
Moar Info

[Oraldo revak]

Ksp 2 Launch in T - 10,9,8,7,6...

See System Requirements

 

ABORT! ABORT!!!

[Vl3d]

 

[Kevin15673]

On 2/17/2023 at 2:12 PM, Alexoff said:

I wonder why the difference between the minimum and recommended requirements is 15 gigabytes? We will download different versions of the game - minimum and recommended?

Scott Manley bought the wrong video card, it should have been more expensive.

There will probably be a optional free dlc for higher quality textures, many games have done it in the past.

[Kerbin Launch Coalition]

24 minutes ago, Ruedii said:

KSP 1's early access release was closer to a proof of concept than anything else.

 

Yes, especially the number of people refunding after trying early access, only to buy it again when the game is complete and optimized several years later.

This is so common in early access games, it has spurred an acceleration to get that first demo out to counter it by bringing expectations for the "current state" in line with reality.

Many early access games release their first demo BEFORE release for this reason.

I don't mind paying for an incomplete game, but many others do.

To be fair, I'm getting it on Early Access and, unless it is just the worst performing game ever, keeping it. I'm looking forward to see the colonies and what not, the one thing the original Kerbal Space Program lacked was in a nutshell, ambition. This one seems more ambitious, which isn't nothing but a good thing provided Intercept and Private Division can provide a game that works.  

5 minutes ago, Kevin15673 said:

There will probably be a optional free dlc for higher quality textures, many games have done it in the past.

I wouldn't be surprised to see this. That said though, I'd have expected the minimum requirements to be a bit more reasonable if there's an optional texture resolution bump for higher end systems.