Jump to content

KSP2 System Requirements

Dakota

By Dakota
in Announcements

 Share

Recommended Posts

DrCHIVES

DrCHIVES

Posted
Posted
On 2/17/2023 at 3:46 PM, Kerbart said:

Funny how quickly we went from "I'm concerned there are not enough polygons/it's only 120 fps/the shadows don't look real" to "they require WHAT?!"

 

I 100% agree...  I really do with that everyone who wants to play ksp2 would be able to.  Its an amazing franchise that for many has had a profound life affect.  However, I do not want the game to be held back at the same time simply because the majority market clientele cant make the specs.  We have spent a little over 3 years critiquing and scrutinizing this game from every possible angle putting a huge demand on it with regards to expectations.  We wanted massive surface and orbital colonies, Colossal interplanetary and interstellar vessels, hyper realistic clouds, beautiful planets and surface textures and terrain scatter, weather, colony management, multiplayer, footprints and environmental impacts and reactions, life support, the list goes on...  Like, I'm sorry your Dell Latitude from 2012 with integrated CPU graphics cant run it.   You put all of the similar respective mods in ksp1 at max settings at 1440p and it runs like absolute dog water on even the best machines.  almost all the youtube videos of these grand missions in real solar system are dramatically sped up so that people can even bear to watch it.  What did people really expect for ksp2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mcwaffles2003

mcwaffles2003

Posted
Posted
On 2/17/2023 at 10:40 PM, K^2 said:

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.

Any reason in your opinion that running physics on a GPU wouldn't be worked toward? As I understand GPU's are better for working out those kinds of calculations. I get that doing so may require better hardware, but I would assume it would at least be worth looking into

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JoeSchmuckatelli

JoeSchmuckatelli

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

But what a leap in computer requirements!

I'm actually fine with that.  If it wasn't more demanding than KSP - we'd fear that they had done nothing 'under the hood' to improve the mechanics.

As is, we can trust them when they say 'a complete rebuild'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GregA

GregA

Posted
Posted
Just now, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Meaningless question unless you specify what resolution you will be playing at.  See my posts above 

Well Im on a laptop and as far as I can tell I am limited to 1080p.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GregA

GregA

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Did you read the posts above? 

If im reading the post correctly at 1080p that my computer is limited to because it is a laptop montor with this GPU should be super good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vorg

Vorg

Posted
Posted
On 2/17/2023 at 1:37 PM, 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!

To a current gpu that uses way too much power, melts it's power connectors (nvidia ), or has faulty coolers that can't keep the card cool (amd) all on cards that are insanely over priced??

And I don't understand this obsession with 3 digit fps numbers and 4k. Just how big are your monitors? You playing in a home theater? My 24" monitor maxes out at 1080/60 and the pixels are almost too small to see with the naked eye unless you get VERY close. As for the fps, I've always been happy if I got at least 20-25fps. Looks smooth, no flicker or studder as long as the cpu/gpu can truly fully render each frame in that time.

And someone else mention the heat these cards put out, but the quote system, didn't grab that. The cost of these cards goes WAY beyond the cost of the card. You have the cost of the larger power supplies to feed them, the extra cooling to get the heat out and the extra power to feed all that. And then, that heat has to go someplace and that is into the room. And how to you then get the heat out of that room? To those that say the card only pulls a couple hundred more watts, think about power cost to run that AC extra. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheKrakenHerder

TheKrakenHerder

Posted
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, DrCHIVES said:

I 100% agree...  I really do with that everyone who wants to play ksp2 would be able to.  Its an amazing franchise that for many has had a profound life affect.  However, I do not want the game to be held back at the same time simply because the majority market clientele cant make the specs.  We have spent a little over 3 years critiquing and scrutinizing this game from every possible angle putting a huge demand on it with regards to expectations.  We wanted massive surface and orbital colonies, Colossal interplanetary and interstellar vessels, hyper realistic clouds, beautiful planets and surface textures and terrain scatter, weather, colony management, multiplayer, footprints and environmental impacts and reactions, life support, the list goes on...  Like, I'm sorry your Dell Latitude from 2012 with integrated CPU graphics cant run it.   You put all of the similar respective mods in ksp1 at max settings at 1440p and it runs like absolute dog water on even the best machines.  almost all the youtube videos of these grand missions in real solar system are dramatically sped up so that people can even bear to watch it.  What did people really expect for ksp2?

This sort of post makes me wish there was a downvote button on the forums.
 

48 minutes ago, DrCHIVES said:

the majority market clientele cant make the specs

We're talking 65% of Steam users (there are 120 million+ Steam users.) can't make the minimum specs. 96% can't meet the recommended. This is a hilarious understatement.

 

48 minutes ago, DrCHIVES said:

hyper realistic clouds, beautiful planets and surface textures and terrain scatter

That's the thing, they're not beautiful. I could get a better experience using KSP1 mods, and they certainly wouldn't require hardware costing upwards of $2500.
 

48 minutes ago, DrCHIVES said:

Like, I'm sorry your Dell Latitude from 2012 with integrated CPU graphics cant run it.

This sort of flippant reaction to the fact that a supermajority of the game's audience can't run it is both insulting and hurts your argument. People aren't asking for it to run on a Dell Latitude, they're asking for it to run on a modern machine without shelling out hundreds, if not thousands of dollars, which is not an unreasonable expectation at all considering what the graphics look like.

Edited by TheKrakenHerder
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldForest

GoldForest

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Vorg said:

To a current gpu that uses way too much power, melts it's power connectors (nvidia ), or has faulty coolers that can't keep the card cool (amd) all on cards that are insanely over priced??

And I don't understand this obsession with 3 digit fps numbers and 4k. Just how big are your monitors? You playing in a home theater? My 24" monitor maxes out at 1080/60 and the pixels are almost too small to see with the naked eye unless you get VERY close. As for the fps, I've always been happy if I got at least 20-25fps. Looks smooth, no flicker or studder as long as the cpu/gpu can truly fully render each frame in that time.

And someone else mention the heat these cards put out, but the quote system, didn't grab that. The cost of these cards goes WAY beyond the cost of the card. You have the cost of the larger power supplies to feed them, the extra cooling to get the heat out and the extra power to feed all that. And then, that heat has to go someplace and that is into the room. And how to you then get the heat out of that room? To those that say the card only pulls a couple hundred more watts, think about power cost to run that AC extra. 

The Nvidia power plug problem was confirmed to be user error. I will admit, it is a slightly faulty design for letting a half-out plug overheat itself, but on the other hand, people should be plugging every plug in all the way and securely. It's a double edge sword/catch 22. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JoeSchmuckatelli

JoeSchmuckatelli

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Vorg said:

And I don't understand this obsession with 3 digit fps numbers and 4k. Just how big are your monitors? You playing in a home theater? My 24" monitor maxes out at 1080/60 and the pixels are almost too small to see with the naked eye unless you get VERY close. As for the fps, I've always been happy if I got at least 20-25fps. Looks smooth, no flicker or studder as long as the cpu/gpu can truly fully render each frame in that time

This is a highly subjective point - but also well thought. 

I ran a 60hz 24 inch 1920x1200 (16:10 aspect) IPS monitor for years (analogous to a 24 inch 1080p 16:9) - and at about a meter away (my arm's length) I could still see all the individual pixels.  It always kind of bugged me.  I also played a lot of FPS games and the 60hz limit also annoyed. 

So I wanted something with higher pixel density and faster performance.  Nothing fitting the bill existed.  Well, except for a honking big 48 inch OLED (the 27s would have lost me vertical real estate just to get 1440p).  Then, finally the 32 inch 4Ks came out.  As far as I'm concerned, they're the perfect size.  Pixels are tighter than 1080p and the size is not absurd. 

Problem is - the demand on the gpu is about 4x greater than the same game would be running on a 1080p. 

I could have chosen to stick with the old system and save money - but it wasn't satisfying. 

 

 

Some people play games and never see the individual pixels.  Some never notice the screen stuttering.  Some can't tell the difference between 30 fps and 144 fps. 

For them?  Upgrading is a waste. 

But each person is different.  If 1080p / 60hz is fine - stay with it.  If it's not... It just makes sense to upgrade, presuming you can afford to do so. 

10 minutes ago, TheKrakenHerder said:

We're talking 65% of Steam users (there are 120 million+ Steam users.) can't make the minimum specs. 96% can't meet the recommended. This is a hilarious understatement

Welcome to PC gaming and why console gaming is so popular. 

Steam survey is heavily biased towards people who inherited a legacy work laptop - when AAA games are made for the PC enthusiast crowd.  Your complaints could be leveled at every studio putting out a top tier game for each of the last 5 years. 

Had the KSP2 team aimed for 'average steam user' they'd have just reskinned KSP.  We could have called it KSP +. 

By aiming for AAA levels of production they're giving us a true successor to KSP.  KSP2 cannot be worthy unless it is pushing what is possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldForest

GoldForest

Posted
Posted

Steam survey also relies on people taking it. The more people that participate in it, the better, the less, the worse. 

There's also the problem of a lot of people missing the survey entirely. I know I have tons of times. In my probably... 8 to 9 years of pc gaming, I've only caught the survey a handful of times. Enough to count on one, maybe 2 hands. 

I wish we knew how many people take the survey out of the entire steam user base. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaf

jaf

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Stoup said:

 

In short: Should definitely not have a problem, depending on the rest of your system!

i have 16 gb of ram 

and my processor is an AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8-Core Processor  3.60 GHz

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheKrakenHerder

TheKrakenHerder

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

By aiming for AAA levels of production they're giving us a true successor to KSP.  KSP2 cannot be worthy unless it is pushing what is possible. 

These sorts of requirements, seemingly just for the sake of "using modern hardware", are elitist, unnecessary considering what the graphics are, and exclude almost all the young space enthusiasts this is meant to inspire, assuming their parents aren't rich enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bej Kerman

Bej Kerman

Posted
Posted
Just now, TheKrakenHerder said:

These sorts of requirements, seemingly just for the sake of "using modern hardware", are elitist, unnecessary considering what the graphics are, and exclude almost all the young space enthusiasts this is meant to inspire, assuming their parents aren't rich enough.

The standard process of adding features before optimising them is "elitist" now I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JoeSchmuckatelli

JoeSchmuckatelli

Posted
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Steam survey also relies on people taking it. The more people that participate in it, the better, the less, the worse. 

There's also the problem of a lot of people missing the survey entirely. I know I have tons of times. In my probably... 8 to 9 years of pc gaming, I've only caught the survey a handful of times. Enough to count on one, maybe 2 hands. 

I wish we knew how many people take the survey out of the entire steam user base. 

These averages are just weird to me. .  

5 minutes ago, TheKrakenHerder said:

These sorts of requirements, seemingly just for the sake of "using modern hardware", are elitist, unnecessary considering what the graphics are, and exclude almost all the young space enthusiasts this is meant to inspire, assuming their parents aren't rich enough.

If big data was to somehow quantify the 'Average American's 5K run time' to be something like 1 hour and 20 minutes, would you then have to assume that most Marines, being American, cannot be expected to run a 5K in 18 to 30 minutes?   That a 15 minute 5k is impossible?  Unreasonable? 

 

Yet if you narrow it down to runners - high school, adult, military, whatever - you see that 30 seems absurdly slow. 

 

Thus, the whole 'Steam Average' = target is just silly

Your 'antielite' argument is ill founded 

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