SSTO Crasher Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 I playing this on a laptop even remotely possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shdwlrd Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 Unless there is some non optional ray tracing components for the game, the 1060's out there should have playable frame rates at 1080p med-high settings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bej Kerman Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 1 minute ago, SSTO Crasher said: I playing this on a laptop even remotely possible A gaming laptop? The laptop variant of the 3070-Ti is above the minimum, so yeah. On a budget? Probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Aziz Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 46 minutes ago, Alexoff said: Well... Well, ER was also released on old gen consoles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astr0Guy5 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 1 hour ago, RKunze said: Well, looks like my current laptop is out. Not that I expected otherwise, I've been pretty surprised that KSP 1 was somewhat playable on its Intel 620 GPU. Whats actually surprising is that it meets the recommendations for CPU and RAM. So, KSP 2 gives me an excuse to upgrade the thing You must have the same laptop as myself. Same exact situation, same GPU, same excuse. Guess we can moarn together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzz313th Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 Looks like a huge portion of the physics load is on the GPU.. Which will actually help tremendously with further development of the game, leaving much needed headroom on the CPU for the roadmap and the modmakers. Kudos to the dev team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSTO Crasher Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 If I make massive system upgrades to my laptop I might be able to run this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket Farmer Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 32 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said: RTX 2060?? My old 1050 Ti could handle SpaceEngine's ray-marched Kerr-Newman black hole simulation, complete with volumetric accretion disks, so I'm a bit surprised to see that KSP 2's minimum requirements call for something better than the 1000-series. Let me get this straight. You are surprised that the minimum specs on a brand new game are a 7th tier card that is 5 years old? You base this on your previous experience of a 9th tier card being able to run a 4 year old game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1904 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 The way players were asking if their laptops with pentium 4 cpus or whatever could run it. Its 2023 PC game. Im not optimistic about optimization but all that aside some of the specs people have been asking about lately can barley play a 1080p video. Not to mention there are plenty of players here that dont have the specs to run KSP1 at max settings with large craft and that game is 10 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheehaw Kerman Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 Welp, had to order a new machine. Going to miss launch weekend though :(. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket Farmer Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 1 hour ago, Chibbob said: This is where 4 years of waiting, for 80% of us, end. I doubt 80% of gamers have less than the minimum here. On the GPU side (which is the pricier item) we are talking a 7th tier GPU that was released 5 years ago and can be bought for around $350. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolarAdmiral Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 I was curious and looked it up, and thought the result was interesting enough to share. The PS5 and the new Xbox have hardware very close to the recommended. Gpu similar to a RX6700, and an 8 core 3.5ghz CPU similar to a R7 3700X. So it looks pretty clear like that's what they're targeting for system requirements. Good news for it performing well when it gets to console. And puts it in context for us on PCs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xXIndestructibleEVAXx Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 I'm fortunate enough to already have a computer that hits these requirements, but I do wonder how well it will run on a computer that meets the min specs but with an older/worse graphics card. Are they just being extremely conservative? Would a 1080 be able to handle it reasonably well at min settings, but with lag while in atmosphere or in certain situations? I feel bad for all the people who won't be able to join in the EA at first at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K^2 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 24 minutes ago, Chilkoot said: We're 3 years behind the original planned release Intercept was only starting production on KSP2 3 years ago. You can basically think of the game that got announced in 2019 as being canceled, and a new one with the same name and similar concept being developed by a different studio. I'm sure some assets got re-used, but it's really a completely different game. Late '22 was as early as KSP2 was expected. And feature being gated-out in a public preview is very different than the feature not being started. If it weren't for multiplayer, we'd be getting a somewhat rushed release of KSP2 if not this month, in the next couple of months. This is honestly what I was expecting to happen, with the multiplayer coming out in a separate update months behind the original release, as I've called out at least a year ago. The fact that instead of rushing, the team got an extension to polish other features is actually a very good indicator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFA3393 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 Really happy you guys are taking advantage of current gen hardware! Excited to see how hard I can push my liquid cooled PC. These are the recommended specs I was hoping for! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dfthu Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 57 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said: Yikes, I wasn't expecting the GPU to be the bottleneck here, here's hoping my 1660super will be able to run it at all I feel like the 1660 super should just be enough. They both have 6GB of VRAM and I can overclock my 1660 super a fair bit. My rig probably won't handle KSP 2 the best, but it'll run i bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegatoxi Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 In case that KSP2 was announced in 2019, when there was no any sign of NVIDIA 30 seriers and even 10th gen intel processors, i can admit that i was right when i conclude that Devs lied to us preemptively about game. These sys req clearly shows that game was in active development only for 1-2 years. Also this explain why they "delay" game. Just simply because there was no game. Over these 3 years we've seen a lot of beaftiful games: Cyberpunk 2077, Elden Ring, CoD MW'19, CoD MW'22, Dead Space Reamke, etc. etc. etc. And non of these games wants rtx 20 seriers as bare minimum. I played every game above (and a lot of other games) on my rig (i5 9400, 2060S, 16Gb 3200 DDR4, NVMe SSD) with stable/mostly stable 60 on ~high settings with 1440p screen. KSP 2 clearly not at the cutting edge of 3d graphics to require such hardware which not even existed when KSP2 was formally announced. This only again shows devs incompetence and wet state of the game. Which i warned many times. Be ready to absolutely non-optimized game with constat freezes and uplayable FPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexoff Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrFancyPL Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 Theese specs are disappointing. After seeing such great mods as Parallax, Scatterer, and other, and then comparing it with how this game looks on promotional materials, that are faking reality (post fx), in absurdly low framerate for something that is supposed to be PROMOTIONAL, I am really worried that we won't get a sequel that we've waited for for so long. I wanted to buy this game at launch, but basing on what I see now, I will surely wait to see community making benchmarks, and reviews. I don't know about you, but my trust is at its limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Aziz Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 (edited) Oh there he is, been a while, always a pleasure. 18 minutes ago, Vegatoxi said: Over these 3 years we've seen a lot of beaftiful games: Cyberpunk 2077, Elden Ring, CoD MW'19, CoD MW'22, Dead Space Reamke, etc. etc. etc. And non of these games wants rtx 20 seriers as bare minimum. I played every game above (and a lot of other games) on my rig (i5 9400, 2060S, 16Gb 3200 DDR4, NVMe SSD) with stable/mostly stable 60 on ~high settings with 1440p screen. All these games were built to run on 10 year old hardware, that's what you wanted to say? 18 minutes ago, Vegatoxi said: In case that KSP2 was announced in 2019, when there was no any sign of NVIDIA 30 seriers and even 10th gen intel processors, Well yes, because back then in 2019 the game looked like that Not like that But I guess you're finished with saying that the game is dead and cancelled or whatever was your narrative. See ya in a week! Edited February 17, 2023 by The Aziz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vl3d Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 An interesting theory: what it the physics simulation heavily uses GPU instead of CPU? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strawberry Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 Just now, Vl3d said: An interesting theory: what it the physics simulation heavily uses GPU instead of CPU? The physics of ksp2 is mostly the same, if the physics simulation of ksp2 is that much more expensive then clearly something is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poopslayer78 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 Just now, Vl3d said: An interesting theory: what it the physics simulation heavily uses GPU instead of CPU? I was literally about to write this, and if this is true then that's a good thing. It could explain why the GPU requirements seem disproportionately heavy compared to the CPU. Pure speculation of course, it could just be a case of bad optimization, and doesn't explain the ray tracing requirements. 3 minutes ago, Strawberry said: if the physics simulation of ksp2 is that much more expensive It wouldn't necessarily be more expensive, just shifted from the CPU (KSP1) to the GPU (unconfirmed, for the sake of argument). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegatoxi Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 7 minutes ago, The Aziz said: You think this is RTX 3080 lvl graphics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Aziz Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 Just now, Strawberry said: The physics of ksp2 is mostly the same, if the physics simulation of ksp2 is that much more expensive then clearly something is wrong. KSP2 has also to run, eventually, things like this, probably leaving more taxing physics calculations on much larger ships, colonies and stations on faster GPU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts