1070 gtx on a low in setup.

[dragonart777]

i am running a low in system  figured i let the devs know on how my specs  or and that everything is running smooth   for the spec info

 

running a  amd ryzen 7 2700x e9ght-core processor

nvidia geforce gtx 1070

16gb ram  

and just a cheap 4tb hard drive 7200 rpm.  

windows 10   is on a ssd  by its self. 

 

i am having no problems at all.  and i am set at the default settings .  i not changed nothing not even the controls.  i just dived right on in...

its not choppy  but at the same time it don't look like it would if i was on some nice setup...      i have minimized the game  to post this  and i been in since 9:20  after i downloaded it.   

so  if some one is wondering can you run this on a low setup like mine   yes  no lag  no chop   just low in video specs/ default 

 

[Movado]

In contrast, I have a Ryzen 5 2600, a GTX 1070ti, 32 GB ram and windows 10 on ssd, and it runs at <15 fps on all low settings at 1080p with a 48-part ship. Lots of bugs (e.g. Poodle engine won't detach from separator, tutorial graphics not going away).

[dragonart777]

15 minutes ago, dragonart777 said:

i am running a low in system  figured i let the devs know on how my specs  or and that everything is running smooth   for the spec info

 

running a  amd ryzen 7 2700x e9ght-core processor

nvidia geforce gtx 1070

16gb ram  

and just a cheap 4tb hard drive 7200 rpm.  

windows 10   is on a ssd  by its self. 

 

i am having no problems at all.  and i am set at the default settings .  i not changed nothing not even the controls.  i just dived right on in...

its not choppy  but at the same time it don't look like it would if i was on some nice setup...      i have minimized the game  to post this  and i been in since 9:20  after i downloaded it.   

so  if some one is wondering can you run this on a low setup like mine   yes  no lag  no chop   just low in video specs/ default 

 

also forgot to say  i am running  a programs in the background like  web sites with a bunch of tabs open  looking for truck parts cause i forgot to shut them down  into i minimized. if i was on another game i would been lagging and crashing a lot after a bit.      so  yes  this is doing good for its day 1.  got to give props  i would still update video card.    but it is just not in my budget yet.    one day    

 

12 minutes ago, Movado said:

In contrast, I have a Ryzen 5 2600, a GTX 1070ti, 32 GB ram and windows 10 on ssd, and it runs at <15 fps on all low settings at 1080p with a 48-part ship. Lots of bugs (e.g. Poodle engine won't detach from separator, tutorial graphics not going away).

did you update drivers ?  i know we had a driver update not long ago.  well i did  thank it was early this week. 

Edited February 24, 2023 by dragonart777

[Pedro29]

I run on a GTX1080, 32GB RAM, i7-8700K, Win11 (HDD), settings on high at 1080p, an 80 parts ship on high setting gave about 15FPS as well, not choppy.
I did not see a difference in FPS with low or medium setting.
FPS went up to 50 after parts count was reduced through staging.

P.S.: I didn't update drivers in a while though, will test that

Edited February 24, 2023 by Pedro29
add CPU spec

[Sovetskysoyuz]

1 hour ago, dragonart777 said:

and just a cheap 4tb hard drive 7200 rpm.  

windows 10   is on a ssd  by its self.

Someone on the Steam forums posted a thread saying that they had a huge performance improvement after they moved the game off of C: and onto a different drive. It might just be a coincidence that you're also having unexpectedly good performance and just happen to have the game on a secondary drive, but this may be worth investigating further.

Edit: here's the thread I meant.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Sovetskysoyuz

[tstein]

6 minutes ago, Sovetskysoyuz said:

Someone on the Steam forums posted a thread saying that they had a huge performance improvement after they moved the game off of C: and onto a different drive. It might just be a coincidence that you're also having unexpectedly good performance and just happen to have the game on a secondary drive, but this may be worth investigating further.

Edit: here's the thread I meant.

That implies the game is  creating a lot of memory swap very likely and running on a separate drive removes the  I/O compettition on the SATA port.  Yet it is ABSURD amount of memory usage in this game. It uses more memory than DCS !

[Ultimate Steve]

Hmm, this is an interesting observation. I might try installing the game on my backup drive as my hard drive is always pegged at 100%.

[Streetwind]

This has me cautiously optimistic.

Because I have a 10xx series Nvidia GPU as well, and I'm stuck at 14 FPS on the space center screen too, no matter what I set my graphics settings too. Always 14 FPS.

That the graphics settings seem to not influence this, and that other people are in the same boat (and even one who's apparently fine!), gives me the impression that this isn't an inherent problem of the cards being too weak. Rather, I suspect there's software issues at play here. If the cards were too weak, we'd be out of luck - but software issues can be fixed.

Crossing my fingers

[whatsEJstandfor]

47 minutes ago, Sovetskysoyuz said:

Someone on the Steam forums posted a thread saying that they had a huge performance improvement after they moved the game off of C: and onto a different drive.

I have mine on an 8TB mechanical HDD, but I would have assumed putting it on my C: drive, an NVMe SSD, would make it perform better. I wonder what the root cause of their performance issue is.

[magnemoe]

33 minutes ago, tstein said:

That implies the game is  creating a lot of memory swap very likely and running on a separate drive removes the  I/O compettition on the SATA port.  Yet it is ABSURD amount of memory usage in this game. It uses more memory than DCS !

Interesting, but it should not memory swap if you have enough memory, say 32 GB who is more than half the game size. This include reading from disk as extra memory work as cache. 
Memory swapping is mostly used if you are low on memory and are swapping between huge programs. Say you have an large game and chrome with 50 open tabs and switch from game to chrome to look up some stuff. 
If they have 8 then yes. 

[dok_377]

2 hours ago, dragonart777 said:

yes  no lag  no chop   just low in video specs/ default 

I'm sorry, but I don't belive that you have no lag on that rig. I call lies. Everybody else lags like crazy.

[Radar]

My system is very low end but seems to run perfectly fine, no lag issues that I can see, FPS sitting around 30, not great but it's still playable for me until I upgrade the rig.

System is Intel i7-4930K @ 3.40 GHz, 32 GB Ram, GTX 980 Ti on Win 10. Game installed on an SSD (D: drive, not C: drive)

[BobbyDausus]

No offense mate,but you are smoking something there....There are people with 2080S running it at 15 fps .What FPS do you consider playable? 5?

Edited February 24, 2023 by BobbyDausus

[whatsEJstandfor]

5 minutes ago, BobbyDausus said:

No offense mate,but you are smoking something there....There are people with 2080S running it at 15 fps .What FPS do you consider playable? 5?

They said their FPS is "sitting around 30"

[Vorg]

54 minutes ago, Radar said:

My system is very low end but seems to run perfectly fine, no lag issues that I can see, FPS sitting around 30, not great but it's still playable for me until I upgrade the rig.

System is Intel i7-4930K @ 3.40 GHz, 32 GB Ram, GTX 980 Ti on Win 10. Game installed on an SSD (D: drive, not C: drive)

A 980? not possible.

[BobbyDausus]

2 minutes ago, Vorg said:

A 980? not possible.

He sees 30 fps whenever he looks up in the sky.......once his camera moves towards the ground he has 30 seconds per frame

[snkiz]

I'll contribute. I ran low settings with x8 aliasing 1600x900. I think, the settings window was a little bugged. VAB frametes were ok. launchpad was 2-15 fps, runway was a slideshow pegged at 5  or less fps. It got slightly better as I got away from the KSC. Looking up at the sky got me to 20ish fps improving with altitude. In space, as long as I didn't look at kerbin it hit my frame lock of 50. The framerate seemed to scale with how much of the planet was in view. Looking directly at kerbin brought it back down to 5 fps. Game didn't crash. loading times were fine. I built a mk1 rocket, and managed to wrangle the wings onto a simple dual rapier plane. Is it just me or is the the rapiers thrust curve borked? They used to wake up around 375 m/s. That didn't happen and they hit a brick wall at 405 m/s, in a shallow dive. I might play around with it more latter but the VAB controls were madding. I had huge issues trying to adjust the wings, and attach things to them. Had to exit the vab repeatedly. All and all aside from looking at the ground it ran about as well as my heavily modded ksp1 install, albeit with lower settings.

CPU: Rzyen 1600x

GPU: rx580 4gb (Ya you don't 'need' 6gb vram.)

Ram: 32 gb

Install: SATA SSD.

 

[purpleivan]

I have a similar setup to many on the thread (GTX 1070 and a Ryzen 5 2600X) running at 1080p and getting (as you might expect) similar performance.

The graphics settings seem to make very little difference, either to performance or to the visuals. On the pad before launching, looking at the stock Kerbal K1, I get 31fps with graphical settings at minimum and 29fps when set to maximum. The most noticeable thing is a drop in shadow draw end distance and quality (where shadows are seen closeup)

Strangely, only one of the 3 settings for "Environment Props" actually works (Environment Prop distance), Off and density do nothing. That being said reducing prop draw distance makes little difference to performance.

Looking at the LODing of the rock scatter objects, it looks odd. When pulling the camera back I could see a drop in LOD level, when there's a change in the texture resolution, that appears to drop several MIP levels in one go, but at that distance there's no apparent drop in mesh detail.

Edited February 24, 2023 by purpleivan

[Wheehaw Kerman]

17 hours ago, Sovetskysoyuz said:

Someone on the Steam forums posted a thread saying that they had a huge performance improvement after they moved the game off of C: and onto a different drive. It might just be a coincidence that you're also having unexpectedly good performance and just happen to have the game on a secondary drive, but this may be worth investigating further.

Edit: here's the thread I meant.

I’ve got the game on a different drive, and the game has been low bug count/framerate still playable with a 1050ti.

 

[tstein]

17 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Interesting, but it should not memory swap if you have enough memory, say 32 GB who is more than half the game size. This include reading from disk as extra memory work as cache. 
Memory swapping is mostly used if you are low on memory and are swapping between huge programs. Say you have an large game and chrome with 50 open tabs and switch from game to chrome to look up some stuff. 
If they have 8 then yes. 

Do never underestimate unity capacity of wasting memory.

[magnemoe]

Just now, tstein said:

Do never underestimate unity capacity of wasting memory.

A valid point but it should show up as used memory in for game in task manager. Now it sounds like KSP 2 is heavy on video memory 

[tstein]

2 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

A valid point but it should show up as used memory in for game in task manager. Now it sounds like KSP 2 is heavy on video memory 

Not if the memory is being wasted as segments in the HAL of Direct X, windows does not show hardware mapped resources as  process resources usually. All I know is there is some absurd wastage of resources, the game  looks as a gme that should run in 1 GB of  VRAM ( several games of that time period look better)

[dragonart777]

19 hours ago, dok_377 said:

I'm sorry, but I don't belive that you have no lag on that rig. I call lies. Everybody else lags like crazy.

no lags and not everyone has the same problems.  i also do not use my system to surf other sites that cause your system to have problems.   

i do have other problems like pods having no fuel in them.   and the solor cell not active on the side bar.   so there is bugs i have run across but  i am not lagging.    on mine the anti  alias is  off  anisotropies is on.    v.sync is off  playing in boarder  also  did not know this hmm. my screen is  1824x1026.   i also looked in gameplay. there is a debreis settings   mine is at 50  and 3 . not much settings to play with here everything els is on high.   i turned on alias and i got lag  so  if yours is on  try turning it off.    i noticed a lot of people with higher end setups having more problems then lower end.   kind of backwords.  and sometimes lowering settings can cause more problems.   

[tstein]

33 minutes ago, dragonart777 said:

no lags and not everyone has the same problems.  i also do not use my system to surf other sites that cause your system to have problems.   

i do have other problems like pods having no fuel in them.   and the solor cell not active on the side bar.   so there is bugs i have run across but  i am not lagging.    on mine the anti  alias is  off  anisotropies is on.    v.sync is off  playing in boarder  also  did not know this hmm. my screen is  1824x1026.   i also looked in gameplay. there is a debreis settings   mine is at 50  and 3 . not much settings to play with here everything els is on high.   i turned on alias and i got lag  so  if yours is on  try turning it off.    i noticed a lot of people with higher end setups having more problems then lower end.   kind of backwords.  and sometimes lowering settings can cause more problems.   

Sorry but that is repurposed bovine waste, if your browser is  down   it matters not if you use your PC for other things. Remember there are LOTS of software engineers here, we know what is real or not on computers. That said  come bad computers sometimes run things ok because the game engine FAILS to  even initialize some sort of  graphic effect, I have seen that happen 2 times  in the last few years.

[dragonart777]

45 minutes ago, tstein said:

Sorry but that is repurposed bovine waste, if your browser is  down   it matters not if you use your PC for other things. Remember there are LOTS of software engineers here, we know what is real or not on computers. That said  come bad computers sometimes run things ok because the game engine FAILS to  even initialize some sort of  graphic effect, I have seen that happen 2 times  in the last few years.

get that  bad english/grammer on my end here.  meaning i have a clean system from bad sites that cause harm.  just was not trying to disrespect the server rules.    but yea  besides games maya and audio editing is used on this system so i get what your saying.     my frame rate that i forgot to post  is about 30  28   and 40 54  in the hanger.   just landed on the moon and my framerate dropped to 12  fps as i was landing.   i crashed came in to fast.  but 12 frames per sic.  i dont know if i changed something in my game or just need a restart  but 12 fps hurts.   thank it might of been the shadows of the dark side of the moon.  as i came in from the dark side and dropped in,    

Edited February 25, 2023 by dragonart777