Post your FPS!(And system specs.)

[Rocket Farmer]

Weird?   My results are a lot different.

4090, 13900, 64GB DDR5, Firecuda drive.

For a 40 part ship it was 87FPS at launch.

Dropped to 60 FPS briefly while flying through the clouds then climbed back up to high 70s.  GPU always at 100%.
 

Here was the interesting thing:

In Space FPS while facing Kerbin 77 FPS with the GPU at 100%.
In Space instead face the camera out into space and my FPS goes up to 150 and my GPU drops off to 63%.
 

On a side note I’ve had very few bugs (minor glitches really) and no game breaking bugs at all so I’m guessing most people’s issues are performance related.

[Missingno200]

I get a pretty solid 34 FPS with a Ryzen 5 3600 and a Thicc III 5700 XT on high with 4x AA(for a stress test.) The only time I've noticed a real slowdown is when exiting the atmosphere, where it seems to be loading the rest of space???
I haven't built massive ships but it doesn't appear to really matter. I can't really build big vehicles due to problems in the workspace system(read:skill issue with learning the new system.)

Edited February 25, 2023 by Missingno200

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

14 minutes ago, Rocket Farmer said:

On a side note I’ve had very few bugs (minor glitches really) and no game breaking bugs at all so I’m guessing most people’s issues are performance related.

Yeah - I'm with you.  The glitches I've found are relatively minor.  Things like a Rover falling through the ground at the KSC... which - how often am I really gonna do that?  Poodle's drawing fuel past a decoupler?  That's a report it and move on issue.  No crashes.  Getting playable frames with 3070 at 4k set to Medium.

[Fengist]

Asus laptop

Ryzen 9 6900hs - 16gb ram - RX6700S w/8gb vram

In Kerbin orbit kss station core - 25fps looking toward Kerbin - 50fps looking away.

Stock jet 4 on the runway 25fps - flying looking skyward 45fps - flying looking at ocean 27fps  - sitting in the vab 50fps

Simple rovemax rover sitting on the mun 25 fps.

GPU stays at 100pct, vram t 6.6 gb

I would expect better from this machine.

 

 

[whiteturtle0923]

My specs

CPU

    Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-8300H CPU @ 2.30GHz

 

GPU 1

    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050
    Dedicated GPU memory    4.0 GB
    Shared GPU memory    3.9 GB
    GPU Memory    7.9 GB

and 8 gigs of ram on a laptop with 1080p and on the lowest possible settings.

Here are some images.

(I can't upload images for some reason)

https://photos.app.goo.gl/4NcX1nfHNXFeMQrUA

https://photos.app.goo.gl/PTK9jEGyN2X6n8C5A

https://photos.app.goo.gl/8zwpdZNryFSSzmPa9

https://photos.app.goo.gl/9QkrCyU8r3YaFwmJ9

https://photos.app.goo.gl/fU2hf84LRLMh1V5e9

https://photos.app.goo.gl/28wV51XJQYwQxsJu8

https://photos.app.goo.gl/AkKDxmYyaw8C6e1K6

Edited February 25, 2023 by whiteturtle0923

[Fengist]

2 hours ago, BobbyDausus said:

What baffles me the most is that there are people out there putting this whole situation under the ,,It's an early access game,, thing.I can't remember in my 30 years of existance about any early access game that ran this bad.Even if you would try to mess up a game with the most intesive and unrealistic mods,you still can't make it run this bad.I have no clue how did they manage to go with this,i would get the most un-optimised textures ,24k resolution,millions of polygons and still would come out with better FPS.Hopefully they know what's going on and will get fixed asap.As far as i can see,there are no announcements or news from the team yet

Have to admit, Atlas had the most horrid launch ever and it ran better than this.

[regex]

i7-12700KF, 3070ti 8GB, 64GB RAM, 4xAA, 1080P, getting about 40 FPS flying over the south pole, about 30 FPS with large amounts of scatter or near KSC.

[PTNLemay]

52 minutes ago, Rocket Farmer said:

Weird?   My results are a lot different.

4090, 13900, 64GB DDR5, Firecuda drive.

I should hope so, isn't the 4090 the most powerful card money can buy?

So that's the real "recommended spec".  A 2000$ card to ensure proper 60 FPS.

[Rocket Farmer]

9 minutes ago, PTNLemay said:

I should hope so, isn't the 4090 the most powerful card money can buy?

So that's the real "recommended spec".  A 2000$ card to ensure proper 60 FPS.

Well to be fair I’m running it 4k Ultra.  If you dial that back a bit I’m sure other good cards can stay at 60 FPS as well.  Plus I was only down to 60 for 10 seconds or so.

 

 

[PTNLemay]

3 hours ago, BobbyDausus said:

As far as i can see,there are no announcements or news from the team yet

I did see this update on Steam.  https://steamcommunity.com/app/954850/discussions/0/3772364949848364468/

They have said that a patch is coming soon.  So at least they won't let this sit in the state it is for a month or longer

 

@Rocket Farmer

True.  I wonder if maybe it's a firmware thing.  If certain drivers work better with the game than others on a given card.  I should see if I can update my card.

Edited February 25, 2023 by PTNLemay

[silent_prtoagonist]

  Reposting this here as this seems like a good catch-all thread. 

19 hours ago, silent_prtoagonist said:

System Specs:

• CPU: Intel Core i5-6600K @ 3.50 GHz
• GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 980, 4 GB VRAM
• Memory: 16 GB DDR4
• Storage: HDD
• OS: Windows 10
• Display: 2560x1080 @ 60 Hz
• Settings: 2560x1080/Lowest
  • See note below on ultrawide resolutions. 

Results:

• Main Menu: 100+ FPS
• Space Center: ~30 FPS
• Assembly Building: ~60 FPS
  • Parts initially load with missing models/textures, resolves after a couple frames.
• Tracking Station: ~60 FPS
  • Celestial bodies take a bit to load in.
• Flight:
  • With very small part count: ~20 FPS looking at ground, ~50 FPS viewing space and vessel only.
  • Performance degrades as expected with increasing part count, have not tested large craft past ~50 parts. 
  • Noticeable hang-ups whenever a new asset is loaded, e.g. bringing a new building into view, engine ignition, etc.
  • Performance similar viewing other planets, not just Kerbin/KSC. (Tested at Minmus) 
• Loading Screens:
  • Loading times are long. (Expected with HDD)
  • The exception is assembly building -> launch, which is very quick. 
  • "Pumping Sim Once" is going to become a meme, you heard it here first. 

Verdict: Playable, but not a particularly pleasant experience. 

• GPU limited in pretty much all cases. 
• Biggest performance bottleneck appears to be rendering planets, hopefully this will be relatively easy to optimize. 
• When not looking at a planet in flight mode the game runs surprisingly well. (But then looking at planets is kind of the point.) 
• Aesthetically on minimum settings the game is comparable to KSP 1 with moderate graphics mods. Some things are prettier (mainly the rockets) some things similar (low clouds are not volumetric) some things worse (aliasing, etc). I have not yet experimented with optimizing the graphics settings. 
• For me I think it's good enough to play around with/provide feedback, but I'll need a hardware upgrade to really enjoy playing for itself. I'm probably going to wait for the latest-gen low-end GPUs to come out and reevaluate then. 

Note/Workaround for Ultrawide Resolutions:
The game does not appear to natively support resolutions for aspect ratios other than 16:9, however you can apparently "trick" the game into doing it by setting it to borderless window mode and then back to fullscreen without changing any other settings. 

 

[Twipsy]

CPU i510400

GPU AMD rx590

30fps

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Added a video to the OP. 

4k Med settings. 

20 FPS over Minmus.  Totally playable. 

[Icky]

oddly enough i had NO difference between 1080 and 4k. on a 2080

[TomKerbal]

5 hours ago, Twipsy said:

CPU i510400

GPU AMD rx590

30fps

 

i9-13900K

TUF-RX6950XT

10fps during launch

(all max. settings)

AND: Far away from realtime !  Did anyone noticed yet ?

For me the launch is the most problematic concerning fps.

In space >60fps, no problem

=> The realtime issue is a hint that there are problems with the numeric solver yet, so they have to use a very small stepsize to keep it stable. That's bad news for me.

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by TomKerbal

[Commander Jebidiah]

CPU: Ryzen 5 2600

GPU: NVIDIA RTX 3060

RAM: 32gb @ 3,000mhz

relatively simple rockets (<100pts) on launch im getting 10fps

In LKO 10-15fps and in LMO 20fps.

All Graphics settings set to max

 

The low frame rate was manageable, I played KSP1 for over 5yrs on a Laptop with a 1Ghz processor and integrated graphics so never really got more than 3fps on it. It was the discovery of three game breaking bugs within 20 minutes on a single mission that has made me go back to KSP1 for the time being.

Edited February 26, 2023 by Commander Jebidiah

[TomKerbal]

10 hours ago, Rocket Farmer said:

Weird?   My results are a lot different.

4090, 13900, 64GB DDR5, Firecuda drive.

For a 40 part ship it was 87FPS at launch.

Dropped to 60 FPS briefly while flying through the clouds then climbed back up to high 70s.  GPU always at 100%.
 

Here was the interesting thing:

In Space FPS while facing Kerbin 77 FPS with the GPU at 100%.
In Space instead face the camera out into space and my FPS goes up to 150 and my GPU drops off to 63%.
 

On a side note I’ve had very few bugs (minor glitches really) and no game breaking bugs at all so I’m guessing most people’s issues are performance related.

How comes ? My system is not much slower (1390,RX690XT,32MB 7GHz DDR5), but I have only 10fps at start (small rocket). What graphical settings do you use ? Interesting, perhaps the 64GB ? But due to TaskManager no problem... I don't understand this difference.

So for me 10fps is not the problem, but the missing realtime capability is. And I am curious why the big fps differences. I will try some different rocket designs, perhaps leading to realtime capability and getting 60fps at launch

Update (always using maximum graphics settings) :

FPS with 3 part simple rocket >60fps during launch.  Realtime capable.

With 15parts: >50fps. Realtime capable.

30 parts: >30fps.

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by TomKerbal

[Hofnaerrchen]

I would not call any 3d game "performant" at any given resolution these days if it is below at least rock solid 1% low 60 FPS. Especially when you are -like me - very susceptible to motion sickness.

[mdkendall]

• i7-4790K CPU (4c 8t at 3.6GHz)
• 32GB DDR3 at 1600MHz
• GTX 960

I had the graphics settings at Medium, at 1920x1080, Borderless.

Performance in the VAB is not great but bearable. In flight, if there is any terrain visible it is a slideshow at about 5fps and the simulation runs at about one quarter real-time (four seconds elapsed per simulated second). If I look up at the sky, or I am in orbit and look away from the planet, it is much, much better. About 20-30fps and the simulation is approximately real-time (one second per second).

In either case the GPU is pegged at 100% with about 4.4GB GPU memory allocated (2GB on the card and 2.2GB "shared"). The CPU is hardly loaded at all; less than 10% during orbit, re-entry and landing with a fairly minimal craft. The game was using about 14GB of memory.

[dragonart777]

amd ryzen 7 2700x

16gb ram

nvidia geforce 1070

 

fps is around  20 to 30.   in space  and  12 to 20 on the moon.    40 to 50 in hanger.   

do not know where to post images  says i need a url to post a image

[PTNLemay]

1 hour ago, mdkendall said:

I had the graphics settings at Medium, at 1920x1080, Borderless.

I've been experimenting with the game some more, and I've also noticed that Borderless seems to have much better performances than Fullscreen.  It still dips, but it's more stable.  Instead of bouncing wildly between 5 and 30, it'll hold more like 20 to 30.   But it causes my GPU to spin up some more.  It's almost like Fullscreen is using a mode that throttles the GPU so it doesn't heat up too much, while the other just says "Use the WHOLE GPU".

[skogs]

Ryzen 2700x
16G of ram
RX590 Fatboy videocard that is very long in tooth but only running a couple 1680x1050 screens...so a little easier.

On linux, with following launcher option:
 

PROTON_USE_WINED3D=1 bash -c 'exec "${@/%"PDLauncher/LauncherPatcher.exe"/KSP2_x64.exe}"' -- %command%  

 

Amazingly rather low difference between high and low settings.
Generally 14-17 fps sitting at the pad and during ascent.
Generally 20-25 fps in space.  Very not ideal...just barely playable.  I've been thinking about a new videocard for 3 years now. 

[ScarM]

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 1400 3.2 GHz
RAM: 16 GB
OS : Windows 10 Pro - 21H2
GPU: EVGA Geforce GTX 970

Launched Stock Kerbal K2

18fps at launch
14 fps 13 sec after launch

At 2min 30 sec
13 fps while looking at the rocket over land
50 fps while looking at the rocket under stary sky

Anti Aliasing set to 8x

All others are midium

Edited February 26, 2023 by ScarM
Added information

[James Kerman]

Overlapping topics have been merged.

[Ross B]

Lenovo P1 Laptop (heavy bugger, bought specifically to play VR games):

• CPU: Intel i7-11850 @2.5GHz
• GPU: GeForce 3070 Laptop w/ 8GB
• RAM: 64GB DDR3
• SSD: 2TB Samsung 970
• OS: Windows 11 Pro

Graphics Settings: 2560x1600, fullscreen, borderless, everything maxed out

40 part ship: 30 in VAB, 30-60 on pad, 20-30 during ascent, 40-ish in orbit. Fan is running full tilt. Some keys (looking at you Delete) are hot.

Didn't go to the mun yet. Too frustrated with maneuver nodes.