Post your FPS!(And system specs.)

[Stewcumber]

I was getting 30 fps with a simple plane flying around Kerbin. This is on a 5800X3D with a 6800XT and 32GB of  RAM. MSI afterburner indicated my  GPU was at 99% usage and my CPU not doing much at all.

[Endomite]

Intel i5-8250U, 16GB Ram, GTX 1050, KINGSTON SA400S37480G, 1080p,  (Lowest settings)

I tested it on a laptop I have, it was around 2 - 5fps anywhere near ksc, 8-9 fps on the home screen,  7fps in VAB,  it was 20fps on the map  and looking out into space was about 5fps

[Streetwind]

I've been experimenting with a ten year old CPU (i5-4670) and a six year old video card (GTX 1060 6GB) which are both below the minimum requirements.

To my great surprise, neither the CPU nor the GPU are really under full load. The GPU temperature stays really low regardless of reported load, and the CPU is rarely breaching 50%. My results overall are very similar to those of @BobbyDausus - down to exactly the same 9 FPS when looking at Kerbin from orbit.

What is chock full, however, is the video memory. And when I overlcocked that, I saw an immediate FPS improvement.

So right now, my hunch is that anything short of 8 GB VRAM will simply choke and drop to single-digit FPS when looking at Kerbin from orbit and such.

[Kubas_inko]

11 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

To my great surprise, neither the CPU nor the GPU are really under full load.

And that's bad. GPU should be at 100% unless you are hitting your FPS limit (or are limited by CPU).

[Streetwind]

Just now, Kubas_inko said:

And that's bad. GPU should be at 100% unless you are hitting your FPS limit

The GPU is at 100%, according to my monitoring tools. It just isn't doing anything beyond twiddling its thumbs waiting for data to be fetched from system memory and/or disk because its video memory is overflowing. As soon as a less memory intensive scene is presented (i.e. anything without a celestial body in the frame), it starts doing actual work.

I just experimentally dropped my render resolution, which usually comes with notable video memory savings. Result: VRAM still full to bursting, which proves that it is definitely way too small. But the GPU is running warmer now even when choked on it, so the problem grew smaller. FPS on space center screen improved from 14 to 22, and from 9 to 11 when looking at Kerbin from orbit. Meanwhile, looking at my craft in space without Kerbin in the picture gets above 60 FPS. Pretty good for a GPU/CPU combo that's below the official minimum spec.

Verdict: KSP2, and its celestial bodies in particular, definitely want a good amount of VRAM to render smoothly. Probably at least 8 GB for 1080p and at least 10 GB for 1440p.

[jacksawild]

R9 5900X, 3080Ti 12GB, 32GB 3000mhz DDR4

I looked at the FPS at the beginning and it was about 40 when launching but over 100 everywhere else. I then turned hte FPS counter off and the game plays fine. GPU load seems to sit at about 96% (ouch) an dabotu 8 of my 12 cores are being used. The game also sits at abotu 16GB RAM being used.

I haven't seen any of the slideshow performance issues of big craft, even with complicated fuel feeding. There is a lot of physics jankiness that I remember from early KSP days. Stuff like SAS wobbling crafts apart on launchpads etc. Also the SAS is very innacurate, another problem I remember from early KSP, RCS will be constantly overcorrecting in space wasting mono etc.

The problems I've mentioned don't really bother me because I know they are solved problems, we just have to wait for the solution to be implemented.

[tstein]

Ryzen 5, 16 GB ram and a 1060 gpu.  Only the capsule, nothing else in space  and it is 30 fps.   I can load and render scenes  literally   50 times more complex  and get better performance  with even tutorial level code of OpenGL.

[Kerbalsaurus]

Core i3 processor, Core i3 UHD Graphics Card, and 8 GB of RAM. FPS for the main menu is 45 FPS. I'm terribly sorry for forcing KSP 2 upon you, laptop.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Kerbalsaurus

[sBauze]

i5 10400f, 1050ti 4GB, 16gb 2666mhz DDR4(1080p low settings)

Main screen - 50fps
KSC - 10-15fps
VAB - 25-30fps
Flying(15 part rocket):
Looking at ground - 5-10fps
Looking at sky - 25-30fps

The game is playable but will stutter unless i look at the sky during a flight and not at kerbin

 

[机械主教71号]

GP76, 12700h, 3070ti, 64G RAM, 50 parts, all high settings, 2K, 30-120fps.

Edited February 25, 2023 by 机械主教71号

[Arugela]

I'm guessing my 1.6fps is possibly from the 3gb ram over the rest of the system. To bad I don't have a better video card to test with. Really should have gotten the 1060 6gb. 8)

[MarcAbaddon]

Playing in 3440x1440 on 5800X, 32 GB Ram, 3080 GPU. FPS can go down to is 20-30 while going to orbit, depending on the direction the camera is pointing. In orbit it is fairly smooth.

[mattihase]

I seem to get a fairly consistent 15-20fps around the KSC on a 10th gen i7 (2.2GHz) w/ RTX3070

[Warringer]

These are my stats and FPS...

About 20 to 25 FPS while in orbit and on launch.

And I have to say that I am perfectly okay with it, since I'm running on max settings with 4X antialiasing and on 4K!

[BobbyDausus]

2 hours ago, Streetwind said:

The GPU is at 100%, according to my monitoring tools. It just isn't doing anything beyond twiddling its thumbs waiting for data to be fetched from system memory and/or disk because its video memory is overflowing. As soon as a less memory intensive scene is presented (i.e. anything without a celestial body in the frame), it starts doing actual work.

I just experimentally dropped my render resolution, which usually comes with notable video memory savings. Result: VRAM still full to bursting, which proves that it is definitely way too small. But the GPU is running warmer now even when choked on it, so the problem grew smaller. FPS on space center screen improved from 14 to 22, and from 9 to 11 when looking at Kerbin from orbit. Meanwhile, looking at my craft in space without Kerbin in the picture gets above 60 FPS. Pretty good for a GPU/CPU combo that's below the official minimum spec.

Verdict: KSP2, and its celestial bodies in particular, definitely want a good amount of VRAM to render smoothly. Probably at least 8 GB for 1080p and at least 10 GB for 1440p.

Yes,im with you on this one.The memory starts filling up to 4GB hitting the ceilling and staying there.No matter the resolution ,i even went down to 720P and similar FPS ,then i've changed from 1080 LOW to 1080 HIGH,no difference in performance at all.

[Darkona]

15 hours ago, Darkona said:

[images]

These are my most important specs, and this is the kind of FPS I've been having. So far I have had a few simple bugs come up but nothing major. No major drop in FPS, will update if that happens.

 

Notice the difference when looking at the KSC and when looking elsewhere, a 20FPS increase.

Quoting myself for continuity.

I made it to Dres. It wasn't very fun.

I made a 240+ parts rocket that took about 10 minutes to reach orbital altitude. FPS from 5 to 7 from the pad to space. Realized RCS also tanks FPS a lot. Multiple engines on the same fuel tank, low FPS. Apparently solar panels also reduce your FPS. 

However everything seems related. I'm willing to bet that this is a bug and when corrected it will increase performance across the board, so I'll wait and see.

And yes, I'm running KSP2 on an SSD, load times are nice.

[LameLefty]

i7-11700KF at 3.6Ghz (clocking dynamically to 5.0Ghz).
RTX 3070 
32GB DDR4-3200 memory
Game installed to 1TB M.2 NVME SSD
1440p, 4X antialiasing, everything else set to High across the board

I kept my tests simple. With the Kerbal X-2 sitting on the pad looking at it horizontally, I get upper 30’s - low 40’s FPS, rising to 60 fps if I change the camera view to hide terrain (nice to see yet another long-standing KSP issue still present - looking away from terrain massively boosts performance).

During ascent, FPS rises to mid 40’s - mid 50’s FPS, and about 60 FPS in >100km elliptical orbit. In trans-Munar space, with just the command pod and second stage/service module, >110 FPS. 

I’m going to build some more expansive craft today and do more testing but things like anti-aliasing settings didn’t seem to impact performance nearly as much as just looking at terrain. My GPU was pegged at 90% - 100% utilization almost full-time, even in space which is somewhat concerning. Running this game is going to be as punishing as crypto mining. 

[popos1]

saddly is worse than KSP1.

On RTX 3090, Ryzen 9 5900x, 80GB RAM in 4k on about 20-30 parts is 18fps when launch and in space 30 - 40 fps ...

and only 50% GPU utilization ...

[rebel-1]

Rysen 5700X, GTX 1070, 16GB RAM. Average graphics settings. 17-20 fps. At the same time, the graphics in the game are disgusting, solid soap and staircase shadows.

[Director_Valle]

CPU: Intel Core i5 6600 3.3GHz
GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX 970
RAM: 16GB (4x4 GB)
Disk: SATA SSD (c:)
OS: Windows 10 22H2
DirectX 12
1920x1080

Graphics to low settings.

Average FPS:

• Main menu: 140
• KSC menu: 12
• Training Center: 45
• Trainings:
  • Launch Pad: 20
  • In flight: 15
• VAB: 40
• In flight (low part count):
  • Space (looking to space): 55
  • Space (looking at Kerbin): 11
  • Map: 70
  • Landed (looking at horizon): 13

[Kerbalsaurus]

4 hours ago, sBauze said:

i5 10400f, 1050ti 4GB, 16gb 2666mhz DDR4(1080p low settings)

Main screen - 50fps
KSC - 10-15fps
VAB - 25-30fps
Flying(15 part rocket):
Looking at ground - 5-10fps
Looking at sky - 25-30fps

The game is playable but will stutter unless i look at the sky during a flight and not at kerbin

 

Oh, I have to do the sky thing in KSP 1 just to get 60 FPS. I can't imagine how painful it'd be for me to do that in KSP 2.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Kerbalsaurus

[PTNLemay]

@popos1

I don't want to trash-talk the devs, I think there's already enough of that going around and I don't want to dog-pile them.  But still... I have to wonder what they tested on when they were developing the game.  It seems like even the most powerful cards out there often struggle to pass 30 FPS.  Yes it's an alpha, but it's still puzzling that 98% of PCs out there are just choking when running the game.

[BobbyDausus]

8 minutes ago, PTNLemay said:

@popos1

I don't want to trash-talk the devs, I think there's already enough of that going around and I don't want to dog-pile them.  But still... I have to wonder what they tested on when they were developing the game.  It seems like even the most powerful cards out there often struggle to pass 30 FPS.  Yes it's an alpha, but it's still puzzling that 98% of PCs out there are just choking when running the game.

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

Edited February 25, 2023 by BobbyDausus

[Hofnaerrchen]

Maybe someone should provide a savegame or at least a vehicle save first.

This would enable getting replicable results. It will also be necessary to decide what settings to be used (graphics settings as well as resolution). Just posting numbers without comparable settings is quite useless. It would also be usefull to use always the same tool to display FPS, I would suggest using FrameView as it is easy to use and does also show CPU/GPU usage without the need to setup the display.

[Streetwind]

22 minutes ago, Hofnaerrchen said:

Maybe someone should provide a savegame or at least a vehicle save first.

There is this spreadsheet - probably as close as you're going to get with polling random community members.