PC hardware advice master thread for KSP2. (Ask if your specs are good enough or what to buy here.)

[Vanamonde]

Master thread for KSP2. 

[LoSBoL]

At this point in time, 3 days after release, there is no telling in what hardware really is needed to play the game. Sure you can get yourself a high performant gaming rig if you have money to spare, but if the game needs it in a couple of months from now is a question nobody can answer.

So if you got a computer that runs other games just fine, my advise would be, keep your money in your pocket right now untill there is more insight.

Did you already opt to upgrade and KSP2 is not the only game your going for, go ahead, buy yourself a performant gameing rig. 

You got yourself a laptop with integrated GPU? That will probably not become playable ever, don't just buy yourself a new gaming laptop, if you got room to spare consider a PC in the future, and just stream the game to the laptop you already have. 

[Dunas Only Moon]

Should i use controllers? I play Ksp 1 on the PS4 and im wondering. should i get a new controller, stick with the old one, or just use mouse and keyboard?

[AtomicTech]

If anyone is looking for a new laptop that runs KSP great and runs KSP 2 acceptably, I've got a suggestion for you!

https://www.costco.com/msi-pulse-gl76-laptop---12th-gen-intel-core-i7-12700h---geforce-rtx-3070---1080p---windows-11.product.100848958.html

I got this laptop for Christmas and good god is it awesome! 

I've found that its a pretty good deal on getting a 3070 for only $1,399.99!

[Chilkoot]

On 2/28/2023 at 12:02 PM, AtomicTech said:

I got this laptop for Christmas and good god is it awesome! 

How's the build quality?  I had some issues with MSI gaming-type laptops in the past (many years ago), but have heard they really turned the build around on their high-end rigs.

[cvusmo]

Specs:

i9-9900k

RTX 2070

32 GB @ 3200 mHz

I run the game on high settings, AA on, 4x. 

3-5 fps on launch. After clearing tower 15-30 frames. In orbit 45 frames.

[AtomicTech]

20 hours ago, Chilkoot said:

How's the build quality?  I had some issues with MSI gaming-type laptops in the past (many years ago), but have heard they really turned the build around on their high-end rigs.

It's awesome! It's hardy and runs great!

[SimonTheSkink]

Hello everyone, as most of us here already know KSP2 is a much larger resource hog than the original KSP and will require a much more beefy computer in order to play it. I've already seen a few people on here asking for advice on how to upgrade their computer (or get a new one entirely).  So to help out I'm making this thread to provide consultation advice to people who are not as savvy with computer hardware, so that they can get the best equipment for their needs for the best price.  Please comment below and I will do my best to assist.

[Vanamonde]

That is a good idea, @SimonTheSkink. So good that we already have one, and your thread has been merged into it. 

This thread was not in a good location, though, and I have moved it to make it more visible. 

[Streetwind]

An easy piece of general advice: KSP2 loves memory. That includes both system memory, where you ideally want at least 16GB, and video memory, where you'd ideally bring at least 8GB for 1080p and at least 10GB for 1440p.

The main resource hog right now appears to be celestial body surfaces, particularly in daylight. Being in a low orbit and looking down at the surface will absolutely murder your FPS. Even the most high-end cards, like a GTX 4090, will drop to a fraction of what they can do when the camera is simply turned the other way. (Note: that doesn't mean that a GTX 4090 drops below 60 FPS at any point - it doesn't - but it proves that this is an issue with the game, not with the hardware.)

Outside of that effect, the system requirements are actually much more benign. I have an i5-4670 (a ten year old midrange CPU) and a GTX 1060 6GB (a six year old midrange GPU). Both are below the official minimum system requirements, and yet I get a comfortable 40-50 FPS in the VAB or in space with the camera pointed away from Kerbin. At 1080p. And I have a feeling the FPS would be higher if the card wasn't constantly out of VRAM. My ancient CPU is only like two-thirds loaded because the video card is spending so much time swapping data with system memory and disk instead of rendering frames.

Unfortunately, by its very nature, KSP2 makes us look at celestial body surfaces constantly - for example, you have pretty much no choice in the matter when putting a rocket onto the launchpad. This means that until the issue is fixed on the game's end, almost no kind of hardware out there exists that will let you play comfortably in all situations. So... don't bother trying, IMHO. I really don't recommend dropping two grand on a video card and another on a system that can support it just to try and beat a software problem with raw power.

Instead, consider something like a 3060 12GB, or a 3060 Ti 8 GB from team green. If you have time to wait, the 4060 series is rumored to be releasing in the summer months, and might have slightly more VRAM (or it might not, Nvidia has been stingy with it lately). On the side of team red, in the same price and performance brackets, there's the 6600 XT / 6650 XT with 8GB, the 6700 with 10 GB, and the 6700 XT / 6750 XT with 12GB. You generally want to err towards slightly more VRAM on AMD cards, but thankfully, they also tend to make it more affordable. And finally... on team blue, they're really trying with the Arc series, and the hardware is good, but the drivers still have real issues. I'm not sure I can recommend them right now, but if you're a fan, the 7xx series cards do have the VRAM and performance required to run the game. Note: none of the cards I mentioned will do 4K gaming well, KSP2 or otherwise. You shouldn't target that resolution if you're budget conscious.

You can buy video cards used, but stick to reputable sellers. Shady people are still trying to offload cards that were beaten half to death in cryptomining centers until last year, and they're going out of their way to lie and hide the damage. Used AMD cards are particularly risky, as they were the most favored by miners.

When building a new system from scratch, the budget king is likely the i3-12100F on the cheapest compatible mainboard available with 16 GB of DDR4 memory. If you're looking to spend a bit more, consider an i5-13500 (a great price for the number of cores), an i5-13600K (better for gaming in particular), or a Ryzen 7 5800X3D (even better for gaming in particular). The newer Ryzen 7000 series is harder to recommend, as they lock you into uncharacteristically expensive mainboards that only run with expensive DDR5 memory. A fresh PC build these days should also go for 32 GB RAM if you can fit it into your budget.

That kind of hardware should handle KSP2 just fine outside of the broken planetary surfaces.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

If you are trying to run in 4k: 3070 is playable.  Ryz5 5600x and 16GB of memory round out the particulars.  Running Medium settings with 4xAA.

Worst case scenario is I've had 15FPS in places on Kerbin.  Most of the time I'm running about 20-30 when out at one of the moons.  Have gotten upwards of 40 when there's not a lot going on at a moon... but in some of the denser areas of Kerbin?  15 will give you a headache.  But for what KSP is - at this point - 20-30 is playable.  Just don't pan the camera often - or if you do, just know it's not smooth.

[schlosrat]

I'm playing it on a Hackintosh dual booted into Windows 11 Pro. Up until Monday (3/6) my HW was this:

• MB: Z390 Aorus Pro Wifi
• CPU: i9 9900K
• RAM: 32 GB DRAM
• GPU: RX 580 Pulse 8GB
• HD: 500 GB NVMe boot drive

I was able to play OK with that setup, though the FPS went down to an unplayable 2-3 if I let the camera point at the ground even with graphics settings turned all the way down. I had to hone my Instrument Flight Rating for landings (point the camera up and just watch the nav ball for surface speed, direction, and altitude), but I was able to launch, circularize, transfer to Mun or Minums, land and return. The whole shebang. A bit annoying that I had to point at the sky or be in map mode for most of it, but I could typically keep the FPS at a playable 20 - 30, sometimes dipping down to 16-ish. Piloting rovers was a real pain though as I had to put the camera below ground level and look up at my rovers that way to get any kind of control - occasionally peeking up to make sure I was headed in the right direction.

This past Monday I installed $800 worth of Lag-B-Gone in the form of a Sapphire Pulse RX 6800 XT with 16GB, and dang if that didn't do the trick! Now I've got the graphics maxed out and can point the camera any which way I want. I think the FPS is bottoming out in the 50-60 range and is sometime much higher. This really impacts the playability for me as all vehicles seem to me much more responsive. Rovers, in particular, are now much easier to maneuver.

• MB: Z390 Aorus Pro Wifi
• CPU: i9 9900K
• RAM: 32 GB DRAM
• GPU: RX 6800 XT Pulse 16GB
• HD: 500 GB NVMe boot drive

If I wasn't working with a Hackintosh, I could have gotten an Nvidia card that would likely outperform the RX 6800 XT for less $$$ - but it wouldn't be compatible with MacOS. 

[SimonTheSkink]

@schlosrat Your build seems pretty solid, I checked over the CPU/GPU compatibility and you don't seem to be losing any performance with the combination.

https://www.gpucheck.com/en-usd/compare/amd-radeon-rx-580-vs-amd-radeon-rx-6800-xt/intel-core-i9-9900k-3-60ghz-vs-intel-core-i9-9900k-3-60ghz/ultra/ultra/-vs-

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

On 3/8/2023 at 8:36 AM, schlosrat said:

I'm playing it on a Hackintosh dual booted into Windows 11 Pro. Up until Monday (3/6) my HW was this:

• MB: Z390 Aorus Pro Wifi
• CPU: i9 9900K
• RAM: 32 GB DRAM
• GPU: RX 580 Pulse 8GB
• HD: 500 GB NVMe boot drive

I was able to play OK with that setup, though the FPS went down to an unplayable 2-3 if I let the camera point at the ground even with graphics settings turned all the way down. I had to hone my Instrument Flight Rating for landings (point the camera up and just watch the nav ball for surface speed, direction, and altitude), but I was able to launch, circularize, transfer to Mun or Minums, land and return. The whole shebang. A bit annoying that I had to point at the sky or be in map mode for most of it, but I could typically keep the FPS at a playable 20 - 30, sometimes dipping down to 16-ish. Piloting rovers was a real pain though as I had to put the camera below ground level and look up at my rovers that way to get any kind of control - occasionally peeking up to make sure I was headed in the right direction.

This past Monday I installed $800 worth of Lag-B-Gone in the form of a Sapphire Pulse RX 6800 XT with 16GB, and dang if that didn't do the trick! Now I've got the graphics maxed out and can point the camera any which way I want. I think the FPS is bottoming out in the 50-60 range and is sometime much higher. This really impacts the playability for me as all vehicles seem to me much more responsive. Rovers, in particular, are now much easier to maneuver.

• MB: Z390 Aorus Pro Wifi
• CPU: i9 9900K
• RAM: 32 GB DRAM
• GPU: RX 6800 XT Pulse 16GB
• HD: 500 GB NVMe boot drive

If I wasn't working with a Hackintosh, I could have gotten an Nvidia card that would likely outperform the RX 6800 XT for less $$$ - but it wouldn't be compatible with MacOS. 

Okay - now I'm curious.  Why use PC components to run MacOS? 

 

Follow on Q:  ... isn't running Windows on a machine with PC components...  ...just a PC?  Why not use a different HD and just boot into Windows when you want to run windows, and keep your Hackintosh stuff on a different drive for Hackintoshing?

[schlosrat]

8 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Okay - now I'm curious.  Why use PC components to run MacOS? 

 

Follow on Q:  ... isn't running Windows on a machine with PC components...  ...just a PC?  Why not use a different HD and just boot into Windows when you want to run windows, and keep your Hackintosh stuff on a different drive for Hackintoshing?

I originally built the machine to be a hackintosh. The difference between an iMac or a Mac Pro and a PC is just a narrower set of compatible hardware and then the OS. Last fall I updated my bootloader to Open Core and made a Windows 11 Pro boot drive specifically because I wanted to be ready to run KSP2. When the machine boots up I can pick if I want to boot MacOS or Windows. So, think of it as a homebuilt Mac Pro that can also run Windows for the express purpose of playing KSP2.

As a side note, the process of installing Windows was such a holy PITA that when Windows asked me to name the machine I named it Satan.

[The Aziz]

Anyone with 3070 got a report on GPU usage? Considering an upgrade (at later date because the prices are still ridiculous), but wanted to know what difference it makes.

Only GPU though, I have plenty of memory for the game to hog, same with CPU.

Edited March 10, 2023 by The Aziz

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

8 hours ago, The Aziz said:

Anyone with 3070 got a report on GPU usage? Considering an upgrade (at later date because the prices are still ridiculous), but wanted to know what difference it makes.

Only GPU though, I have plenty of memory for the game to hog, same with CPU.

Running 4k Med Settings with 4x AA forced on (have to click, apply; it turns off, click again, apply again - it stays on)

3070, Ryzen 5 5600x, 16gb PC 3200

Spoiler

30 FPS

60 FPS

29 FPS

30 FPS

20 FPS

59 FPS

59 FPS

 

Hope that helps!

[The Aziz]

Nearly. I assume nearly 100% utilization means your VRAM is also eaten completely?

Framerate looks somewhat better than my 2060, but it still squeezes the last drops out of that GPU of yours, nearby planetary surfaces.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

 

12 FPS in Low Orbit

17 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Nearly. I assume nearly 100% utilization means your VRAM is also eaten completely?

Framerate looks somewhat better than my 2060, but it still squeezes the last drops out of that GPU of yours, nearby planetary surfaces.

You know - I'm not completely certain.

What I can tell you is that when the game works - it's playable.  The game I'm running atm. is using the stock craft.  I'm past this point shown above, well inside the atmosphere and currently over the site of the old Pyramids (I think).  Just like other times when I'm flying low over Kerbin and the terrain is interesting... I'm getting 12 FPS.  That is headache inducing after a while.  Very noticeable choppiness.  So 12 FPS over space is fine - but 12 FPS when the ground is close and the camera is moving around a lot - is not.

Because of this - I don't spend a lot of time close to the ground in most places.  I'd really like to have a fast plane I can drop into the area to look for the pyramids - but the stutter is nausea inducing (literal, not figurative).

That said - any time I'm getting over 20FPS and actually just playing, it's fun.

Edited March 10, 2023 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

@The Aziz - Added part about being close to the ground.  Not good for spaceplane flying; but okay for rocketry.

Let me just add: I'm waiting for the first two patches to make any decisions.  Probably should wait for whatever patch drops the PQS system refinement they're working on; but that may be a while.

 

I'm convinced that a 3070 is entry-level for 4k.  The current series is MUCH improved for 4k... but ungodly expensive.  I'd planned on just sitting this gen out - but if 4k performance remains way below my expectations, I may just start ferreting away my lunch money for a while - then biting the bullet.

[The Aziz]

I'm less worried about PQS - I have somewhat better fps on Mun and Minmus than I have on Kerbin, Duna and Eve - I think it may be the atmo that's also eating my frames, even when clouds bug out and disappear.

And I am running on old 1080p screen, 4K is not even in my dreams right now.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

8 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

I'm less worried about PQS - I have somewhat better fps on Mun and Minmus than I have on Kerbin, Duna and Eve - I think it may be the atmo that's also eating my frames, even when clouds bug out and disappear.

And I am running on old 1080p screen, 4K is not even in my dreams right now.

IIRC 4k is 4x more demanding on a GPU than 1080p - so maybe someone running a 3070 on an HD monitor will reply.  That said; I'd guess you'd do very well with a 3070 pushing HD.

[SimonTheSkink]

I run:

RTX 3090
(4) 16gb 3600mhz RAM sticks (64gb total)
Ryzen 5900X

I will need to test my framerate when I get a chance tonight.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

On 3/10/2023 at 12:22 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Running 4k Med Settings with 4x AA forced on (have to click, apply; it turns off, click again, apply again - it stays on)

3070, Ryzen 5 5600x, 16gb PC 3200

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

30 FPS

60 FPS

29 FPS

30 FPS

20 FPS

59 FPS

59 FPS

 

Hope that helps!

Post Patch

Still getting 30 FPS at KSC (the loaded in screen)

60 FPS in the VAB

27 FPS at the Launchpad

14 - 21 during launch.  14 during low level flight - 21 exiting the atmosphere.

52 in Map Mode (when you can do maneuver nodes; still don't know if that's the correct term)

20 in LKO looking at Kerbin directly (planet fills screen)

60 looking at stars

Settings remain the same

 

[RocketRockington]

4 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Post Patch

Still getting 30 FPS at KSC (the loaded in screen)

60 FPS in the VAB

27 FPS at the Launchpad

14 - 21 during launch.  14 during low level flight - 21 exiting the atmosphere.

52 in Map Mode (when you can do maneuver nodes; still don't know if that's the correct term)

20 in LKO looking at Kerbin directly (planet fills screen)

60 looking at stars

Settings remain the same

 

So overall the same, basically?  If you're gonna keep going with this tabulation, it'd be easier for people to understand if you tracked the delta, but of course thats up to you.