when will KSP 2 have support for low end pc graphic cards like intel types... and the price is absurdly high for me.

[zemiel123]

I'm frustrated at the price. this needs to be better. 

$77. Too much for me! and the Devs say that the price will rise.

 

[zemiel123]

although i wanted the price to decrease

urrgh

[gussi111]

You want the game to run on an integrated GPU?

[RocketRockington]

Probably when low-end integrated graphics chips are being sold that have at least the power & available memory of at least a 1650.  I'm sure KSP2's min-reqs will drop some in the future - but not by enough to make today's low-end graphics chips be able to run it well.

Edited June 12, 2023 by RocketRockington

[Meecrob]

I think the OP means Intel ARC budget priced add-in cards, not integrated graphics.

https://www.intel.ca/content/www/ca/en/products/sku/229151/intel-arc-a770-graphics-16gb/specifications.html

[zemiel123]

 

1 hour ago, Meecrob said:

I think the OP means Intel ARC budget priced add-in cards, not integrated graphics.

https://www.intel.ca/content/www/ca/en/products/sku/229151/intel-arc-a770-graphics-16gb/specifications.html

 

also, the price is bad enough. 

[RocketRockington]

54 minutes ago, zemiel123 said:

also, the price is bad enough. 

I think @Meecrob is kidding, that's a $350 dollar card.

[zemiel123]

i meant the price of KSP 2 

[Superfluous J]

To address both of your points:

1. No one knows when - or even if - the minimum specs will come down or what they will come down to. It's best to expect them to not come down much, so you'll be happily surprised when they do.

2. Yes it's more expensive than most think it's worth. I agree with you that it's not worth what they're charging and I can even get it for less than $77.

My advice to you is to pretend it doesn't exist for a while, and check back on it whenever you hear either that it's been updated or it goes on sale. At that point, see if the new content or lower price makes it worth purchasing.

That's what I'm doing.

[Dakitess]

I, for myself, consider that KSP2 should totally run on last-gen high-end CPU integrated graphics.

KSP1 totally run on old-gen CPU integrated graphics, with crappy settings of course. It runs 1080p with good settings using recent-gen ones, on laptop. It does, try it.

KSP2 is supposed to be more optimized than KSP1 at a given graphics, right ? Well, KSP2 is not particularly beautiful at max, nor it is a minimum settings.

To me, it should totally run at minimum settings on a 12500H cpu which embed a Iris Xe Graphics. We know it does not AT ALL, but according the promise to be more optimized (which is totally required), to the fact it does not look demanding at all (really, it's not...), it should.

And it's quite in the motto of KSP to be able to run on students laptop with a bare 1050 mobile or their integrated graphics, to enable workers to get in the train and run it on their professionnal GPU-dedicated-less laptop, with crappy graphics but running nonetheless. I'm myself doing a lot of courses using KSP as the main support. Celestial mechanics, Kepler Laws, etc etc, at very different levels. I'm not able to recommend KSP2 at all, not to mention the bugs and stability but solely because of performances. And the students don't get how / why we should work with an older version while the new one just came in and is supposed to be better in any way.

It would be fine to have some dedicated very low settings to enable this. Like being able to use lower definition, to deactivate some graphics stuff, so that it would run even very correctly with this settings.

Again, read me : nope, it's not because "it's a new game that it's normal to ask for new rigs, new components", that "it's normal for a new game to not run well on a 1650". This is NonSense than has been repeated again and again while the game we are speaking about is KSP2, because it's not beautiful, it does not feel it's demanding by any means visually speaking. It should be more (more (more)) beautiful at max settings, so that rich players can enjoy a magnificent game that would benefit a LOT from good graphics and allow for low graphics for smaller rigs. But now that it's not happening, at least the oldish graphics should run on low end specs, clearly, and it would fit the KSP spirit.

[asmi]

5 hours ago, Dakitess said:

KSP2 is supposed to be more optimized than KSP1 at a given graphics, right ?

Who said that?

5 hours ago, Dakitess said:

Again, read me : nope, it's not because "it's a new game that it's normal to ask for new rigs, new components", that "it's normal for a new game to not run well on a 1650". This is NonSense than has been repeated again and again while the game we are speaking about is KSP2, because it's not beautiful, it does not feel it's demanding by any means visually speaking. It should be more (more (more)) beautiful at max settings, so that rich players can enjoy a magnificent game that would benefit a LOT from good graphics and allow for low graphics for smaller rigs. But now that it's not happening, at least the oldish graphics should run on low end specs, clearly, and it would fit the KSP spirit.

This is nonsense. How beautiful the game is has very little to do with performance, especially since "beautiful" is very subjective.

To the OP - may be one day integrated graphics will be fast enough to run anything other than desktop and a decade-old CS, but that day is yet to come.

[Dakitess]

Who said that ? Because you... Disagree ? You don't think that a game supposed to be dev from scratch a by a pro team a decade After an indie game with dirty basis, should be more optimized ?... And Nate himself did say that, KSP2 will be more optimized. It probably aimed more at part count craft handling but hell, we don't have it either and I feel reasonable to extend to graphics performance. You're free to think otherwise. Do you ?

Regarding the fact that "being beautiful" and "performance" has very little to do together, well... I won't elaborate further. Your right to think so as well, but going hyperbolic and attacking won't help, at all. A bit of fairness and honesty is required. I gave my personal take about it, with some comparisons and éléments, do it as well if you feel like discussing the subject. Otherwise you're only debating about my message rather than the subject, telling me i'm wrong and... That's all. 

[asmi]

1 hour ago, Dakitess said:

Who said that ? Because you... Disagree ? You don't think that a game supposed to be dev from scratch a by a pro team a decade After an indie game with dirty basis, should be more optimized ?... And Nate himself did say that, KSP2 will be more optimized. It probably aimed more at part count craft handling but hell, we don't have it either and I feel reasonable to extend to graphics performance. You're free to think otherwise. Do you ?

It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree, it's about managing expectations.

1 hour ago, Dakitess said:

Regarding the fact that "being beautiful" and "performance" has very little to do together, well... I won't elaborate further.

As someone who did a fair bit of graphics programming, I know that to be true for sure.

1 hour ago, Dakitess said:

Your right to think so as well, but going hyperbolic and attacking won't help, at all.

I wasn't hyperbolic nor did I attack anyone, I simply used the same language you did.

[LoSBoL]

2 hours ago, asmi said:

Who said that?

No one did probably, but I definitely had the expectation it would run on decent on-board graphics because of a couple of things.

First off I expect the orbital mechanic calculations not becoming more difficult in a decade between KSP1 and KSP2.

Secondly KSP1 was always considered an unoptimised mess, and KSP2 has always been stated to be built from the ground up.

Thirdly time hasn't stood still, and onboard graphics in the course of a decade has developed enormously, I can play GTA V with a low voltage 10th gen cpu and on-board graphics. Yes, it's potato graphics compared to running it on my rig, but it's playable with decent framerates.

Graphics can be tuned down to potato quality in just about any game.

And lastly, KSP is not a 'gamers' game to me, it played on potatoes and the market it's for is not the gamer, but everyone who has a certain affinity with 'Space', I'd expected that same continuation being optimised for that same market.

I did create my own expectations, based on above which I for myself found logic points.

Maybe it will still happen and it gets optimised to run of business laptops again, but it would surprise me.

[shdwlrd]

Ok... there is the thing that that no one touched on in this thread. Intel is only supporting and developing for the modern graphic API's. I don't know what DX version KSP is built on, but if it's not DX12 or any other modern API, KSP will run like crap on the Intel Arc cards.

[regex]

KSP1 looked like it was a decade old on release and for that reason I don't want KSP2 to be playable on an integrated card. Let the game look good, no compromises for crap hardware.

[zemiel123]

so, the problem is that ever since I heard about KSP 2, i'm pretty much want to see the interstellar update and all. it's all the waiting that is boring.

all of you guys can get KSP 2 for reduced price using steam keys. 

[Superfluous J]

5 hours ago, zemiel123 said:

all of you guys can get KSP 2 for reduced price using steam keys. 

Please no one do this. Buying discounted Steam keys for ANYTHING is a global economics jerk move.

[Periple]

I think it's most likely that KSP2 will have current-gen consoles as the baseline. At a minimum that means a stable 1440p/30. If they hit that, higher-end PCs will be able to run it at 1440p/60 or 4k/60 with DLSS or similar, and you can haul the GPU spec down a fair bit by turning off some of the bling, especially if you settle for 1080p/30.

I think it's somewhat unlikely you'll ever be able to run it decently on even the best integrated graphics that are currently available. Since the intent is to keep supporting and developing the game for several years well past 1.0, it is likely that at some point during that timeline integrated graphics will improve to the point where they will be sufficient. 

However, I think it's possible to optimize the graphics to the point that even current-gen integrated graphics will do the job. I just don't think it is going to be a priority any time soon -- they have a lot of work to do to get rid of bugs, get it running well on target hardware, and implement all the features on the roadmap. There are scenarios where the performance goes up a lot relatively quickly: there could be easy optimizations with a very big payoff, or there could be a situation where the pressure is off the tech art and graphics programming teams so they have a slot to put in a lot more effort optimizing, and so on. So it's possible we'll all be positively surprised!

[Wheehaw Kerman]

On 6/14/2023 at 4:29 AM, Periple said:

I think it's most likely that KSP2 will have current-gen consoles as the baseline. At a minimum that means a stable 1440p/30. If they hit that, higher-end PCs will be able to run it at 1440p/60 or 4k/60 with DLSS or similar, and you can haul the GPU spec down a fair bit by turning off some of the bling, especially if you settle for 1080p/30.

I think it's somewhat unlikely you'll ever be able to run it decently on even the best integrated graphics that are currently available. Since the intent is to keep supporting and developing the game for several years well past 1.0, it is likely that at some point during that timeline integrated graphics will improve to the point where they will be sufficient. 

However, I think it's possible to optimize the graphics to the point that even current-gen integrated graphics will do the job. I just don't think it is going to be a priority any time soon -- they have a lot of work to do to get rid of bugs, get it running well on target hardware, and implement all the features on the roadmap. There are scenarios where the performance goes up a lot relatively quickly: there could be easy optimizations with a very big payoff, or there could be a situation where the pressure is off the tech art and graphics programming teams so they have a slot to put in a lot more effort optimizing, and so on. So it's possible we'll all be positively surprised!

And there’s also a silver lining with the EA: the possibility that by the time 1.0 drops we’ll all be out of school, making good money, and able to afford high end rigs…  

#optimism #silverlinings

[Gargamel]

2 hours ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

And there’s also a silver lining with the EA: the possibility that by the time 1.0 drops we’ll all be out of school, making good money, and able to afford high end rigs…  

#optimism #silverlinings

I’ve been out of school for a few decades now, a century even if you squint, I have a good job and make good money, and I still can’t afford a high end rig.  

[zemiel123]

35 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

I’ve been out of school for a few decades now, a century even if you squint, I have a good job and make good money, and I still can’t afford a high end rig.  

yeah, i believe that when KSP came out, you were wanting to play (and lo and behold, BUGS!!) the same thing happens to KSP 2. the Devs are counting on ksp 1 popularity to get them set up for ksp 2

[Gargamel]

3 minutes ago, zemiel123 said:

yeah, i believe that when KSP came out, you were wanting to play (and lo and behold, BUGS!!) the same thing happens to KSP 2. the Devs are counting on ksp 1 popularity to get them set up for ksp 2

No, not really, I was and am willing to wait till they iron it out.    I’m pretty sure it’ll get there, and when it does, I’ll happily play it on my couple year old rig.    I’m already accustomed to 30-40 minute load times with 20 burn times in KSP.     It’ll get optimized and will run fine eventually.   

[regex]

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

I’ve been out of school for a few decades now, a century even if you squint, I have a good job and make good money, and I still can’t afford a high end rig.  

Mostly the same here, but I saved up for two years (hundo here, fitty there) in order to afford my new machine and even "waited in line" to buy a new video card.

[zemiel123]

17 minutes ago, regex said:

Mostly the same here, but I saved up for two years (hundo here, fitty there) in order to afford my new machine and even "waited in line" to buy a new video card.

that is a lot of waiting

if you wait more, the ages will start to show their toll