Raise Your Hand if You Play KSP on a Below-Spec Computer!

[astropapi1]

Well, I'm on a gaming laptop, and all my specs are ok, but my graphics card is messed up. I have 60 mb of dedicated memory and don't know how to upgrade it. So I have to run KSP in the lowest graphics settings.

[Spartwo]

I run it on a laptop with about half the recommended specs.still by some sort of magic get 15 fps on liftoff.(these are ships that have in exess of 300 parts

[musicpenguin]

I use a mac lion or something. Desktop. Lag only with HUGE ships.

[HoY]

I can run up to 600 parts without slowing down on my i7 3770k @ 4.7 with 32g corsair platinum ram, and a superclocked titan, running everything (Everything) at max settings at 2560x1600. Running with graphics set lower does Not improve performance one bit...

Now, having physics delta set to 0.03 (i think thats the lowest setting) I can run 2000 parts and get fluid gameplay (10-15fps) but for every in game second it takes a full 20 real world seconds. This is fine for making videos, and they look great when you see them sped up to look real time, but playing like this is getting old!!!

[ThatBum]

So, if your computer is suffering, slash-and-burn. Complete OS reinstall.

I do that with my Xubuntu box when a new release comes out, except my /home and / are on different partitions. So, I can wipe my / and install the new version on it, but leave /home alone, and now I have a new OS but with all my data and settings intact.

im NOT running it on a eeePC with 2 gig ram intel atom N280 @1.66GHz (2 CPU's)

I have a similar machine, an Eee 1015PED, with an N475 1.8GHz dualcore. Typing to you right now on it in fact. I'm pretty sure it would implode if I ran KSP on it.

[Saku]

With 800+ part rockets and settings on max I get like 20 fps.

Now, here's a piece of text to boast my rig for no particular reason:

3570k @ 4.4 Ghz, Asus reference 7970, 2x4GB G.Skill 1600 Mhz CL9 DDR3, ASRock Z77 Extreme4, HR-02 Macho Rev. A, Intel 330 180GB SSD, 1TB WD Caviar Blue, Asus Xonar DG, Super Flower Golden Green Pro 500W, Silverstone Raven RV02B-EW, Logitech G400, Ducky Shine 2 TKL Mx Brown white LED + Ducky TKL wrist rest, Beyerdynamic DT-770 Pro 80ohm and M-Audio Bx5 D2. Total cost around I'm not boasting this much!

Can't wait for multicore and multithread support and GPGPU calculations.

[Fel]

I have a ghost image for my "slash and burn." (Yay for ~45 seconds (after rebooting into MSDOS) to restore the OS ;p). I keep "Install.reg" files for any program that "needs" a reg entry... have moved the whole %userprofile% directory to a separate drive (excluding reg data) so really... 45 seconds (after boot) and I have a wiped and operational system.

"Windows 7" computer tentatively upgraded to "Windows XP Home" (Using Hacked Drivers)

Some 3GB of RAM with 250MB shared to a cheap Nvidia chipset. (I STILL don't understand why I'd use PAE over /3GB... I don't HAVE more than 3GB in the first place, what is there to extend into?)

2.00GHz 32-bit dualcore processor

But I can get enough FPS to have fun with the game

(I mean, sure; rockets take longer to launch... but come on, you don't need that much FPS to enjoy a sandbox)

[macintux]

I see so many people still doing slash and burn reinstalls...

It's really not necessary anymore, guys. Windows 7 doesn't get slow like XP did and there is software (CC Cleaner) that can clean stuff out if needed.

And it's completely unnecessary on linux.

[Malaugrym]

2.2 dual core, 3gb RAM, ati 3200 mobility gfx, and a stick of butter melted on the mobo. Runs KSP great at lowest settings

Note: Do not ask about butter. Jeb mentioned that specifically.

[Rathkeaux]

When I'm on the road, which is quite often, I run it in CrunchBang Linux on my Toshiba Satellite L45Intel Pentium T2310 / 1.46 GHz ( Dual-Core ) - Memory: 1.0 GB / 2.0 GB (max) - Hard Drive: 80.0 GB - Serial ATA-150 - 5400.0 rpm, which desperately needs to be upgraded. At home on the desktop it is playable, but even on lowest settings all the way around it often crashes and I can get down to 1fps on launches quite often. I honestly haven't paid much attention to what the best current specs for gaming computers are as KSP is the first game that has aroused the desire to escape consoles.

[Giggleplex777]

I get less lag from 200 part rockets than 30 part rockets.

[Accelerando]

I play on an old macbook. I can build 200 part rockets. Anything higher than that being displayed or handled by the physics engine starts dropping my fps to single digits.

This makes things really bad when I want to build bases, so I don't bother anymore. No, I'm not going to buy another computer just so I can play a 24 dollar game. Shut it.

[azazel1024]

Maybe I have missed it somewhere in here, but I am curious, anyone running it on a Windows 8 tablet?

Specifically I am wondering about an Atom based tablet. I am curious both on performance and if it'll even boot up with the SGX based graphics.

I am kind of eyeing up these possible 7/8" Windows 8 tablets rumored to be coming soon. I have an iPad 2, but my son(s) has/have pretty much bogarted it. So I need a new tablet and this time around, I am thinking Windows based, but I want something slightly smaller than a 10" for better portability (I did/would take it to work often and an iPad mini sized tablet would fit in a large jacket pocket, where as a 10" won't).

Anyway, I am not concerned about it being a serious gaming machine, but it would be HUGE fun if I could load it up on a tablet and do even small launches/missions at lower res. I have a nice enough blue tooth keyboard and a very portable mouse (MS arc touch)...though it would require the tablet having at least one USB port of some type (as the mouse is not blue tooth, but has a USB dongle receiver).

Though it sounds like the future tablets coming soon will be baytrail based with Ivy Bridge graphics. Though, again, performance on Atom? The new ones should be faster, but still a lot slower than what Core architecture manages these days. Memory might also still be stuck at 2GB.

Thanks!

[Epthelyn]

I see so many people still doing slash and burn reinstalls...

It's really not necessary anymore, guys. Windows 7 doesn't get slow like XP did and there is software (CC Cleaner) that can clean stuff out if needed.

And it's completely unnecessary on linux.

CC Cleaner works to a certain extent, but with a complete clear-out of my laptop I doubled my FPS in every game I play, including KSP. Random processes really take their toll.

As for the topic in hand, I run a laptop below the recommended specs of every single game that exists, or so it would appear, with Intel integrated grapgrhics. Thankfully KSP, and unity, seems to be much more reliant on CPU power than GPU power so 2.1GHz gets me along just fine provided I turn the settings down. That said, I can't wait for multithreading; getting poor performance because only one CPU is active can be incredibly frustrating

[TheInfamousAstronaut]

I get about 20 fps most of the time and in space I get about 27 fps.

My specs are AMD Sempron am3,ECS mobo,200gb hd,ATI radeon hd 4200 ig. Kerbal space program runs good enough for me, but I think my specs are a bit low.

Off Topic: since were posting some specs, does anyone know if I could run arma 2 with medium low settings?

[Kulko]

Found, downloaded, and fell in love with this game on my 2006 HP nc6320. The specs are:

• Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor T5600

• 1.83 GHz , 2 MB L2 cache, 667 MHz FSB

Windows XP Professional SP2

2 GB (1 GB x 2 SODIMM)

Graphic Subsystem Name

Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 950

Graphic Subsystem Video Card Memory

Up to 224 MB shared video memory

Averaged 5-6 FPS and crashed all the kerbing time. When I finally downloaded the game onto my gaming rig I was ecstatic, and could actually build something decent.

[Johno]

Still on my 2002 model XP box. Not going to change in the near future (although we're starting to think about what the new box will be - it'll be better than this, but probably not up-to-the-minute).

[macbernick]

I don't know what are the min specs really ^^'

I play on a Corei5 [email protected], 4GB, and a GeForce 335M