I think kerbal space program should change its requirements

[Awesomeslayerg]

I think they should add a minimum requirement for the game. Why? It looks like i can run the game on a 256mb nvida 7800gtx. I also have a Dual Core CPU at 2.4Ghz, 6 Gigs of ram.

I get FPS above 40's at really low settings.

[lobsterbark]

There already is a minimum requirement.

[Catullus]

FPS depends on how many parts you have on your ship. Try a 1000 part behemoth and see how well it does.

[Gniuz]

FPS depends on how many parts you have on your ship. Try a 1000 part behemoth and see how well it does.

don't think you can get -1 FPS can you?

G.

[KasperVld]

From the main website:

Recommended System Specs

• 2.0Ghz Dual Core CPU or higher (preferably higher)
  
• 4GB RAM
  
• 512MB Video Card, Shader Model 3.0
  
• 1GB Free HD space
  
• Windows XP, Vista, 7 or 8
  
• An Intel-based Mac running Mac OS X 10.6 or higher

[Xaryn Mar]

It runs on my 1.8GHz Dual Core CPU with 2GB RAM and Nvidia GeForce GTS 450 graphics card (OS: Win XP).

Obviously not on highest setting but I can get it fairly high though I usually run it on something like medium setting. If I lowered everything to minimum it would most likely run fairly smooth.

I don't know if my computer is near the minimum requirements but it runs it fine as stated above.

[Sof]

I just realised what I thought was the highest setting actually wasn't. I've just upped KSP to the "real" highest settings and it looks sooooooo good. Especially the space vistas which were never bad to begin with.

[SecondGuessing]

I just realised what I thought was the highest setting actually wasn't. I've just upped KSP to the "real" highest settings and it looks sooooooo good. Especially the space vistas which were never bad to begin with.

You think KSP is pretty? Download SpaceEngine, it'll blow your mind (and probably run better than KSP).

Yeah, KSP's 'recommended specs' are a little optimistic.

[AmpsterMan]

Main issue with KSP is part count and KERBIN'S OCEAN OF LAG! It's gotten to the point where I went to the config files and edited out the ocean graphics

[cesarcurado]

It runs on my Intel dual core "core 2 duo" e7500, 2.9GHz each

And the most surprising, I have a onboard graphics card.

Good thing ksp is more processor based.

EDIT: Also, I can run Microsoft Flight Simulator X with it somehow, on medium-high settings and about-30 FPS

Edited May 22, 2013 by cesarcurado

[kerbomatic]

My system is pretty close to Xaryn Mar's but with an older NVIDIA card and it runs on Linux. I know I'm below the minimum specs so I'm keeping my fingers crossed on future updates not adding a lot of 'bloat'. Or, alternatively, that I will be able to buy a new computer before the final version comes uit

[SmallChange]

The specs changed somewhere around 18.2 I think.

Before, I recall there be "minimum system specs", but now there are just the "recommended specs". Again, I am guessing here, but I believe that has to do with the good ol mem crashes. You can run KSP on a computer below the recommended specs, but chances are you are going to get crashes on your 2nd or 3rd launch when the mem usage spikes.

So, sub-recommended specs will get you a playable but somewhat unstable game. (At least in my experience, before building my current rig with RAM overkill)

[HarvesteR]

It is notoriously hard to write system specs for PC software, considering the amount of hardware variation there is. Add to that the fact that the game itself is ever changing, and you'll understand why ours is at best an approximated estimate.

Anyhow, the performance you get from the game is also going to be significantly affected by how complex your ship designs are. Ships with less parts will obviously cause less lag than ones with many parts, and there's really no way around that.

Well, there is one way, which is what Spore did: Add a 'complexity meter' to the game, which denies adding more parts after a set cap is reached. With a known upper bound, you can more easily find the requirements to run it decently.

Of course, when this debate first came up, the response from everyone was a unanimous 'No', which I heartily agree with. I'd rather have 'estimated' specs forever than to have to impose some arbitrary limit on everyone, just for the sake of consistent performance.

Cheers

Edited May 22, 2013 by HarvesteR

[thorfinn]

Well, we could have a "soft" meter: it does not forbid anything, but warns you about how complex your ship is for your system.

(How about Werner von Kerman on a corner of the screen in the VAB looking more and more uneasy as the complexity rises? )

[AmpsterMan]

Well the current system IS already a soft system. In fact the "complexity meter" from SPORE is something I had in mind when I realized part counts affect performance. It has led me to build less complex craft. That is went my most recent Mun Rocket has a lift vehicle with only 25 parts as opposed to my older one which was close to 100.

I do think it would be neat if certain parts, when placed on the ship, would become one with the ship. IE Rcs jets becoming one part with whatever part they are attached to.

[HarvesteR]

I do think it would be neat if certain parts, when placed on the ship, would become one with the ship. IE Rcs jets becoming one part with whatever part they are attached to.

Those are called Physicsless Parts. It happens already.

Cheers

[Jokurr]

Those are called Physicsless Parts. It happens already.

Cheers

Is there a way to know what parts have this property when attached? Might help me streamline some of my larger creations.

[HarvesteR]

Is there a way to know what parts have this property when attached? Might help me streamline some of my larger creations.

Not a lot of them have it, admittedly. You can find out which ones by looking for a PhysicsSignificance = 1 on the part.cfg files.

Of course, adding that line would make any part physicsless, which is definitely not recommended to do... Unless parts going off on their own each to their own corner of the solar system, or watching a stream of error messages go by the console is your idea of fun gameplay.

Cheers

[KasperVld]

Not a lot of them have it, admittedly. You can find out which ones by looking for a PhysicsSignificance = 1 on the part.cfg files.

Of course, adding that line would make any part physicsless, which is definitely not recommended to do... Unless parts going off on their own each to their own corner of the solar system, or watching a stream of error messages go by the console is your idea of fun gameplay.

Cheers

*starts editing part files*

[RoboRay]

Well, we could have a "soft" meter: it does not forbid anything, but warns you about how complex your ship is for your system.

(How about Werner von Kerman on a corner of the screen in the VAB looking more and more uneasy as the complexity rises? )

I like this, actually... no hard limits on your designs, just a caution.

[Guest]

^^^ I can see the first challenge based on this: who can turn Werner into a screaming, hysterical wreck over your design first?

[VoodooPriest]

Hello KSP-Forum!

Let's see how low we can go.

ATM I'm running KSP on my trusty old AMD Athlon64 3200+ (yes, that's a single core at 2GHz) with 3 GB of RAM and geForce 8800GT. And, what can i say, it runs, albeit on lowest settings. Launching larger rockets is a bit rough FPS-wise but I can do all the fun things. So far I landed Jeb on the Mün and even built a small space station. I even have some mods installed.

So all in all not too shabby for a game in alpha-stage, I wouldn't have been surprised if it didn't run at all.

Edited May 22, 2013 by VoodooPriest

[Pachi3080]

I have 64Mb of Vram, double core 2.0 ghz cpu, and 3gb of ram, And i can play the game very good with almost all the graphs in low.

Stupid vram...

Excuse me if i said something wrong, my english it's not perfect... I'm argentinian... You know... Spanish language country...