Can I run ksp?

[bearskin98]

Would my system run ksp even with really big ships?

OS Name Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium

Version 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1 Build 7601

Other OS Description Not Available

OS Manufacturer Microsoft Corporation

System Name BRENDAN-PC

System Manufacturer Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.

System Model GA-78LMT-S2P

System Type x64-based PC

Processor AMD FX-4300 Quad-Core Processor, 3800 Mhz, 2 Core(s), 4 Logical Processor(s)

BIOS Version/Date Award Software International, Inc. F3, 10/18/2012

SMBIOS Version 2.4

Windows Directory C:\Windows

System Directory C:\Windows\system32

Boot Device \Device\HarddiskVolume1

Locale United States

Hardware Abstraction Layer Version = "6.1.7601.17514"

User Name Brendan-PC\Brendan

Time Zone Eastern Daylight Time

Installed Physical Memory (RAM) 10.0 GB

Total Physical Memory 10.0 GB

Available Physical Memory 8.10 GB

Total Virtual Memory 20.0 GB

Available Virtual Memory 17.7 GB

Page File Space 10.0 GB

Page File C:\pagefile.sys

Adapter Type AMD Radeon Graphics Processor (0x6658), Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. compatible

Adapter Description AMD Radeon R7 200 Series

Adapter RAM (2,147,483,648) bytes

Thanks : )

[NFUN]

Oh my god, so much useless info! If you need to ask, you could probably run it.... Very poorly.

I just checked. Minimal performance. The card is weak in general, and the power per core is abysmal. And the GPU is also awful, it won't really cut it, even for KSP.

Edited October 26, 2014 by NFUN

[worir4]

Ya however KSP lags on even like monster PCs at high part counts.

P.S Hi Brendan.

[swiftgates24]

CPU will be just as good as a last-gen i3, aka not very good. GPU is also very 'meh', but at least it isn't integrated. 10 GB of RAM is good. As stated above, it would run KSP, but not very well.

[bearskin98]

its an amd r7 260x gpu

[NFUN]

You only have 8GB of physical memory left? You might want to start clearing house.

[Pecan]

SIAS (Suck It And See)

You've had KSP for a while so it's free to download the latest version and try it.

Failing that grab a copy of the demo version and see how that works.

KSP is actually much more forgiving of weak systems (like mine) than most games so I'm pretty confident it'll be playable, but what "really big ships" means to you and whether you'll get the performance you can stand is subjective.

[OrbitusII]

I'm running a Pentium G2020 (Intel, not AMD) and a GeForce GT 630 so direct comparisons probably aren't super accurate, but I can run anything up to 300 parts without significant lag, even with high quality settings and a lot of visual improvement mods. I didn't really build my computer with any particular game in mind, but I can play KSP at close-to-max quality settings and Skyrim on high quality with decent performance. Fun fact, I can also stream KSP at 30FPS, 720p although I have to drop a visual mod to get it there. If your CPU and GPU are comparable or better than mine, you should experience similar or better performance than I do.

As Pecan said, just go for it and try playing. You'll never know how KSP will perform until you try it out.

[bearskin98]

my gpu is better then the GeForce GT 630. It runs good with ksp 0.23. so should the preformance be the same if I buy 0.25? also would my system be able to handle building space stations and mining rigs and other stuff like that?

Thanks guys

[swiftgates24]

I probably should've worded by original post better. It will run KSP at lower part counts fairly well, but I'm assuming by 'really big' you mean 1000+, and at the part count, you will run into some fps drops. Also, .25 is free if you've already bought KSP.

You only have 8GB of physical memory left? You might want to start clearing house.

Physical Memory = RAM, not Physical Memory = Hard Drive space.

[bearskin98]

I probably should've worded by original post better. It will run KSP at lower part counts fairly well, but I'm assuming by 'really big' you mean 1000+, and at the part count, you will run into some fps drops. Also, .25 is free if you've already bought KSP.

Physical Memory = RAM, not Physical Memory = Hard Drive space.

Would it be able to handle things that are in this video?

[tobjv]

The answer you seek is Maybe. You need to give a little bit more detailed then what you've been providing so far. You say your running .23 which is a good sign but you didn't mention what your fps is like at various part counts. (100, 200,300,400 etc till you get below 1 fps) This isn't a perfect formula to find out what your computer can handle but it can help. It won't hurt to try it out. just make sure to make a backup of ksp .23 in its entirety before you try out the new update. That way if it doesn't work you still have your .23 copy.

[bearskin98]

is there a download to a 400 part ship ect..?

[Red Iron Crown]

I run KSP on a far worse PC, you'll be fine. You might not be able to run huge ships but you'll be able to play, which is what really matters.

[OrbitusII]

Also, .25 is free if you've already bought KSP.

I still can't fathom why people don't understand that if you buy KSP once, you don't have to buy it again to get the updates. Seriously, how do people get to that logic?

Would it be able to handle things that are in this video?

If your GPU and whatnot are better than mine, you'll be able to handle these things with comical ease. LLL is a very lightweight mod and has a lot of larger parts that reduce the counts on the vessels in that video to low to mid double digits.

[Wanderfound]

I'm running KSP on a five year old non-gaming laptop that's had a substantial amount of blood and other fluids spilt on it (it's my old lab computer). It's probably also full of rat fur.

You'll be fine.

[swiftgates24]

I still can't fathom why people don't understand that if you buy KSP once, you don't have to buy it again to get the updates. Seriously, how do people get to that logic?

I'm guessing EA took their minds and twisted them. New parts? Great! Now make a small payment of 0.99$ and you can get them today!

[NFUN]

I probably should've worded by original post better. It will run KSP at lower part counts fairly well, but I'm assuming by 'really big' you mean 1000+, and at the part count, you will run into some fps drops. Also, .25 is free if you've already bought KSP.

Physical Memory = RAM, not Physical Memory = Hard Drive space.

Whoops, my bad. I didn't expect the redunancy so I assumed it was something else.

[Cmdr. Arn1e]

Haha, oh you guys...

I'm running an Intel Q8200 quad, 4 gig of RAM, and an ATI HD 5750, and I only start getting lag at about 500 parts+... but not too bad... in 32-bit (haven't dared tempt the Kraken with x64 yet...) Windows 7, off a 64Gb SSD and 2x 240Gb Velociraptors...

Of course, as has been said, some hardware runs the software better than other, similar setups, so yeah, try it and see

[moogoob]

I mainly run KSP on my desktop which was almost a great PC two years ago and it's silky smooth most of the time. I also sometimes run KSP on my laptop - a 2009-era Macbook pro 13" on my win7 partition. I have to turn many features down or off, but it still plays at a playable framerate.

[mythic_fci]

Simplified Version:

He's running Windows 7 SP1 on an AMD 3.8Ghz processor and is using an AMD Radeon R7-260x GPU. He has 8GB of RAM installed.

You can probably run KSP; I had a weaker setup before my upgrade, and I could run it fairly well. Just don't go above 200 parts if possible.

Edited October 26, 2014 by FCISuperGuy

[swiftgates24]

He says he is running an R7 260x.

[mythic_fci]

He says he is running an R7 260x.

Processor or graphics card? Sorry, I'm used to Nvidia and Intel cards.

[swiftgates24]

That would be a GPU

[mythic_fci]

That would be a GPU

Alright, thanks! Post edited for reference.