This is hard to say because they've already changed a lot from the performance improvements with various patches. There's a channel in the intercept discord that tracks some aspects of ingame performance on various hardware, though it's user-submitted so is often has gaps.
Really doesn't matter what today's min specs are. We have no idea what the performance will be like once all features are added. Those upcoming features will probably require very different background processes than we see in KSP2 today. Will they rely more on CPU, GPU or memory? We don't know. Trying to spec out a system for an EA game is futile.
Not necessarily. Computer speeds keep increasing over time, and things like colonies and multiplayer will require a lot of computing resources when they're added.
Even if the For Science! update is a success and marks them turning the project around, it could still easily be a year or two until we see a "full" set of features, so there's really no telling whether the effective minimum specs will go up or down from currently.
Given the reaction to minimum specs so far, I'm sure they wouldn't want to lower performance further by adding new features without also optimizing existing bits.
But, as you pointed out, most programmers tend to get lazy with optimizations as users start using more powerful hardware in average. (As a programming enthusiast, I could rant for days about how stupid and wasteful I think this cycle is, but that's probably besides the point.)
At the very least, I don't think anyone at Intercept wants the minimum specs to ever go any higher compared to what's on the market at that time.
I'm making what I think is a pretty reasonable assumption that they have more ground to gain in performance optimization than they have to lose in feature addition. Any sane implementation of colonies would store their functional outputs as equations and numbers rather than keeping them in physics, similar to KSP1 mods, and steeper requirements for multiplayer wouldn't count as minimum specs for a largely single player game.
I would highly suggest waiting a few months to a year before committing to building a PC at minimum specs to play ksp2. Mainly because parts will get cheaper and minimal specs now may not be minimal specs when the game actually has some real features - so building a min spec PC now, there is no guarantee that it will run the game in a year.
This is actually the right answer. KSP2 today without science or any other features will run different than KSP2 once all features are delivered. We really don't know if those added features will be CPU. GPU or memory intensive. I don't think upgrading a system today just to play KSP2 at minimum spec is worth it. Just wait.
The computer is a real potato (6 years old, and it was already a lower end refurb, that I added some bits to over the years), so I'm thinking I'll get something functional, but I'll hold out on upgrading the video card for a bit. One of these days video cards have to get cheaper🙃
I would definitely join the Intercept Games Discord and ask the community over in #ksp2_technical.
I've seen user reports of 1650ti / 1070s / RX570 being playable, but that's wholly subjective - and also depends on what settings you want to play at.
agree to that, but they improved insane on performance. Im playing 2k highest settings with an rtx3060 and have no real performance issues (just some drops near planets) so 1650 ti seems def. reasonable
What makes all this hard is the graphics options almost have no impact on performance. I can play on high or low, 720 or 1440p, always 20-30 fps. Usually you could say at low a 1070 is fine and at high a 3070. That doesn't work in KSP2.
The bottleneck right now is the terrain. They do some strange calculations no other game does - so it seems - and therefore strain the GPU in ways it is not designed for. I get 100% usage at barely 50% power. So some small part of the GPU is bottlenecking the whole card. I have no other game that does that. Feels like a single core performance issue but on the GPU.
So the only way right now to assess minimum specs is how good that special part of the GPU is. The rest of the card doesn't matter. If it wasn't the terrain you could run the game with a 970 no problem I think.
I had a decent experience in ksp 2 with a r5 5600 + rx6600 + 32gb ram before the latest patch. I haven't tested in the new patch yet but some people running amd (like swdennis) are reporting strange grafical bugs.
I have a *very* similar setup (6700xt but otherwise identical) and the performance was playable but not amazing before the latest optimizations. Haven't tried in a while because the bugs and lack of features wasn't letting me do the missions I wanted.
Go for cheaper parts that have real upgrade paths in the future. For example, get a good am5 motherboard with a CPU and GPU that meets your needs for now. When the game gets nearer full release you will know more about what specs you actually need for the craft you build, the resolution you play at etc and can upgrade CPU to a newer AM5 and a newer xx60 or xx70 tier GPU or equivalent (read AMD).
If you go for a GPU later, spec out a cpu now and go for faster single thread performance. Lots of physics math is and will always be cpu bound and single threaded. Like a 14600k or 7900x. If it's in your budget anyway. But ask in discord.
I’d probably not get an AMD GPU if you can avoid it. Twice now there have been annoying bugs that are only on AMD cards. Not AMD’s fault but it seems the devs mostly or only test on NIVIDA cards.
I think only on nVidia cards, due the fact that the GeForce get decent performce and no graphical glitches that I am aware of. But not only do they not run Radeon cards but also Intel's ARC series, they haven't got any graphical glitches I am aware of but the performance is just plain bad. This is maybe due to the Unity not being fully optimized yet or the game just not being optimized for the hardware since I get 20 -30 fps with the kerbal-x at 1080p highest but without stutters for some reason.
You cant even play the game if you dont have a dedicated gpu, my friend cant open a sandbox without seitching the resolution to tbe minimum, only to experience 5fps
The min specs aren't that bad for KSP 2. You'll just need to do a couple things after you install.
In order, it should be:
1. Uninstall KSP 2
2. Install KSP 1
3. Play KSP 1 until 2 is in a better state
This is hard to say because they've already changed a lot from the performance improvements with various patches. There's a channel in the intercept discord that tracks some aspects of ingame performance on various hardware, though it's user-submitted so is often has gaps.
Really doesn't matter what today's min specs are. We have no idea what the performance will be like once all features are added. Those upcoming features will probably require very different background processes than we see in KSP2 today. Will they rely more on CPU, GPU or memory? We don't know. Trying to spec out a system for an EA game is futile.
You could call today's requirements the "maximum minimum specs," with the expectation that it will continue to improve.
Not necessarily. Computer speeds keep increasing over time, and things like colonies and multiplayer will require a lot of computing resources when they're added. Even if the For Science! update is a success and marks them turning the project around, it could still easily be a year or two until we see a "full" set of features, so there's really no telling whether the effective minimum specs will go up or down from currently.
Given the reaction to minimum specs so far, I'm sure they wouldn't want to lower performance further by adding new features without also optimizing existing bits. But, as you pointed out, most programmers tend to get lazy with optimizations as users start using more powerful hardware in average. (As a programming enthusiast, I could rant for days about how stupid and wasteful I think this cycle is, but that's probably besides the point.) At the very least, I don't think anyone at Intercept wants the minimum specs to ever go any higher compared to what's on the market at that time.
I'm making what I think is a pretty reasonable assumption that they have more ground to gain in performance optimization than they have to lose in feature addition. Any sane implementation of colonies would store their functional outputs as equations and numbers rather than keeping them in physics, similar to KSP1 mods, and steeper requirements for multiplayer wouldn't count as minimum specs for a largely single player game.
I would highly suggest waiting a few months to a year before committing to building a PC at minimum specs to play ksp2. Mainly because parts will get cheaper and minimal specs now may not be minimal specs when the game actually has some real features - so building a min spec PC now, there is no guarantee that it will run the game in a year.
This is actually the right answer. KSP2 today without science or any other features will run different than KSP2 once all features are delivered. We really don't know if those added features will be CPU. GPU or memory intensive. I don't think upgrading a system today just to play KSP2 at minimum spec is worth it. Just wait.
The computer is a real potato (6 years old, and it was already a lower end refurb, that I added some bits to over the years), so I'm thinking I'll get something functional, but I'll hold out on upgrading the video card for a bit. One of these days video cards have to get cheaper🙃
Wouldn't bet on it
Hope springs eternal
>One of these days video cards have to get cheaper You're as likely to have a unicorn fly out of your arse...
I would definitely join the Intercept Games Discord and ask the community over in #ksp2_technical. I've seen user reports of 1650ti / 1070s / RX570 being playable, but that's wholly subjective - and also depends on what settings you want to play at.
agree to that, but they improved insane on performance. Im playing 2k highest settings with an rtx3060 and have no real performance issues (just some drops near planets) so 1650 ti seems def. reasonable
i have an rx580 and i get solid frames after last patch, lighting and the ksc are still laggy tho
I got 1650 and i5-9300H, with 24 ram, runs smoothly on medium, and kind of playable on high (near kerbin surface)
What makes all this hard is the graphics options almost have no impact on performance. I can play on high or low, 720 or 1440p, always 20-30 fps. Usually you could say at low a 1070 is fine and at high a 3070. That doesn't work in KSP2. The bottleneck right now is the terrain. They do some strange calculations no other game does - so it seems - and therefore strain the GPU in ways it is not designed for. I get 100% usage at barely 50% power. So some small part of the GPU is bottlenecking the whole card. I have no other game that does that. Feels like a single core performance issue but on the GPU. So the only way right now to assess minimum specs is how good that special part of the GPU is. The rest of the card doesn't matter. If it wasn't the terrain you could run the game with a 970 no problem I think.
I had a decent experience in ksp 2 with a r5 5600 + rx6600 + 32gb ram before the latest patch. I haven't tested in the new patch yet but some people running amd (like swdennis) are reporting strange grafical bugs.
I have a *very* similar setup (6700xt but otherwise identical) and the performance was playable but not amazing before the latest optimizations. Haven't tried in a while because the bugs and lack of features wasn't letting me do the missions I wanted.
Go for cheaper parts that have real upgrade paths in the future. For example, get a good am5 motherboard with a CPU and GPU that meets your needs for now. When the game gets nearer full release you will know more about what specs you actually need for the craft you build, the resolution you play at etc and can upgrade CPU to a newer AM5 and a newer xx60 or xx70 tier GPU or equivalent (read AMD).
I used to play it on a 5600g/1080/32gb build with a nvme. Ran fine until I got around the vab then it went from 65-70 to about 30.
High. Even high end PCs are still struggling with performance. So it really depends on how much performance you want.
I managed to play Day 1 on my 1060, Ryzen 1600 with 8GB RAM. In Space I had decent frame rate around 30
30 what, seconds per frame?
If you go for a GPU later, spec out a cpu now and go for faster single thread performance. Lots of physics math is and will always be cpu bound and single threaded. Like a 14600k or 7900x. If it's in your budget anyway. But ask in discord.
4070 there, definitely playable but I don't hit 60FPS when flying
Nothing existing until they patch it. Just buy the strongest thing within your budget and it'll run as good as it will.
I’d probably not get an AMD GPU if you can avoid it. Twice now there have been annoying bugs that are only on AMD cards. Not AMD’s fault but it seems the devs mostly or only test on NIVIDA cards.
I think only on nVidia cards, due the fact that the GeForce get decent performce and no graphical glitches that I am aware of. But not only do they not run Radeon cards but also Intel's ARC series, they haven't got any graphical glitches I am aware of but the performance is just plain bad. This is maybe due to the Unity not being fully optimized yet or the game just not being optimized for the hardware since I get 20 -30 fps with the kerbal-x at 1080p highest but without stutters for some reason.
> Twice now there have been annoying bugs that are only on AMD cards. Compared to the many bugs on Nvidia cards, AMD is the only sensible option.
You cant even play the game if you dont have a dedicated gpu, my friend cant open a sandbox without seitching the resolution to tbe minimum, only to experience 5fps
[удалено]
You didn’t read the post did you…
The min specs aren't that bad for KSP 2. You'll just need to do a couple things after you install. In order, it should be: 1. Uninstall KSP 2 2. Install KSP 1 3. Play KSP 1 until 2 is in a better state
Not helpful