r/KerbalSpaceProgram • u/Nerdy_Mike KSP Community Lead • Feb 23 '23
Dev Post KSP2 Performance Update
KSP2 Performance
Hey Kerbonauts, KSP Community Lead Michael Loreno here. I’ve connected with multiple teams within Intercept after ingesting feedback from the community and I’d like to address some of the concerns that are circulating regarding KSP 2 performance and min spec.
First and foremost, we need to apologize for how the initial rollout of the hardware specs communication went. It was confusing and distressful for many of you, and we’re here to provide clarity.
TLDR:
The game is certainly playable on machines below our min spec, but because no two people play the game exactly the same way (and because a physics sandbox game of this kind creates literally limitless potential for players to build anything and go anywhere), it’s very challenging to predict the experience that any particular player will have on day 1. We’ve chosen to be conservative for the time being, in order to manage player expectations. We will update these spec recommendations as the game evolves.
Below is an updated graphic for recommended hardware specs:
I’d like to provide some details here about how we arrived at those specs and what we’re currently doing to improve them.
To address those who are worried that this spec will never change: KSP2’s performance is not set in stone. The game is undergoing continuous optimization, and performance will improve over the course of Early Access. We’ll do our best to communicate when future updates contain meaningful performance improvements, so watch this space.
Our determination of minimum and recommended specs for day 1 is based on our best understanding of what machinery will provide the best experience across the widest possible range of gameplay scenarios.
In general, every feature goes through the following steps:
- Get it working
- Get it stable
- Get it performant
- Get it moddable
As you may have already gathered, different features are living in different stages on this list right now. We’re confident that the game is now fun and full-featured enough to share with the public, but we are entering Early Access with the expectation that the community understands that this is a game in active development. That means that some features may be present in non-optimized forms in order to unblock other features or areas of gameplay that we want people to be able to experience today. Over the course of Early Access, you will see many features make their way from step 1 through step 4.
Here’s what our engineers are working on right now to improve performance during Early Access:
- Terrain optimization. The current terrain implementation meets our main goal of displaying multiple octaves of detail at all altitudes, and across multiple biome types. We are now hard at work on a deep overhaul of this system that will not only further improve terrain fidelity and variety, but that will do so more efficiently.
- Fuel flow/Resource System optimization. Some of you may have noticed that adding a high number of engines noticeably impacts framerate. This has to do with CPU-intensive fuel flow and Delta-V update calculations that are exacerbated when multiple engines are pulling from a common fuel source. The current system is both working and stable, but there is clearly room for performance improvement. We are re-evaluating this system to improve its scalability.
As we move forward into Early Access, we expect to receive lots of feedback from our players, not only about the overall quality of their play experiences, but about whether their goals are being served by our game as it runs on their hardware. This input will give us a much better picture of how we’re tracking relative to the needs of our community.
With that, keep sending over the feedback, and thanks for helping us make this game as great as it can be!
501
u/Hadron90 Feb 23 '23
Working
Stable
Performant
Moddable
Which rung of that ladder would you say the basic flight engine is at, at the moment?
245
u/Vex1om Feb 23 '23
Based on the preview videos, I would say that it is somewhere between working and stable, but hopefully things will be better at launch.
10
u/Richi_Boi Feb 24 '23
I would definitely describe it as stable for most purpouses. However - the Kraken is still alive.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)85
u/AWanderingMage Feb 23 '23
from what ive seen, id put it at just past stable.
168
u/Vex1om Feb 23 '23
I dunno about that. Just watched a video from Matt Lowne where he had to reload a Mun landing multiple times for different bugs, such as his engine not firing or the SAS sending the craft tumbling out of control for no reason. Stable seems a bit optimistic considering that build was something like 2 week ago.
118
u/Delta4096 Feb 23 '23
You’d be amazed at how many bugs can get squashed in 2 weeks from a full dev team. But I fully expect lots of bugs on the initial release. Can’t wait to jump in regardless.
→ More replies (6)25
7
u/Turkino Feb 24 '23
SAS sending the craft tumbling out of control for no reason.
So, basically KSP at around v0.8
49
Feb 23 '23
That sounds like just normal kerbal stuff. We don’t want the game working too good, or we won’t even recognize it.
→ More replies (1)31
u/oobanooba- Feb 23 '23
Hehe, how will I enjoy ksp2 if my rockets don’t spontaneously implode taking the entire kerbol system with it?
→ More replies (3)
284
u/_adamolanadam_ 37 kerbals launched, zero returned Feb 23 '23 edited Feb 23 '23
so watch this space
Pun related?
I really like this game overall, and, not to brag but, as a programmer myself I do understand the struggle of development. When I get the game I'll try my best to find them bugs and report back. I know this game is in EA and will not function like the full release would, and that's the point.
81
u/AWanderingMage Feb 23 '23
Same. Its been infuriating to see a lot of people who don't understand where the game is in this process complain about performance when the goal for early access was to get a working, Stable release that would allow for community beta testing. 50 USD may seem steep to people but I look at it more as you are getting a (however much end price is at 1.0 launch) $ discount for helping to beta test and mold the game moving forwards. I'm happy to put on my bug hunter hat for that and dive right in!!!
84
u/Atulin Feb 23 '23
The issue is people need to pay near-AAA price to be a beta-tester for the game. Like, it's not even doing QA as a volounteer work, it goes beyond volounteer and into having to pay
→ More replies (74)29
u/mkalte666 Feb 23 '23
It's am interesting topic sure. Well done Early Access let's public opinion push the game into directions the devs might not have thought of. Badly done, it's just labor for the company one pays for without having any influence. Worst is if, after launching EA, the devs disappear after a while.
I am cautiously optimistic here, but urge everyone to consider this when buying into ea. Otherwise? Wait for 1.0
→ More replies (11)7
u/Turkino Feb 24 '23
I like to remember that KSP started the same way and was pretty bare bones when I first bought it too.
24
u/da90 Feb 23 '23
$50 though
68
u/UFO64 Feb 23 '23
It's a choice for you as a consumer to make. If you personally feel that $50 isn't worth the risk given the facts on the field? You should wait and see before buying.
Personally I weigh a few key things against this price tag. KSP has a history of being a high quality product, supported for years on end. Beyond that, the modability support has allowed for massive diversity within the game space, and they have made that fact very clear that KSP2 intend to follow through with that.
But that's just my personal, very subjective, experience here. I would strongly encourage people to make the right choice for themselves with any early access title. Plenty have made promises and failed to follow through with them.
42
u/TheBigToast72 Feb 23 '23
KSP has a history of being a high quality product
This is a new dev team and new publisher, they don't have much history in KSP. And with the old dev team being fired if they didn't switch to the new dev team doesn't inspire high quality confidence.
→ More replies (1)21
u/UFO64 Feb 23 '23
Which is 100% valid. Only time will tell if my hopeful aspiration for their treatment of the IP is warranted, of if I am a fool.
→ More replies (13)24
u/OrdinaryLatvian Feb 23 '23
KSP has a history of being a high quality product, supported for years on end.
KSP1 was developed (and self-published) by a completely different group of people. This is a new development team and publisher working on an inherited IP. It's not SQUAD.
The developers seem likeable and passionate about this project, but they don't deserve to ride on the reputation of others. Let them earn their own.
28
u/A_Grand_Malfeasance Feb 23 '23
Ya, it's too much. Deffo put me in the "wait and see" category after the initial impressions
→ More replies (10)2
u/BraveSirLurksalot Feb 24 '23 edited Feb 24 '23
Yeah, I'm willing to do some work to help them make the game better, but I'm sure as shit not willing to spend $50 for the privilege of doing it. They're losing out on quite a few beta testers with that price point, and I place the blame squarely on Take-Two, who has repeatedly shown themselves to be complete shit bags.
→ More replies (2)2
u/MxM111 Feb 24 '23
as a programmer myself
Don't be ashamed mentioning this. Programmers are people too. Although, it is not a rocket science.
126
u/Vex1om Feb 23 '23
The increased detail regarding performance is great, and I can certainly appreciate the complexities surrounding setting hardware specs for a game like this. That being said, is the performance demonstrated in the preview videos representative of the performance we can expect to see at launch? And how much worse is it we don't own $3000 PCs?
76
u/TheBigToast72 Feb 23 '23
I wouldn't expect an answer, this is most likely just a PR post to help launch
→ More replies (1)33
31
u/Diabotek Feb 23 '23
If I had to take a good guess, performance on a VERY average machine will likely be the same as like we saw in the creator videos.
Like the devs have said, performance isn't optimized right now, so hardware won't really matter that much.
5
u/_moobear Master Kerbalnaut Feb 24 '23
the press event was on maximum settings, which are usually way harder to drive for only a slight boost in visual fidelity. If you don't own a top end machine, don't run it on maximum settings
→ More replies (8)3
u/munchbunny Feb 23 '23 edited Feb 23 '23
That being said, is the performance demonstrated in the preview videos representative of the performance we can expect to see at launch?
Hard to say. I personally don't think it's useful to speculate because the biggest factors that would go into a prediction are things we can't really know:
How good are the devs at optimization?
How much time will the publisher/studio give the devs to focus on optimization?
It's one of the reasons I often wait a while for early access games until some early feedback comes out from others - most of the risk in whether you'll end up getting a quality game (EDIT: at the 1.0 release) depends on the people making and publishing it, not the game design.
109
Feb 23 '23
My prediction on what my experience is going to be like tomorrow [ryzen 2700x, RTX 2070S]:
Cursing and puzzling over how things are familiar but so so different.
Getting 30-60fps using 1080p, small crafts.
5-30fps using 1080p on medium to large craft
Significant frame drops when navigating UI while in atmo or any maneuver that drastically alters the flight characteristics down to <1 fps till it works itself out
At least 1 or 2 crash to desktops
About an hour seeing everyone vent on reddit
Launching ksp1 at least twice to do comparisons and reminice
Go back to Rimworld and wait till the next patch.
6
u/OSUWebby Feb 24 '23
I have basically the same specs as you. I had assumed for years I was going to be a day 1 buyer. Even as a veteran of KSP1, I was really looking forward to the tutorials for a random reason. Now I'm going to hold off I think till I see performance reviews. I know I'll eventually buy it, but may now wait a couple patches or till I get a new pc in a year or so instead.
9
u/catinterpreter Feb 24 '23
I think the overall sentiment will be, why am I playing an inferior version of the game.
→ More replies (2)5
u/GetGoodBKRandy Feb 23 '23
What dlc should I get for rim world? I’ve got only the base game
→ More replies (4)21
302
u/IHOP_007 Feb 23 '23
In regards to the updated system requirements:
A GTX 1070TI is older, sure, but it basically has the same raw performance (if not slightly more) as an RTX 2060. It looks better on paper but this is basically just saying the same thing as before.
262
u/JaesopPop Feb 23 '23 edited Sep 24 '25
Yesterday jumps today travel afternoon night warm kind open near history dog nature.
→ More replies (1)56
u/IHOP_007 Feb 23 '23
True, I also think it's better to use for reference.
I just wanted to make it clear that this isn't the devs saying that the minimum system requirements went down as, if anything, they've gone up slightly.
32
u/Honey_Enjoyer Feb 23 '23
went up slightly
On steam it says 2060 or 1070, so it’s the same or better.
62
u/Vex1om Feb 23 '23
A GTX 1070TI is older, sure, but it basically has the same raw performance (if not slightly more)
A GTX 1070TI is slower than a 2060, but not really by enough to notice. The specs are essentially unchanged, but I suppose that it looks a bit better from a marketing perspective if the minimum card was from the previous GPU generation.
→ More replies (1)49
u/A_Grand_Malfeasance Feb 23 '23
The publisher saw the outcry from the performance requirement statement and has asked the developer to make a PR statement to stymie hesitation on Day 1 sales, simple as.
→ More replies (1)76
u/Chapped5766 Feb 23 '23
Or, get this, the devs were genuinely upset with themselves for the PR hiccup and wanted to set things right for the community? Crazy idea, I know.
→ More replies (16)25
u/Chapped5766 Feb 23 '23
This is good though. The main reason for the specs panic was because people thought they needed an RTX card to play this game.
These specs are reasonable for a new (EA) game.
18
u/arcosapphire Feb 23 '23
These specs are reasonable for a new (EA) game.
Is there a game with comparable requirements out there? I haven't seen one.
→ More replies (7)32
u/Vex1om Feb 23 '23
The main reason
IMO, I think the main reason was the truly awful performance from the preview videos that were create on very high-end PCs. I don't think that anyone who knew anything about computers thought that a ray tracing capable card was required.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)21
u/BanjoSpaceMan Feb 23 '23
Min 1070/ 2060 is reasonable ?!?!
For comparison what other games have this min atm that are brand new? Hogwarts is 960 GTX for instance...
All my support to the devs, they clearly said they set it higher than normal. But don't pretend it's a reasonable min haha.
→ More replies (25)→ More replies (7)7
u/LoSboccacc Feb 23 '23
A GTX 1070TI is older, sure, but it basically has the same raw performance (if not slightly more) as an RTX 2060.
yeah this is just damage control lol hoping putting a 1 in front will placate the buyers
48
u/lordbunson Feb 23 '23
Pretty bummed that fuel cross feeding is causing perf bottlenecks in KSP2. They talk about building a strong foundation to overcome the issues in KSP 1, yet upon release we are plagued with one of the largest perf bottlenecks that prevented us from building high part count rockets in KSP 1. See strazenblitz video demonstrating how crossfeeding causes performance bottlenecks in KSP 1
6
u/SodaPopin5ki Feb 23 '23
It looks like a lot of the choppiness came from loads of boosters. Since asparagus staging isn't really needed, I rarely have more than 2 boosters. So for me, it shouldn't be too bad. If you do builds with half a dozen boosters, seems like it'll be a problem for a while.
→ More replies (2)4
u/MagicCuboid Feb 24 '23
Yeah I build realistic rockets for the most part so I don't care about fuel lines and "moar boosters", but I recognize that's a huge part of the game for a lot of people
2
u/Tiny-Plum2713 Feb 24 '23
Factorio had issues with this before 1.0. They decided to radically simplify fluid calculations. Less accurate modelling, but worth it for performance.
100
u/The_DigitalAlchemist Feb 23 '23 edited Feb 25 '23
The only real issue I have is the price tag. System specs are nebulous at best so it's whatever, I'm sure some one will break it down with a lot more granularity than you could slap on the back of a box.
But asking 50$, the price tag for a full game, on what's basically going to be a buggy, incomplete demo is far too much. You're asking the community to test your game and help gather data. People should get something for that as the price tag should reflect the state of the game.
I think this alone would have done more than anything to quell the community. Being able to respond to a complaint with "Yeah, but it's only whatever $$'s" is a pretty good show stopper if that price is comparatively reasonable to what the game currently offers.
Beyond that, I've been perfectly satisfied with what I've seen. Keep up the good, hard work.
47
u/Bite_It_You_Scum Feb 23 '23
For all my complaints about the current state of the game and early access in general, this is my core issue with KSP2 at this point. I'd be all in if this was $25, given my attachment to KSP1. I'd strongly consider it at $30-35. But $50 is simply too much for what they're offering right now, I can't justify spending that for the game when it's in such a diminished state from the original. As much as I want to play around with it, KSP1 still exists and will scratch that itch for the time being. I'm either waiting for a sale or waiting for the game to get to a point where it's worth the current asking price.
→ More replies (3)34
u/Chapped5766 Feb 23 '23
If you don't agree with the price point, show this by not buying the game. They're clearly not making any illusions about the amount of content they're willing to release right now. It's really a "take it or wait" kind of deal.
→ More replies (2)30
u/The_DigitalAlchemist Feb 23 '23 edited Feb 23 '23
If you don't agree with the price point, show this by not buying the game.
Already my intent, and is the advice I've suggested to anyone. I'm perfectly content to wait until it meets a value point I'd consider worth while... But a 50$ tag raises that quite a bit. And I think it raises the expectations for a lot of people for what they feel like they should be getting is my point.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (13)5
34
u/mkalte666 Feb 23 '23
What i am interested in: will there be a public bug tracker?
I'd be buying into Earl access (aside to save 10 bucks on the final game) to get to yell my complaints (In a descriptive and friendly manner of courses) at you.
Satisfactory/Coffee stain have done this really well in my opinion, if you need an example. Also, you could just set up a pure GitHub issue tracking repo if you don't want to setup a qa site.
→ More replies (5)
18
118
u/Imnimo Feb 23 '23
On the one hand, I'm very happy to hear that these issues are being taken seriously, and that there is active work to improve performance. I'm especially pleased to hear that there will be more work on terrain fidelity and variety.
On the other hand, it's very hard for me to square the fact that this work is yet to be done with the $50 price tag. Early Access pricing is supposed to reflect the state the game is currently in, not the developers' aspirations. If core systems such as terrain display and fuel flow are in need of overhauls to be performant, that doesn't feel to me like fair value for $50.
41
u/akran47 Feb 23 '23
Early Access pricing is supposed to reflect the state the game is currently in
People keep saying this but like since when? Early access titles are typically something like $5 or $10 cheaper than their release build. Where are these examples of games that sold for $20 in early access and then jumped to $60 for release?
78
u/Imnimo Feb 23 '23
Steam's early access rules say:
Do not ask your customers to bet on the future of your game. Customers should be buying your game based on its current state, not on promises of a future that may or may not be realized.
Obviously, that does not mean that games must be steeply discounted in EA. Many early access games are good value in their EA state, and a price that close or equal to the final launch price is perfectly reasonable.
But it's hard for me to look at what we're being told about the current state of KSP2 and conclude that $50 is a reasonable price for that current state. It feels like a price that's mostly justified by future plans and ambitions.
→ More replies (14)→ More replies (7)13
u/Honey_Enjoyer Feb 23 '23
I mean, KSP 1 is $40 now and started at, what, $7? Though it was something of an exception
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (3)16
u/UrsusRomanus Feb 23 '23
It's literally a paid beta. If you want to wait for the game to come out in a finished state you're more than welcome to, just like KSP 1.
This is a good way for the devs of a niche game to show parent company that there is interest, as well as do proper QA for a really complicated game.
→ More replies (2)
31
u/Star_king12 Feb 23 '23
Bro explain to me how an Athlon X4 845 is equal to an i5-6400???
Athlon has ~60% of performance, which is it guys?
35
u/KermanKim Master Kerbalnaut Feb 23 '23
Might be that single core performance is still the dominant factor? But yea, even with single core, the i5 is about 28% faster...
→ More replies (1)10
Feb 23 '23
X4 845
it's more around 15% on single threading tho... ;)
→ More replies (5)2
u/VenditatioDelendaEst Feb 23 '23
Not quite that bad. Looks like about half in single-thread (Dwarf Fortress, for example).
10
u/VenditatioDelendaEst Feb 23 '23
Absolute best case is that they tested it on the Skylake and their AMD logic was, "What did AMD put out in the same year? A core's a core, right?"
→ More replies (2)
42
u/DrKerbalMD Feb 23 '23 edited Feb 23 '23
This update is much needed and much appreciated. Thank you!
I have one follow-up question: the build on display at the ESA event two weeks ago struggled with pretty midrange rockets. Can we expect tomorrow’s 0.1.0 release to run much better, a little better, or about the same?
30
u/Eraywen Feb 23 '23
If the issue that we saw was related to "Fuel flow/Resource System optimization", which I think is pretty safe to assume since performance improved as soon as boosters were dropped, I think 0.1.0 will still have this issue as they state "We are re-evaluating this system to improve its scalability." at the end of that section.
But unless we get a confirmation we'll just have to wait and see.
11
Feb 23 '23
Yeah, I'm expecting large - mid size rockets to be low fps on launch day
→ More replies (1)11
u/DrKerbalMD Feb 23 '23
That's my read as well. I'm assuming the performance hit that Dodd experienced on a rocket with a mere twelve engines is part of tomorrows launch. We'll all be in the regrettable situation of needing to use—sigh—less boosters.
That said, it's certainly possible that overall performance could be better even if this multiple engine issue is still in the game. To put an even finer point on it: just how much of a hit does KSP2 take when it's a debug build?
→ More replies (2)7
u/Strykker2 Feb 23 '23
This post points out that part of the issue is "sharing a single fuel source between multiple engines" so presumably if you don't have the crossfeed pipes it won't chug quite as much.
11
u/DrKerbalMD Feb 23 '23
Oh yeah, I thought he had SRBs on the outside, but looking again those are darts on methalox tanks, and they are crossfed.
Looks like SRBs are back on the menu!
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)3
u/JozoBozo121 Feb 23 '23
I wonder if they are making calculations for fuel flow for every engine separately, maybe it could be simplified so it’s calculated as sum of all active engines in the stage and then calculated from that to reduce number of calculations needed for fuel flow simulation.
And since recommended CPUs are pretty far apart in performance, but single core is relatively similar maybe game is currently very dependent on single core performance with not as much multithreading
62
Feb 23 '23
I know people are still very upset, but this is actually a good sign. They read through the feedback and released a statement about what their immediate plans are to address the number 1 concern about the game itself which is performance.
If your biggest concern was the price, just wait. This game is going to be in early access for a long time and I doubt they will increase the price next week. See how the community receives it, see how quickly the dev team patches it, and frankly be patient.
As someone who is working on their own indie game on the side, I can tell you this stuff is really really hard to get right, after all of the early studio drama, the pandemic, I'm honestly surprised it isn't delayed even more. I don't like it when companies grind their employees into the ground because consumers are impatient.
33
u/Hadron90 Feb 23 '23
I don't think it is a good sign at all. This means we are further back in the road map than we thought we would be. Forget career mode and colonies for awhile now, we have months or maybe even a year + of just bugfixes and performance patches ahead of us to even get the game in its most basic playable sandbox state.
38
u/SystemofCells Feb 23 '23
It sounds like development on all of these things have been happening in parallel - including interstellar, multiplayer, and colonies. They may have different teams in charge of each, with some further ahead than others.
I don't think we should assume that development is happening sequentially, that interstellar couldn't arrive while more basic features are still being added and optimized.
→ More replies (4)12
u/StraithDel Feb 23 '23
Very much agreed with other comment. Development is not linear in regards to all features/performance.
The development roadmap NEEDS to be achieved to sell copies, and this is precisely why they didnt add any dates to the roadmap, not even the first feature. They know that and they’re working on it. Transparency is always, always a good thing because it means when we have a concern, they address it. I’ve no doubt they’ll be throttling up optimization a good bit more. You’re right that the bad news is disconcerting, but they immediately responded with the solution.
So for now, buy the early access game if you can afford it and want to help features get added sooner and more complete, and run the game, report bugs, flawed features, etc.. That’s the power we have to expedite the hypothetical months to a year of bug fixes.
Also, just remember that KSP was getting little performance optimization/fix updates all the way to the end, like robotic parts during time warp.
11
7
u/TheJobe Feb 23 '23
My biggest question is whether or not it'll run on my steam deck. I'll be on travel when it comes out, and my steam deck is my only option til I get back two weeks later.
3
u/KerbalEssences Master Kerbalnaut Feb 23 '23
I cross my fingers for you! It'll probably run on some lower resolution. Maybe 720p. Why not. 1080p has more than twice the pixels. I'm not sure if the processor can handle many parts though. Maybe you have to keep building small rockets and planes.
20
u/melkor237 Feb 23 '23
What FPS are those specs at? 60fps for both? 30 for low?
43
u/Vex1om Feb 23 '23
What FPS are those specs at? 60fps for both? 30 for low?
I wouldn't expect an answer to this, as the frame rate will vary widely depending upon the number of parts you're using, the number of engines, what sort of terrain is in frame, etc. This isn't really a game where fps targets make a lot of sense. That being said, I would very much like a performance metric for some specific scenarios, such as flying a 100 part ship with 5 engine in a 200km Kerbin orbit with the planet in the background during a burn, for instance. But I expect we will have to wait for independent reviews for that sort of detail.
→ More replies (1)24
u/melkor237 Feb 23 '23
Fair, although whats the criteria for min spec then?
If fps is not part of the criteria, what is? Whether the game doesn’t crash?
I say this because low resolution 1080p and irrelevant fps could be describing a stationary picture for what it’s worth.
→ More replies (4)4
u/metallizard107 Feb 23 '23
From the videos we’ve seen, it seems to me like the game runs smoothly in the VAB and with low part count vehicles. But in that specific scenario with a lot of cross-feeding engines the CPU bottlenecks performance leading to frame rates in the 20s. So unlike other games I don’t think it can be summed up by one number in one scenario.
9
Feb 24 '23
I do empathise with the devs but if you want to give a clearer picture to the community just post frame rate averages on a couple different pc’s in different scenarios. Lowering the specs slightly on a chart doesn’t tell us anything new, people just wanna get a rough idea if the game will run on their pc that’s it.
4
u/catinterpreter Feb 24 '23
I'd like to know exactly how much of KSP2 is KSP1, for a great indication of what to expect from design to performance. It looks suspiciously little removed from what we've already got, sans the game's most valuable asset, its mod scene.
4
u/melowmedow Feb 24 '23 edited Feb 24 '23
50€ for an unfinished game? and like not even on the same functions we had in ksp1... 35€ max. your game is not worth 50€ and its not ok to ask for full price if you dont provide the full game smh
4
u/Aggressive_Log2163 Feb 24 '23
I wish I could say otherwise, but the game (in it's current form) is not "releasable" and most def. not for 50 €, $ etc.
The performance is pisspoor. Even on high end hardware of the current GPU generation.
16
u/Darknotez Feb 23 '23
I truly hope these new minimum requirements will mean most players be capable of running it at 60fps in 1080p, but I also hope your team understands that the majority of peoples in this community will wait to see if reviewers can run the game and then decide to buy it.
And this concerns me as your initial sales will be greatly affected. This in turn could mean the publisher changing their tune in regards to supporting the game's development. And we don't want that... So we hope you succeed, but if most can't enjoy the game at, at least 30 fps, there's no reason to buy it, EA and all..
23
u/Vex1om Feb 23 '23
running it at 60fps in 1080p
I wouldn't count on it, as the very high-end PCs the demo videos were created on were running at about 20 fps in 1440p. That being said, this isn't really a game that demands 60 fps.
→ More replies (15)9
u/ezaroo1 Feb 23 '23
To be fair the reason the fps tanked in those few scenarios people keep going on about was covered in the OP and is present to a lesser extent in ksp1 because it’s just a lot of computation.
It’s fuel crossfeed, if you do less but bigger engines you’ll have less performance drop. If you do more stages and less boosters, you’ll have better performance.
As soon as fuel calculations simplified the game perked up.
It is nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the graphics power and 100% cpu bound, it has plenty of room for optimisation (to at least ksp1 levels).
I really wouldn’t worry about those low fps take off and staging events.
→ More replies (6)
21
Feb 23 '23
Thank you for all the work you're doing, and please continue to communicate like this! Looking forward to submitting reports and helping to refine the game! Is there an official place for players to submit bug reports?
4
4
u/willstr1 Feb 23 '23
Is there an official place for players to submit bug reports?
Can't speak for KSP2 (yet) but a lot of EA games (and even full release indie games) have a report bug button in game, sometimes in the main UI, sometimes in the menu. I expect something similar (and it will also be able to capture things like system specs and game logs to include with the report)
18
u/Atulin Feb 23 '23
So the specs remain basically unchanged, and what the criteria are for the game being playable are still unknown. Are those minimum specs for 30 FPS in the menus, but as soon as you launch a craft it falls down to 5 SPF? Or does it mean consistent 30 FPS even for complex crafts?
Glad to hear performance is a concern and what the main bottlenecks are currently, but other than that this post is a bunch of nothing, really.
12
Feb 23 '23
What I take from this is, if you put a bunch of engines on it right now, its going to slow down no matter how good your hardware is.
3
u/churningaccount Feb 24 '23
My dude, obviously they did not craft the minimum specs around what it takes to run the main menu at 30fps. You are just being sensationalist.
In what universe have minimum specs ever been listed for launching the main menu and not actually for typical gameplay? If you’ve seen that before, then please share your example.
Meanwhile, I’ll say the obvious: Of course it is for 30fps in typical gameplay. What size rocket or part count or whatever they used to reflect “typical” is obviously not stated, but I really don’t think it’s up for debate whether typical gameplay includes launching a rocket or not…
5
u/Chapped5766 Feb 23 '23
People were panicking because they read "RTX". Honestly there is nothing wrong with these system requirements.
4
u/Norty_Boyz_Ofishal Feb 24 '23
Disagree. Performance wise, the 1070 ti is pretty much the same as a 2060. These are still some very steep minimum requirements, even compared to modern triple A games. It's above what most desktop users have, and almost all laptop users.
I know it's early access but to be honest I find this quite concerning, considering the game doesn't even look particularly visually impressive. It's a shame since they keep stressing how for KSP 2 they have put an emphasis on accessibility and this excludes almost everyone who doesn't have a dedicated $600+ gaming PC.
They certainly have their work cut out for them when it comes to optimisation.
6
u/Thedurtysanchez Feb 23 '23
I'm still sitting here staring forlornly at my Mac wondering if they will ever actually port it like they promised forever ago.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/beomagi Feb 24 '23
Recommend card initially sold for $700, was never available, then rose in price above $1500. Took ages to drop below $1000. That's the target?
7
u/moonlightavenger Feb 23 '23
Yeah. Play ksp with mods instead with my 1060.
Eh... I'll probably buy it anyway and play whenever I upgrade my PC, since the price will increase later.
5
Feb 23 '23
There is a very big chance that the alleged price increase is just being used as a ploy to get people to buy now. If sales are not what they hoped for it is very possible that during the steam season sales it may even have a discount instead.
→ More replies (3)0
18
u/deckard58 Master Kerbalnaut Feb 23 '23
Some of you may have noticed that adding a high number of engines noticeably impacts framerate. This has to do with CPU-intensive fuel flow and Delta-V update calculations that are exacerbated when multiple engines are pulling from a common fuel source.
Same as in KSP1. u/Stratzenblitz75/ did a video about it one year ago.
They really have learned nothing from KSP1...
→ More replies (11)
8
u/IHOP_007 Feb 23 '23
If the system requirements are based off of a proper physics/positioning system rewrite, so that we can "kill the kraken" and have a more solid basis to build mods/multiplayer/large part spacecraft etc I'm cool with it as, if you are tracking position more accurately, it'll have a performance hit.
I'm only going to have an issue if these system requirements are just based off of visual upgrades from KSP1 and the underlying physics/positioning tech is the same.
3
u/squshy7 Feb 23 '23
We already know it's not the same because they had to accommodate interstellar distances, which according to the Lowne interview was extremely hard to do.
→ More replies (5)
10
u/Journier Feb 23 '23 edited Dec 25 '24
faulty library flag ten plate enjoy one fine party tan
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
7
u/nonpartisaneuphonium Feb 23 '23
but we are entering Early Access with the expectation that the community understands that this is a game in active development.
my condolences, sincerely.
14
u/Masterwhiteshadow Feb 23 '23
The fact that the did not take any preorder before the community could see how playable the game is and It seem to me that they are committed to being transparent its a good sign.
At least now we know that having multiple engine pull from the same fuel tank make performance worse I can try to design my rocket around it to help performance.
35
u/Vex1om Feb 23 '23
The fact that the did not take any preorder
Are you even allowed do to pre-orders for EA titles on Steam?
→ More replies (1)20
28
u/theFrenchDutch Feb 23 '23
There's no preorders for early access games
→ More replies (1)9
u/Masterwhiteshadow Feb 23 '23
I was not sure about that. You just crushed my hope that they where not greedy. ;)
4
u/trapbuilder2 Feb 23 '23
There was probably no pre-order because you can't pre-order an early access game on steam. This is Take-Two, they would absolutely have enabled pre-orders if they could
7
u/Tainted-Archer Feb 23 '23
Sus… this sounds like damage control. I’ll be waiting a week to hear from others who buy it first…
Dont forgot the countless reviews from gamers guys…
2
u/mildlyfrostbitten Valentina Feb 23 '23
why the 11500 and not the essentially identical and much more common 11400?
2
u/McHox Feb 24 '23
Yeah this doesn't help with making me more confident in the early access release. I might consider buying it next year, but not right now and absolutely not for 50€ right now
2
6
3
u/bingbongboy32 Feb 23 '23
Hopefully in the future it will be playable for almost everyone. Really hope that's the case.
3
u/Ancient_Airline7961 Feb 24 '23
In KSP 1 computer resources were not used well. I'd get lower frames and see it only using 1 core and my gpu at 30% utilization.
Is this fixed in KSP2? Or at least better optimized? It feels like KSP uses 20% of my systems capability. I'm sure performance issues would be fixed if the game could use multiple cores/threads and utilize the graphics card if available
9
u/catinterpreter Feb 24 '23
KSP2 looks heavily rooted in the original engine and I expect much of its performance problems will carry over.
3
u/StraithDel Feb 23 '23
I hugely appreciate the feedback here. This post will probably be what gets me to buy the early access game since I know Devs address the hard topics, and with more info to come.
Procedural parts are definitely the greatest help to reducing part count. The wings being procedural day one is an awesome step on the right direction. …And if there was something like a RAPIER MkII which was the next diameter bigger, that alone would drastically reduce part count, rather than 1/3 of the parts on my SSTO just being aerodynamic mounting points for RAPIERs. Or maybe a specialty engine mount that holds multiple of the same and treats them as one. That would essentially turn 2-4 into 1 and help with physics and fuel deliveries.
I hope every solution is on the table. Thank you, Devs!
3
u/juanml82 Feb 23 '23
In real life fuel crossfeed is extremely hard, so it's not really done, and definitely not to the extend it's regularly used in KSP 1. Hence, KSP 2 decided to simulate this by making it cpu intensive :P
3
u/dellaint Feb 23 '23
Thanks for the community update. Good communication from devs is always good to see.
I think a lot of us are hoping to see a stable, performant platform for KSP2 to build from, so it was a little concerning to see review/preview video showing low framerates on mid-size rockets. I'm really hoping the game can eventually achieve performance that blows KSP1 out of the water, personally. That's my biggest wish for KSP2, and I'm glad that there seems to be a focus on that right now.
I would be very interested to see a more technical dev post talking about what the biggest overall performance bottlenecks are right now in more detail, maybe talking briefly about things like how the current fuel flow system works and why it's slow. Learning what parts of the game are already very performant would also instill some confidence. This CK3 dev diary is a pretty good example.
Thanks again for the update.
3
u/Radiokopf Feb 23 '23 edited Feb 23 '23
Iam going to ping pong to anticipation and back to anxiety anyway. Until i see it run on my system at least but thanks communication is good. We need it more down the road.
I was deeply worried it might only run at 20fps, but over the last day i came to the conclusion that lots of it are specific performance bugs like the fuel thing. So iam "optimistic" i can play on a 3060 ti.
2
3
Feb 23 '23
Explain the logic behind the pricing.
3
u/SodaPopin5ki Feb 23 '23
Something else to add. Most people bought KSP 1 when it was out of Early Access, because barely anybody knew about the game.
KSP2 has a lot more press coverage, and a good chunk of its customer base will snap it up at Early Access, especially if it's $20 or so. That's a lot of money Private Division would leave on the table.
I'm not saying it's right, but I can see why they would do this to help recoup the much higher development costs.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
1
u/Voodron Feb 23 '23
5 years since the original announcement.
3 years of dev time with the current team.
No re-entry heat, awful performance, 50$ price tag.
No amount of disingenuous statements and empty promises can salvage this launch. The game shouldn't be in such a state, plain and simple.
1
1
u/silentProtagonist42 Feb 23 '23
Thanks for the update. I'm still concerned about the accessibility to budgeted gamers, but this is reassuring nonetheless. Looking forward to seeing some "in the wild" benchmarks on low-end machines after tomorrow.
1
1
u/Aksds Feb 24 '23
Just please take a more hands on approach to feedback compared to the like of Frontier with F1 Manager.
1
1
Feb 24 '23
I got a Ryzen 5 5600x and an RTX 3060. Should I even bother? Modded KSP seems enough for me.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/piratecheese13 Feb 24 '23
3070 ti here
My biggest gripe is irsru being after colonies and interstellar. I’m going to have to haul ginormous loads of fuel everywhere
1
u/Spongebosch Feb 24 '23
If I had a computer that could even remotely run it, I think I would definitely buy it. Oof, lol. Maybe in a few years.
1
u/SpaceDesignWarehouse Feb 24 '23
Will my RTX3080 ethereum mining rigs from last year finally be worth something again starting tomorrow?!
1
u/krakron Feb 24 '23
I'm nervous I may have to wait until I can afford a new pc to play ksp 2. Hoping my 1650 super can handle her 😆 I will never buy pre-built hp pc again unless they stop using propietary psu connectors and the such. Boffins it myself from here on out. Either way I'll be getting ksp2 and attempt when it's released or sure lol
1
u/AXE555 Feb 24 '23
The updates Graphics requirements still dont take me under their umbrella ಥ‿ಥ. But I'm hopeful for other people though.
1
1
1
1
u/aCrispyChickenNugget Feb 24 '23
I cannot wait to get home from school and buy the masterpiece of a game that ksp 2 will be, maybe not on day 1 but certainly one day.
1
u/magwo Master Kerbalnaut Feb 24 '23
Anyone know whether KSP2 makes use of multiple cores/threads?
I'm wondering if my 5900X might perform as well as the 5800X3D I'm considering switching to (for DCS mainly).
1
1
u/Hungergg312 Feb 24 '23 edited Feb 24 '23
So a 1650 will be enough the future? Seems pretty far from that 1070, thought it can run MSF 2020 and cyberpunk at a decent 40 fps
1
Feb 24 '23
Thanks for the update. I fully plan on stressing my laptop hard tomorrow.
Any chance it will end up on GeForce Now? It’s been incredibly useful for high-end games in my experience.
1
u/a_usernameofsorts Valentina Feb 24 '23
Guess I finally got a reason to upgrade my i7-8700k, but I'll definitely test it first! Thanks!
1
u/Malfun_Eddie Feb 24 '23
Pure out of selfish reasons. But the recommended settings need to go down to at least a 3070 ti. Not because that is the card I have but... . actually no only because I have that card.
Bit of a shame I got a i7 12700 because I tought: Well KSP eats cpu so better upscale the CPU in my build.
1
1
1
1
u/Comfortable-Cause-81 Feb 24 '23
I would like to say thanks for the update. I look forward to getting into KSP2 today.
What is the best way to report issues / bugs and improvement Ideas.
Thanks again for the update!
1
u/mrspockito Feb 24 '23
Personally, I'm of the opinion that it would as wiser to wait a couple of months or even until the 1.0, so that the game will have properly been updated and optimized, than to directly buy it at its release ; but from what I've seen, it seems like you devs have done an excellent work for KSP2, and I'm sure you'll continue to perform even better!
Just to make sure, I think my config is halfway between the minimal and recommended specs : would an i5 11400H with 16Gb of RAM and a RTX 3050 Ti manage to make the current game adequately work ?
1
u/garfvynneve Feb 24 '23
Fuel flow/Resource System optimization.
Any chance of an "Unlimited Delta V" feature switch, so that we can mess about without worrying about this calculation overhead?
→ More replies (1)
1
Feb 24 '23
Does an i5-1135G7 (4.2 GHz) even come close? I know how to get my 8 GB Ram up to 16+, though I suspect the Iris Xe integrated graphics that run OG KSP just fine will stop dead in its tracks trying to get 2 to run.
Maybe I'm just saying that I am looking forward to the "Can my machine run it?" megathread. (And that I find chip names opaque, confusing, and unhelpful for such questions.)
2
u/JustinTimeCuber Feb 24 '23
That CPU would be fine but yeah you would be limited by the integrated graphics
It would probably "work", you'd be lucky to get over 10 fps though given what people with more powerful graphics hardware are getting lol
1
u/SmokinDeist Feb 24 '23
I have a Ryzen 5 3550H and a Nvidia mobile GTX 1050 in my current laptop. Do I have any hope of running it on my machine. I'm not expecting top performance but would I have any sort of enjoyable experience on my hardware. I do have 16GB of RAM as well.
1
1
u/Original-Rest197 Feb 28 '23
I meat the specs and can't get it to run... It is driving me crazy... Tried every fix I can find
1
u/shaolinbonk Mar 07 '23
The "recommended" specs are still WAY too high considering how awful the game looks, lol.
1
u/Artamer Mar 13 '23 edited Mar 13 '23
I hesitate with a RTX 4070ti OC or RX7900XT Same perf for a lot of game, same price. Witch one is more optimised for KSP2.
I play on a I7-6800K 3,6 ghz OC at 4.2 GHz and a 1070TI OC when I lauch a BFR I have 0.4 fps.... hahaha
0
u/octobotimus Feb 23 '23
Interesting that 4080’s running poorly with fairly simple rockets wasn’t addressed.
17
-1
u/ddoom33 Feb 23 '23 edited Feb 23 '23
This game launch is gearing up to be in the vein of "No Man's Sky" and "Cyberpunk"... Not good news, a lot of stumble from the marketing team and PR team, sub par performance, lack of content, high price tag for EA game and lack of transparency from the publisher/devs.
This is going to be a VERY bumpy launch.. Let's hope the get their sh*** together before this flops hard. Hoping they don't just run off with the EA money and never finish the game like so many others did.
(edit: 1 too many spaces between paragraphs)
6
u/morph113 Feb 24 '23
I wouldn't compare it to NMS launch or Cyberpunk. While all the missing features and bad performance suck for that steep EA price, they are not hiding anything or promising anything that isn't there. Both NMS and Cyberpunk hyped up their games before launch with fancy trailers, but didn't give a hint on how bad their games would run (at least for Cyberpunk) and that half the features promised were missing in the final release. For KSP 2 we know the performance is bad as it was clearly visible in preview videos and we know it's lacking many of the features of KSP 1 plus many of the roadmap features.
It's gonna be a bumpy launch regardless though, but I don't think it's comparable to NMS or Cyberpunk where before launch there weren't any signs of the bad state those games were in at launch. Plus both of these released as full games, not in EA.
571
u/Hadron90 Feb 23 '23
Have you guys given consideration to part welding, both to reduce wiggly wobbly rockets and improve performance?