While there is no reason for any abuse there is also no reason to give them blank check on day 1
Kerbal space program 2 requirements full#
I have moved from Day one purchase to full /r/patientgamers on this game in no time and will need a lot of convincing before I trust them.
3080 was released only 2 years ago so what sort of hardware they were aiming for? To put this in perspective if they have released the game 3 years ago like planned there would be NO graphic card capable of running it at recommended settings.
At this point devs need to prove to me that they can optimize the game before I buy it so far they have done little in this respect. Just to start on some positive naivety: I'm going to give the devs a chance to show whether they can optimize the game to a more reasonable standard for full release before I take out my money.Īt this point there is enough red flags for me 3 years delays, game that was "almost finished" 3 years ago comes into the Early Access with almost no features, the price tag that is huge for indie game (probably only thing I would accept without all other flags as not a big deal), now those requirements. This implies it's something to do with planetary environment rendering, but I know nothing about shaders or rendering processes and thus cannot speculate on why KSP 2 runs worse than Scatterer + average visual mods. Is the graphics simply that intense? I notice that in all the gameplay footage we've seen so far, especially the recent EVA one, the FPS absolutely tanks when the planet is nearby and in view, but not with a large complex spacecraft in view. The site does mention a 1070 Ti though, interestingly enough. However, in that case the GTX 1060 6GB would make the minimum cut. I saw speculation that the 6GB VRAM is what mattered, perhaps an utter lack of compressed textures/LOD. If that isn't the case however, it begs the question why they need such GPU performance for the game. Thank you for clarifying this, I was also starting to think they must have offloaded a lot of physics onto the GPU. Even things like nvidia physX have fallen out of fashion for that reason
Kerbal space program 2 requirements plus#
Plus in recent years CPUs have gotten so fast and graphics so demanding that no developer in their right minds is willing to sacrifice extremely valuable GPU time in exchange for the relatively less valuable CPU time. KSP is far from the most demanding core simulation in a videogame (cities skyline comes to mind) and yet I can't think of a single game that has offloaded simulation work to the GPU (although I'm sure some do exist), it just doesn't make any sense. To make matters worse if you want to offload CPU work to the GPU you then add a lot of overhead to facilitate the communication between the 2, meaning that the performance would likely not even be any better at all. They're not designed for such small workloads as a ~100 entity physics simulation like in KSP. GPUs on the other hand are design to crunch massive quantities of data, on the order of millions of parallel, relatively independant and relatively simple calculations per second. If you have a thousand complex calculations that are co-dependant and have to be performed in a specific order then a CPU is best, that's what CPUs are designed to do. Using GPUs for their compute power is not the golden bullet that many seem to think it is, they're only useful in very specific use cases, extremely large data sets to be specific. This is obvious from the relatively low CPU requirements they've listed, the CPU requirements are still higher than KSP1 because there's a hell of a lot more for the CPU to do in a game than just running the core simulation. If anything it'll run far better than KSP1 thanks to building it from the ground up and not growing organically on a janky house of cards like KSP1's simulation was. The fundamental physics problem that KSP2's physics is solving is pretty much the same as in KSP1 so the core simulation shouldn't be noticeably harder to run than KSP1 was. If that turns out to be true I'll eat my left shoe. That is utterly baseless and would be a very bizarre decision. There's lots of speculation that Intercept offloaded a ton of floating-point physics calculations to the GPU, hence the mildly insane GPU specs.
Send us a message with proof, and we'll give you some flair to show it! Disable header animation Enable header animation Δ | Support/bug reports | KerbalAcademy | ConsoleKSP Last contest's winner: forteefly1998! Have you developed a mod? See this page for more infoĬommunity Teamspeak Server Refrain from submitting images that involve real life space disasters that resulted in loss of lifeĭon't post/discuss mirrors or torrents of any version of KSP See the discussion on misc posts for more info No posts unrelated to KSP or memes and image macros. Please remain kind and civil at all times
0 kommentar(er)
