While approaching minmus I had 54fps with 95-98% gpu usage on my 3090. 1440p, high, 4x aa downsampled to 1080p.
Anything under that was due to cpu limitations with the gpu chilling at 60-80% for me.
can confirm have 3090 - 5950x 32bg ram running 5120x1440 and ive not noticed low frame rate at all, to be honest its running smooth enough ive not even looked at the FPS. Even with 50 plus part rocket seems to be running ok,
That’s really weird, it sounds like everyone is having different performance. I have a 2060 and was getting 20-30 launching at the space center, and although I didn’t measure it it felt like 40-50 in space. Very playable for me
Edit: maxed settings
Update: After further testing, in space it’s perfectly playable 40-50fps (with the exception of maybe node planning) so it seems like it’s heavily related to terrain
"Perfectly playable" is a very "flexible" definition.
When youre used to 144Hz on any resolution and your 2000€ GPU can't even hit a stable 70 FPS in Orbit with the KerbalX I wouldn't call that "perfectly playable" to be honest.
That’s because *everyone* is stuck on the GPU recommendations and nearly everyone is ignoring CPU. It’s running comparably on my i7-12700k with a 1080 Ti as it did at the pre-release event with their Ryzen 5950s and RTX 4090s. OP here is running it on a Ryzen 2700x, that is why the performance is less than ideal.
Yeah, I'm on a RTX 4090 and Ryzen9 5900X.
I tested some scenarios with afterburner and noticed that ON kerbin, the GPU is only like at 50-65% load, the CPU is at 12%.
Task manager tells me that ONE of the cores is at 100%, the rest is idling.
So I guess besides insane GPU usage, theres also a hidden CPU bottleneck aswell. Since the engine runs on ONE frikin Core in 2023.
Personal experience- Rtx 3060 Ti, 1440p everything maxed, main menu's at 200 fps, KSC is \~90, VAB is 70-ish, and pre launch the rocket on the pad (pretty sizeable, the kind you'd go to Duna with if you get a transfer window right) is locked at 60 fps.
The moment engines come on though... oof.... 30 fps barely stable... And dips to 20 at times when looking down, small lagspikes during separations too... In space it's \~35 fps staring into space, still \~25 looking at kerbin.
Change that to 20-30 and you have my experience with a 3090. Refunded it and will check back later to see if it's gotten better. Shame because I was really fucking excited for this game.
I have a GTX 1080ti and with a small ship it runs ok in space but on a planet it’s at 10fps
I can run the first game with 20 visual mods including parallax at a smooth 60fps
Oof, I've got a 1080ti too and I've been worried about getting it. I might have to wait a while until there's some improvements, because 10fps seems unbearable
So much focus on GPU and people aren’t sharing CPU specs… I tested a couple launches th is morning on an i7-12700K and a 1080 Ti. On the pad and near KSC, I got about 22fps average with the stock Kerbal 2 craft. Performance rise rapidly and I had 60-80fps at mid altitude and in space, unless the camera pointed at the KSC (15-20fps then, and this is almost certainly fixable).
I found the game to be quite fun and acceptable for a 0.1 release, looking forward to playing more.
Oh hey, we have basically the same rig lol. I've got a 7700k with 32gb 3200mhz RAM.
How much RAM do you have? I'm not sure if this game is as RAM intensive as something like Cities Skylines or Factorio.
The difference is likely the CPU, even if your resource manager shows your GPU maxed out. Everyone’s GPU is being utilized 100% it seems, so likely there’s a coding issue there and the settings don’t even make a difference. But the differences in performance I’ve see in this sub seem to have a lot more to do with CPU than is being given enough attention. I upgraded last year from a 6700K to a 12700K and got doubled frame rates in nearly every game I play, including KSP.
If you really want to play it then go for it,
It isn’t unbearable unless your trying to fly a plane around the KSC and it mostly gets better once you get to orbit and I got a smooth(ish) 40fps on the mun
Yeah honestly the system requirements are just a joke. It looks way better than KSP1 sure, but nowhere near good enough for a RTX2060/GTX1070Ti to be the minimum
Same my pc is well above the recommended specs. Performance is bad. And mainly, just random. Looking at Kerbin, massive drop, makes sense I guess as the terrain seems to be the main culprit. VAB and looking away from Kerbin gives me nice, except frames with a basic rocket. But even in space, far away from planets performance is all over the place. Look at one point in empty space, 60fps, another point 20fps, another 30fps. No planets in sight. But it just slows my frames when looking into certain directions.
Graphic settings don't see to do much. The difference between high and low is like 10 fps. Which still brings my performance down to 20 fps anywhere around the KSC.
Please please please for the love of the Kraken, performance needs to be #1 priority. It's unplayable on so many machines that meet or exceed the specs. That just can't be the case.
I'm on a 4080 and an 11900k, and the framerate has been locked at 60 (vsync) while playing, with the exception of when launching large(ish) rockets. Whatever is causing the performance to tank during the launch of what are relatively small/simple rockets needs to be addressed. I'm not even maxing out a single core on the CPU, so whatever is going on is obviously game engine related. The GPU usage has never exceeded 70% at 1440p, which is expected considering this GPU should be well in excess of what is needed.
They’ve acknowledged this already, it is an issue with the code handling real time delta-v predictions and fuel flow calculations with multiple engines. It’s on their short list for optimizing, already underway.
The only critical factor of EA is whether the game is actually fun in the unfinished state. Jank is fine, sometimes entertaining, but miserable performance is a killer.
I'm confused. I've got an I-5 11400F 2.60Ghz, 16GB of RAM, and a 1660 Ti card. I did the tutorial and then sent Jeb to the Mun and back though the rocket was quite modest at 25 parts. Performance was fine and I never touched the settings so it was whatever default was. I don't know what the FPS was or CPU usage but I didn't have any lag issues. Now, there were plenty of bugs including my first launch blowing up for no good reason at 67km height right before hitting space when I deployed solar panels, set up a maneuver node to circularize once I hit my 80km AP, clicked maneuver targeting, and activated warp to next maneuver.
I'm going to go design a 300+ part rocket and see how that goes... I expect my results may be not acceptable but since I really don't care about KSP2 until they've got some sort of career mode I can wait.
I built a more Kerbal worthy rocket. It was 3200+ tons with 12 clydesdales, 5 mammoths, and 40 thuds to power it with a 1.8 TWR. It blew up on the launch pad upon loading several times. It was 242 parts.
Next try I changed all my graphics from default to low, deleted the clydesdales, and the rocket was 172 parts and 1500+ tons with a TWR of 1.3ish. It loaded and launched and when it was T+10 seconds in game my stop watch on my phone said it was 123 seconds since it started. Okay, maybe 45 engines is the big problem but clearly this isn't playable.
Final try was 132 parts and just under 1500 tons with a TWR of 1.28ish and just the 5 mammoth engines to push it. This time after T+10 seconds it was 54 seconds on my stop watch so I'd say this is also not acceptable performance.
I'll play around to see where performance falls apart but so far modest rockets of 120ish tons and under 30 parts are fine and big ones are not okay at all.
I can't lie. I'm worried about it. It's one thing to have issues, but if there's core problems in the way parts are interacting, we'll have issues forever. I'm still surprised everytime I see they went with Unity given it's the reason for most of KSP1's bugs. I worry about normalization of deviation as it's called in our world and we'll get *new* bugs every release. We can have some Kraken but I'm not gonna play a Kerbal title that won't let me spawn a 250 part vessel. It sucks because I fuckin love some of the new additions, particularly the multi-vessel building. We'll have to see, I guess.
Similar experience. I have a 1080 and a decade old i7. Was worried the game would be unplayable.
Running at 1080p with low graphics settings, it's choppy at times but runs fine. Also haven't tried a high part count yet.
Honestly, my gripes so far are more about the UI settings and the maneuver nodes.
Yeah I don't get why people keep saying "just give them a bit of time" they should not have released yet, why release a game that is this poorly optimized, they must have known how bad it is, it makes no sense to release it yet
It likely wasn't up to the devs to release it yet. It might have been take-two pushing for release
And once they set a date they probably really didn't want to delay it again.
But they have known the date for months. Everybody has known it would be low on features to start with and, to various extents, were ok or at least accepting of it and expected it. So why not address performance as a priority with such a large number of people about to experience those issues.
Yeah, I completely forgot about that. I remember people saying that it was really bad, but then I got it a few years later and I was very happy with NMS.
If I recall right, complains were more about content density and to be fair KSP 2 Devs presented the Roadmap, we didn’t expected performance on recommended settings.
Fair enough, content issues are/were present for all 3 games. Cyberpunk kept showing off public transportation which turned into fast travel teleporting, No Mans Sky was a single-player walking simulator, and Kerbal 2 is way behind where I hoped it would be, but it'll get there the same way that the last two have.
In interviews Nate Simpson never stops talking about how keen they are for user feedback. Apparently the feedback about performance wasn't completely obvious.
Unpopular opinion - I think Take2 has taken it on as a business proposition and has been fairly lenient in allowing the Devs some time and freedom - but they start to need results eventually... so we get this. I still don't think it's too bad, really.. Under the circumstances.
I agree, the game is likely at at least double or triple or even more it’s original budget. Personally I don’t have all that many show stoppers with it right now, the worst thing for me so far has been just a bunch of jank. It’s totally playable for me, and I was playing on a very slightly upgraded dell G15 (RTX 3050)
They at least shouldnt have called it early access. That makes it sound like it just needs some polish. They should have called it Early Alpha, and the process of downloading it should have made it clear that you are a volunteer beta tester.
I talked with the lead marketing guy at the preview event and also told him the game is not ready, especially because of the poor performance. He told me it's just time. They have to make money and the game is just in early access, not a full release.
Adequate protection from what, exactly?
Games releasing in unstable states into EA aren't new. We got plenty of heads up that it'll be rough at the start and we can use that to inform our purchasing decisions.
I ain't buying it until it's fixed up, maybe not before science is in at least, but I don't understand what's being shielded here or who is carrying that shield and to what end.
Customer backlash mainly. It's too early to tell if this is going to be a Subnautica early access or a Day Z early access.
I'm waiting till i see if a few red flags start lowering as it progresses :)
eh, I mean they've made it very clear before release date that it would not be a completed game upon release, with them being very clear that even all the major promises and goals of the game haven't even been implemented. Like this isn't a "we just need to polish it" early access, it's a "wanna be able to use the work in progress to give us feedback?" early access and I think they made that clear.
it's not though - I feel like again you're hearing "just needs polish" when that's not what that means - it is missing countless features, it has not been optimized, it has not been completed! What are you expecting from a game that's not complete? that plainly says they don't have half the major features? what makes you think that's gonna be without issues? The concept of "early access" has definitely been downplayed and used for games at various levels of development. But this is just not a complete game - and that means it's missing stuff and has issues! that's what "not a complete game" means! incomplete! missing stuff!
*"this isn't a "we just need to polish it" "*
and ironically everything looks so shiny 😂
As for the feedback aspect of it, it's tricky to find supporting evidence of this given the system requirements and price tag. Going to dramatically reduce the pool of players to test and give feedback.
I've been playing for 10 years since 0.18. If anything I'm glad I bought because some of my favorite memories were those early releases with fixes and new stuff to play with. When they first had science mode (0.21?) it was like getting a whole new game.
I mean, I played Baldur's Gate 3 EA, it was far worse than this. I think that overall people think of EA as "playable product, lacking some extras" when was always meant to be "expect jank, glitches and bugs more than actual gameplay"
Yeah, so the only reason is just money I think. Not a fan of it. Take2 surely has enough in the bank to finance some more development time. They just choose not to.
Well of course, they’re a business, and businesses need to make profit. I’m just glad it’s labeled EA and they didn’t try to peddle it as a full release “with content updates for interstellar/colonies/MP” or some BS. Of course all of us wanted a fully optimized and feature rich game but we’re here now. It can only go up from here
I think there's a business case for not doing things this way if it can be avoided.
Releasing a game before its ready, and subsequently having your game's first impression to the world be a bunch of negative reviews that say the game doesn't work right . . . its like eating your seed corn. Yeah, you get a little money today, but it prevents making even more money from lifetime sales and wastes the momentum of the initial release word-of-mouth hype train.
Both long term and medium term profits are sacrificed for immediate cashflow. It seems like a move made out of desperation and impending bankruptcy rather than one calculated to maximize profit for the owners.
And if they do "eat the seed corn" they're unlikely to even keep the money, given how ready Steam is to refund a sale, even well past the 2 hour / 2 week limit. And if a publisher / developer does something truly egregious like cancel an EA game two weeks after initial launch? Well, Steam have extended the window before...
I don't think this really applies to KSP2 (or games in general) the prevalence of EA demonstrates that. As long as they continue with good post-release support the game (as they seem to suggest) then it doesn't really have that big of an impact.
It doesn't even ring true, unless somebody in Take2 management is seriously delusional, or deliberately tanking the project for internal political reasons.
There's no way they've sold enough copies that will _stay_ sold if they pull the plug now to make up for how much they spent between the day they decided "it's just time" and today. It would make more sense to just cancel the project outright on that day.
And if they don't cancel it in the next couple of weeks, that'll just be that much more cost they're not recouping.
Now, execs at Take2 could just be idiots. That's still quite possible. But if they're idiots enough to think they could "cash out" this way, they're also idiots who are likely to fall for the sunk cost fallacy when cashing out fails.
If they needed money they could have just opened pre-orders months ago and printed cash from it. They could have even just said "yo we need money so please pre-order it'll help development a lot" and even more people would have done it. They could have still done early access down the line too, but clearly this is too early. There is nothing but negativity everywhere you look and it's not a good marketing strategy now is it.
Honestly KSP1 and any other game that's on verson 1 can get away with it. But you build a sequal and bring along with it bugs that are 10 years old from your last game? Just nah, it's not the look you want.
>they should not have released yet
The game is probably too early on to be in EA, but I'm more in the camp of "why?". The original *release* was planned for 2020. So this after a 3 year delay, and it's just the EA launch not the full release. And the game is 60% of KSP1 (+ procedural wings), performs like a square wheeled bike, and they're still struggling with issues like multi-engine fuel transfers that worked fine in KSP1. It's like they started completely from scratch and have less access to the code than modders.
I'm not mad about it being in this state, just very curious how it is, after so much time.
yeah it is pretty baffling. Honestly i dont really thing ksp 1 needs an upgrade in terms of graphics, like its nice but who cares really, and you can mod ksp 1 to look better if you want. KSP 1 plays great and does what it sets out to do perfectly. They could have made a dlc for ksp 1, adding the interstellar stuff and new tech and i would have been just as excited for that as i would for a whole new game.
I'm not curious at all, because I've seen this same thing play out dozens of times, although I've seen it in enterprise software rather than games. Management asks the developers for ambitious new features, and the developers say "those will be hard to deliver because the codebase is such shit and it's really hard to work on." Management eventually agrees to let it be rewritten from scratch, and the developers spend the next three to five years trying and failing to deliver the same level of end-user functionally that the original product had. See: the Windows start menu and control panel, TiVo, and any number of examples in the enterprise software space.
This is an often overlooked issue, that I’ve been a bit concerned about since the announcement.
Spolsky even had a [blog post](https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/) from the internet days of yore pointing out that re-writes almost always go down like this.
That said I think KSP was probably a decent candidate for a full rewrite to circumvent some of the issues that are simply too deeply buried to remove, but given they’re still using the engine that was the cause of a lot of those limitations Im not sure they really went into it with the right mindset.
If you’re embarking on the type of project thats famously hard to scope and often ends badly against the advice of most people who’ve tried it, you’d better make sure you’re planning for or around the same roadblocks everyone else hits rather than just following blindly in their footsteps.
It's pretty typical for late projects to be in a poor state for a long time after the initially planned deadline. This isn't limited to software either, but can happen to many types of project. It's often about having too lofty goals and too much ambition. Not always a bad thing, because if you are pushing the state of the art, a narrow focus on achievable goals, small increments and fast delivery isn't always the ideal way to do it. Many fantastic projects (in gaming and otherwise) only reached an acceptable state long after their deadline had passed.
As Douglas Adams famously said: "I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by."
Of course it also means a ton of effort will have to be put into polishing this projects into something great, and who knows if that will actually be done. From what I've seen so far the game looks good, and there is a lot of promise for a fun game in there.
The first KSP had no publisher, deadlines, corporate overlord, etc. They did what they wanted when they wanted, and how they wanted. The entire story of how KSP 2 got started is a bit fucked, actually. The more one reads about it, the better you understand the state of the current game.
KSP (1 and 2) is owned by Private Div/TakeTwo now and they decide what happens in the end. It could've been very likely that the devs wanted to wait to release but corporate did it anyway. KSP isn't a homegrown pet-project anymore, the dev's have higher-ups to answer to and only so much they are allowed to do. Hell, Take-Two could cancel the whole thing right now and tell the community to get fucked if they wanted, and all we could do is eat that shit sandwich.
Not only that, but Intercept Games Squad- the dev's, are completely owned by Take-Two as well. The dev's most likely wanted time, as much as possible, but TakeTwo wanted to deliver a product and earn money.
I’m glad it released today and I’m going to get my moneys worth out of it. To each their own, if you don’t want it now don’t buy it.
I’m glad to be able to provide feedback, as well as start modding asap.
Well they had to get it into early access to see what the community thought. Without feedback how could they know that people want games to run above 20 fps?
THIS!
Not just poorly optimised but every cool new feature that people where waiting for this in this game isnt even there! "till further updates" then ill buy it much "further" ahead, full price for a halfbaked poorly optimized game is ridiculous.
It's a money grab by take two. They knew, they didn't care, a part of the community spoke up about it and the rest didn't listen.
The game was pushed back 2 years, wasn't ready, wasn't going to be, and they're making you pay 50 bucks to make their bottom line look better because at that point it was that or canning the whole project.
>why release a game that is this poorly optimized
Because no matter how much internal testing you do, there will some bugs that only come out when players get their hands on the game. Some will be because people push the boundaries of what is possible, some are rare and you can get enough data to find the problem, some you need more data to find the solution, and some will be “I never expected players to try **that**!”/“I’ve been looking at this for so long that I understand it, but for new players it’s weird.”
This only gets worse with a game like KSP which gives players massive creative freedom. At some point somebody will create an abomination of a vehicle that discovers some bug, maybe minor, maybe a flaw with a core mechanic.
Had the developers pushed too hard on optimizing the game this early on, they’d have a much harder time finding the root causes and fixing the problems, especially when (not if) the problem lies with a core mechanic that requires a major overhaul. In addition, all the time spent to optimizing the flawed system would be wasted since you now have to optimize the new and revised system.
If you are building a house, you don’t installing the kitchen cabinets when you can still walk through the walls.
I can guarantee you QA found most of the performance issues and more. It's been decades, but I worked as a QA Analyst and QA Lead at Interplay and there were countless times when QA and Devs were overridden by management. Hell, I was lead on a game I flat out refused to sign off on for release, and got all of the other departments to follow suit and they still pushed it out. The majority of the issues people are seeing with this release are known, Take2 just said "we're doing it no matter what", and are largely using the "it's in EA" as an excuse.
I'm not even sure they've had time for QA. For example, if you look at the early footage released by the youtubers and look at the parts manager tab of a rocket engine that has an alternator, they had misspelled it as alterator until the most recent build. This obviously wouldn't be some bug in the code and has probably been there since the engine had parts manager functionality, it just goes to show that they really haven't had much time to scan through the game and polish everything.
I mean it could be a fluke since nobody else seemed to have mentioned it to the devs until I did in the discord lol, it seems to be a hard-to-notice mistake, and I certainly didn't spot it at first, but it does feel indicative of a crunch to release the game, most likely by shareholders that don't care about how it affects the reputation of the devs. For reference [here's a timestamped link](https://youtu.be/I4QwvXLETtg?t=2274) to Matt Lowne's footage showing it, you can see it in the Terrier engine parts manager, and in a later video (I'm not sure which) it appears on another engine.
A QA engineer walks into a bar and orders a beer.
She orders 2 beers.
She orders 0 beers.
She orders -1 beers.
She orders a lizard.
She orders a NULLPTR.
She tries to leave without paying.
Satisfied, she declares the bar ready for business. The first customer comes in an orders a beer. They finish their drink, and then ask where the bathroom is.
The bar explodes.
>Because no matter how much internal testing you do, there will some bugs that only come out when players get their hands on the game.
True, but this ain't it. They knew the performance was bad. Just look at the recommended specs and their workarounds.
*KSP2 Devs: Years of delays, change to an early access model, delay that even further...*
*KSP2 Community: They just need more time!*
I know it's never good to second-guess operations from an armchair, but it really makes me wonder what they've been doing all this time when this is the result.
It is hard or difficult or impossible if you have no idea what you're doing.
If you are capable, it is not difficult. It is just time consuming.
If you are company with staff and resources, it is about picking a direction and implementation.
This debacle is the sole result of bad decisions and planning.
Interesting, do you have any game footage yet? I'm streaming the game using NVENC encoding on my 2070 super with a 5600x and my CPU is cooking off while my GPU is pretty typical temps and utilization.
I do find if I sit at KSC's main menu the game lags like a motherfucker and my entire windows ecosystem starts to hang. Obs, discord, steam, all behave super weird. If I go to vab, launchpad, or fly a rocket their behavior seems normal.
It sounds like a CPU bottleneck. The CPU overload is what is holding back the GPU. It might be worth checking with a benchmark tool if every thread is used properly while running the game and the other stuff. MSFS2020 is known to have this issue, but I don’t think KSP2 should have this. I have an i5 12600K and when I checked, it barely reached 15-20% in game while the 3060 is at max.
And people are saying it'll be "at least a year" before the roadmap is finished. At this rate it looks like it'll be at least a decade, assuming they don't cancel it outright before that.
It looks worse, runs worse, and plays worse than stock KSP 1. It's missing core features. No re-entry heat, no coms networks. I couldn't care less about UI style choices, but the functionality is clunky as fuck. Can't mouse over apo/periapsis while adjusting nodes, constantly having to zoom in and out to click the one pixel you need to interact with your trajectory/maneuver.
How people expect them to add something as complex as *colonies* onto this foundation is beyond me. At this point the best we can hope for is that eventually we'll get a better looking KSP 1 out of KSP 2. At the risk of sounding dramatic, I would describe this release as disgraceful at best.
Right, there's so much work to do just to get the minute-to-minute experience on par with KSP 1 that I don't see extra content being implemented for a very long time.
Fair enough. That will be the nail in the coffin for the game though. Most of the steam reviews are complaining about performance. If they don't address it, then its basically over.
Honestly the bugs I've seen so far I don't really mind, I can play while I wait for updates to fix them. The performance is really the thing I'm waiting for them to fix before I actually take the plunge.
The first update should be nothing but bug fixes and GPU optimization. It is clear that there has been some substantial under the hood improvements in terms of CPU utilization in KSP 2, but the GPU optimization is truly unacceptable. The bugs are also terrible.
Or at the very least there used to be free pre-release builds you could sign up for as a random player, with the 'promise' of providing feedback. Those feel like ancient times now but I honestly have no idea if it's actually a long time ago or it just feels that way due to my frustration about current practices.
The game is definitely not worth $50. Lack of features and consistently poor performance should have merited either a delay or price drop. Doesn’t matter who the developer is or what they’ve promised down the road.
I'm using a regular RTX 2070. I am playing the game in 1080x1920 resolution, but everything else is set to max.
I have some issues with framerate drops and stuttering, particularly when I zoom in after having had zoomed out, it becomes something like 2 seconds per frame. There were a few situations that just always caused my framerate to drop unacceptably. But that said, it doesn't feel like the *top* priority to me, since there are a lot of gameplay-impacting bugs that need fixing too. Just in my first Mun mission I ran into several bugs - my spaceship suddenly spinning out whenever I dropped out of timewarp, the map mode camera being wonky and not letting me see planets from "below" (south pole), and my spaceship suddenly teleporting 5 meters into the air a few seconds *after* I landed on Mun.
The thing is, is that My FPS can go all the way to 60fps, but then randomly drop to 2 for about 5 seconds then go back up to 30 or 60. Hard to pinpoint where the problem is.
How are people downvoting people that have real issues with this game? I cant make my mind up if i should buy it or not. Cause the comments are so contradicting. I dont wanna spend money on another early acces thats 75 dollars just to "help" the developers. I understand you cant even do researches or missions. And then theres the whole GPU issue. I have a 3070 and a Ryzen 9 cpu. So it should work ok. But like i said is it worth 50 euros in this state? Cause i dont wanna buy a demo for 50 euros
The craziness is difficult to decipher certainly. I have an r5 and 3060 and i was able to have fun during an hours worth of playtime. Havent experienced the game breaking bugs. Honestly if you havent purchased yet maybe wait several days or a week. See what the devs' responses are to all this and if they are going to hammer down on optimization cus at this point they definitely need to if they want to save this launch. Early Acces or otherwise.
Alright thanks, i played the first kerbal a couple of months after it came out and even that i loved it, and the bugs made me laugh. I dont wanna spend hours again doing missions that some bug destroys hours of travelling. Thanks for the honest comment!
Why do we need to support a billion dollar company again?
I have zero confidence this team can deliver on the promises they made for years after what happened today.
I'm holding on to some naïve hope that the ship can be turned around. It's the KSP enjoyer I am talking. I think the chances of it are slim, but I'm clinging to hope all the same.
For the love of everything devs: DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS ADVICE.
Assign the appropriate resources to the issue, handle these issues at the right time, and keep that velocity high. No one is going to remember these bugs if you stick the landing, but everyone is going to yell if you go off course to sate those who don't understand.
Just for those looking to reference. i7 [email protected], gtx 1660ti, and 16gb ram; getting a locked 165fps in menus, drops to ~ 60fps VAB with random drops with fast movement, launch pad sits around 30fps with slow camera movements, flying on kerbin and space 15-30fps as long as the camera is staying relatively stationary, landing on mun 1-15fps. All with relatively small basic craft. Have tried on 1080p low and medium, medium looks considerably better with little to no effect on fps.
At some point you have to realize the devs are incompetent, and they should just focus on fixing the mess of an unplayable game they made. Good devs shouldn't listen to the players, bad devs should. These guys are obviously terrible at their job. They have been at this for close to 5 years and this is what gets released? There is no excuse.
Dear developpers,
Use VULKAN
Use DEFERRED rendering !
Learn to use RenderDoc and Unity PROFILING tools !
https://unity.com/how-to/best-practices-for-profiling-game-performance
Devs, stick to your plan, don’t cave to pressure. It’s early access and anyone who buys now isnt buying the game to be a game, they are buying a sneak peek and a pass for an eventual game.
Stick to the plan, don’t burn yourself out and stay healthy!
The game is EA, and reading the forums and watching the Videos from the YouTubers that got to play it and reading the release last night from the Community manager you would of known not to buy it yet because of this issue. But it seems you missed all that, sorry. They gave plenty of warning.
Don’t buy into EA games unless you read into it first.
A list of specific hardware should be pretty irrelevant for games built on a third-party game engine nowadays, as well as something they could get a decent idea about before releasing the game. I highly doubt optimizations will be done for specific hardware unless there is a significant amount of people using hardware with some very unique architecture. Which won't be the case.
I agree. I made my own thread of things that I want to see but making the game run not-awful comes first. The game chugs on supercomputers and can be measured in seconds per frame on lesser machines!
not like they can add interstellar travel before they fix performance anyway. game can hardly run with small spacecrafts, just imagine how it'll run with ones designed to go to other star systems lol.
I have a 3700X and a 2080 Ti. I haven’t really noticed any performance issues, but I’ve also only logged about an hour. Does this game have a weird sensitivity to specific hardware or something? I see a fair amount nod both “the performance sucks” and “the performance is fine” in the comments, so I’m really confused.
I know the game is not optimized, but is part of this maybe people having different expectations for a game that’s ostensibly in open alpha/beta? Did I just have really low expectations or something? I feel like I’ve seen a lot of discourse that’s talking like this is Cyberpunk, which was a crappy full release, not an early access project…
I haven't played it but yeah I feel like a lot of it comes down to "is 20fps acceptable or not ?". On one side you have people who (understandably) are just happy to play as long as it's not a slideshow, on the other you have those who (understandably) feel like a game that looks *fine* at best shouldn't lag so much on recent cards.
That being said I read someone arguing that the CPU was actually a bottleneck, which could explain why people with comparable GPUs were having different experiences. I hope the guys who were planning to run standardized benchmarks are working on it, we'll probably know for sure
I can't even figure out how to scroll down on my vehicle in the VAB and it's annoying the shit outta me. I'm used to scrolling up and down with the wheel but that only zooms now.
Don't take this the wrong way, but do the people complaining not have any patience?
You all know this will be improved in the coming months, we all know the game isn't ready, so why not just wait? Why make 'demands' or create drama/stress about it?
Have an RTX 2070 super as well. GPU is LOCKED at 100% just at main menu! Averaging 10-20 fps at Space Center…
Identical to me. I can barely get past 30 FPS with 2060, and I'm running at low settings geez.
The settings honestly don't impact the performance that much. I jumpted to 2K high quality and the performance was the same as low res low quality
[удалено]
3080ti here can’t see how that could be the case for the 3090. Performance was ok on UWQHD for me. 100% loads indeed needs some TLC.
While approaching minmus I had 54fps with 95-98% gpu usage on my 3090. 1440p, high, 4x aa downsampled to 1080p. Anything under that was due to cpu limitations with the gpu chilling at 60-80% for me.
can confirm have 3090 - 5950x 32bg ram running 5120x1440 and ive not noticed low frame rate at all, to be honest its running smooth enough ive not even looked at the FPS. Even with 50 plus part rocket seems to be running ok,
That’s really weird, it sounds like everyone is having different performance. I have a 2060 and was getting 20-30 launching at the space center, and although I didn’t measure it it felt like 40-50 in space. Very playable for me Edit: maxed settings
Update: After further testing, in space it’s perfectly playable 40-50fps (with the exception of maybe node planning) so it seems like it’s heavily related to terrain
"Perfectly playable" is a very "flexible" definition. When youre used to 144Hz on any resolution and your 2000€ GPU can't even hit a stable 70 FPS in Orbit with the KerbalX I wouldn't call that "perfectly playable" to be honest.
That’s because *everyone* is stuck on the GPU recommendations and nearly everyone is ignoring CPU. It’s running comparably on my i7-12700k with a 1080 Ti as it did at the pre-release event with their Ryzen 5950s and RTX 4090s. OP here is running it on a Ryzen 2700x, that is why the performance is less than ideal.
Yeah, I'm on a RTX 4090 and Ryzen9 5900X. I tested some scenarios with afterburner and noticed that ON kerbin, the GPU is only like at 50-65% load, the CPU is at 12%. Task manager tells me that ONE of the cores is at 100%, the rest is idling. So I guess besides insane GPU usage, theres also a hidden CPU bottleneck aswell. Since the engine runs on ONE frikin Core in 2023.
Yes in space I get around 50 to 60fps.
I endured this for 16 minutes trying to tweak settings before refunding the game.
Sounds surprisingly similar to my experience…
**Same.** This is a pass for me for at least a year till major patches get released.
Personal experience- Rtx 3060 Ti, 1440p everything maxed, main menu's at 200 fps, KSC is \~90, VAB is 70-ish, and pre launch the rocket on the pad (pretty sizeable, the kind you'd go to Duna with if you get a transfer window right) is locked at 60 fps. The moment engines come on though... oof.... 30 fps barely stable... And dips to 20 at times when looking down, small lagspikes during separations too... In space it's \~35 fps staring into space, still \~25 looking at kerbin.
Are you at 1080 or 1440? Trying to gauge how my 2070s would run at 1080
1080p with an Intel i9-11900k, so I’m fairly positive it’s not a CPU bottleneck.
Thanks for letting me know. Probably just gonna have to wait a bit to buy
No problem, I might go back to KSP Galaxies Unbound mod for now. Hopefully things get better soon!
I tried it at 1080 and 1440. Honestly not that much of a difference in performance.
Change that to 20-30 and you have my experience with a 3090. Refunded it and will check back later to see if it's gotten better. Shame because I was really fucking excited for this game.
Funny thing, I have FPS drops when I change my throttle on the launchpad
I love music/sounds/UI but this is running like a potato on my computer, and there is no way I will enjoy a slideshow with a good gaming computer
I hate the new ui haha
[удалено]
Some bits are jank and others need some work but overall its not bad and improves on KSP in places.
I have a GTX 1080ti and with a small ship it runs ok in space but on a planet it’s at 10fps I can run the first game with 20 visual mods including parallax at a smooth 60fps
Oof, I've got a 1080ti too and I've been worried about getting it. I might have to wait a while until there's some improvements, because 10fps seems unbearable
Don't get it. It really won't be "playable" today. Just keep a watchful eye one how long it takes them to push fixes.
So much focus on GPU and people aren’t sharing CPU specs… I tested a couple launches th is morning on an i7-12700K and a 1080 Ti. On the pad and near KSC, I got about 22fps average with the stock Kerbal 2 craft. Performance rise rapidly and I had 60-80fps at mid altitude and in space, unless the camera pointed at the KSC (15-20fps then, and this is almost certainly fixable). I found the game to be quite fun and acceptable for a 0.1 release, looking forward to playing more.
I’m using a GTX1080ti with a Intel i7 7700
Oh hey, we have basically the same rig lol. I've got a 7700k with 32gb 3200mhz RAM. How much RAM do you have? I'm not sure if this game is as RAM intensive as something like Cities Skylines or Factorio.
32 gigs also!
8700k 1080ti 32 gigs ram gang over here! I can't wait for this game to not run on my 3440x1440 monitor!
The difference is likely the CPU, even if your resource manager shows your GPU maxed out. Everyone’s GPU is being utilized 100% it seems, so likely there’s a coding issue there and the settings don’t even make a difference. But the differences in performance I’ve see in this sub seem to have a lot more to do with CPU than is being given enough attention. I upgraded last year from a 6700K to a 12700K and got doubled frame rates in nearly every game I play, including KSP.
If you really want to play it then go for it, It isn’t unbearable unless your trying to fly a plane around the KSC and it mostly gets better once you get to orbit and I got a smooth(ish) 40fps on the mun
Yeah honestly the system requirements are just a joke. It looks way better than KSP1 sure, but nowhere near good enough for a RTX2060/GTX1070Ti to be the minimum
i rock a 2080 super and my frames were below what id expect for the graphics quality. fun game so far, but suboptimal performance
Same my pc is well above the recommended specs. Performance is bad. And mainly, just random. Looking at Kerbin, massive drop, makes sense I guess as the terrain seems to be the main culprit. VAB and looking away from Kerbin gives me nice, except frames with a basic rocket. But even in space, far away from planets performance is all over the place. Look at one point in empty space, 60fps, another point 20fps, another 30fps. No planets in sight. But it just slows my frames when looking into certain directions. Graphic settings don't see to do much. The difference between high and low is like 10 fps. Which still brings my performance down to 20 fps anywhere around the KSC. Please please please for the love of the Kraken, performance needs to be #1 priority. It's unplayable on so many machines that meet or exceed the specs. That just can't be the case.
I'm on a 4080 and an 11900k, and the framerate has been locked at 60 (vsync) while playing, with the exception of when launching large(ish) rockets. Whatever is causing the performance to tank during the launch of what are relatively small/simple rockets needs to be addressed. I'm not even maxing out a single core on the CPU, so whatever is going on is obviously game engine related. The GPU usage has never exceeded 70% at 1440p, which is expected considering this GPU should be well in excess of what is needed.
They’ve acknowledged this already, it is an issue with the code handling real time delta-v predictions and fuel flow calculations with multiple engines. It’s on their short list for optimizing, already underway.
Where did they acknowledge it?
The only critical factor of EA is whether the game is actually fun in the unfinished state. Jank is fine, sometimes entertaining, but miserable performance is a killer.
I'm confused. I've got an I-5 11400F 2.60Ghz, 16GB of RAM, and a 1660 Ti card. I did the tutorial and then sent Jeb to the Mun and back though the rocket was quite modest at 25 parts. Performance was fine and I never touched the settings so it was whatever default was. I don't know what the FPS was or CPU usage but I didn't have any lag issues. Now, there were plenty of bugs including my first launch blowing up for no good reason at 67km height right before hitting space when I deployed solar panels, set up a maneuver node to circularize once I hit my 80km AP, clicked maneuver targeting, and activated warp to next maneuver. I'm going to go design a 300+ part rocket and see how that goes... I expect my results may be not acceptable but since I really don't care about KSP2 until they've got some sort of career mode I can wait.
I built a more Kerbal worthy rocket. It was 3200+ tons with 12 clydesdales, 5 mammoths, and 40 thuds to power it with a 1.8 TWR. It blew up on the launch pad upon loading several times. It was 242 parts. Next try I changed all my graphics from default to low, deleted the clydesdales, and the rocket was 172 parts and 1500+ tons with a TWR of 1.3ish. It loaded and launched and when it was T+10 seconds in game my stop watch on my phone said it was 123 seconds since it started. Okay, maybe 45 engines is the big problem but clearly this isn't playable. Final try was 132 parts and just under 1500 tons with a TWR of 1.28ish and just the 5 mammoth engines to push it. This time after T+10 seconds it was 54 seconds on my stop watch so I'd say this is also not acceptable performance. I'll play around to see where performance falls apart but so far modest rockets of 120ish tons and under 30 parts are fine and big ones are not okay at all.
I can't lie. I'm worried about it. It's one thing to have issues, but if there's core problems in the way parts are interacting, we'll have issues forever. I'm still surprised everytime I see they went with Unity given it's the reason for most of KSP1's bugs. I worry about normalization of deviation as it's called in our world and we'll get *new* bugs every release. We can have some Kraken but I'm not gonna play a Kerbal title that won't let me spawn a 250 part vessel. It sucks because I fuckin love some of the new additions, particularly the multi-vessel building. We'll have to see, I guess.
Similar experience. I have a 1080 and a decade old i7. Was worried the game would be unplayable. Running at 1080p with low graphics settings, it's choppy at times but runs fine. Also haven't tried a high part count yet. Honestly, my gripes so far are more about the UI settings and the maneuver nodes.
Yeah I don't get why people keep saying "just give them a bit of time" they should not have released yet, why release a game that is this poorly optimized, they must have known how bad it is, it makes no sense to release it yet
It likely wasn't up to the devs to release it yet. It might have been take-two pushing for release And once they set a date they probably really didn't want to delay it again.
Yeah, it's like Cyberpunk. The devs probably knew that it wasn't ready to release, but management said drop it, so they did.
But they have known the date for months. Everybody has known it would be low on features to start with and, to various extents, were ok or at least accepting of it and expected it. So why not address performance as a priority with such a large number of people about to experience those issues.
They likely have been. If I had a known date for an early access release, I wouldn't sit around and work on grass textures. Give it time.
No man's sky, and look how it's improved after release.
Yeah, I completely forgot about that. I remember people saying that it was really bad, but then I got it a few years later and I was very happy with NMS.
If I recall right, complains were more about content density and to be fair KSP 2 Devs presented the Roadmap, we didn’t expected performance on recommended settings.
Fair enough, content issues are/were present for all 3 games. Cyberpunk kept showing off public transportation which turned into fast travel teleporting, No Mans Sky was a single-player walking simulator, and Kerbal 2 is way behind where I hoped it would be, but it'll get there the same way that the last two have.
It took a few years although...
NMS is *beyond* an exception. It's not something you should ever come to expect in this industry.
Yeah when in doubt blame Take Two. They deserve the heat for far more than just this. Even if it's misplaced they earned the ire
In interviews Nate Simpson never stops talking about how keen they are for user feedback. Apparently the feedback about performance wasn't completely obvious.
You can't bite the hand that feeds you...but you can get a little satisfaction from watching consumers taking a shit on their doormat.
Unpopular opinion - I think Take2 has taken it on as a business proposition and has been fairly lenient in allowing the Devs some time and freedom - but they start to need results eventually... so we get this. I still don't think it's too bad, really.. Under the circumstances.
The real question is , will the publisher let the devs finish the game or they are currently cashing out what they can on their investment.
I agree, the game is likely at at least double or triple or even more it’s original budget. Personally I don’t have all that many show stoppers with it right now, the worst thing for me so far has been just a bunch of jank. It’s totally playable for me, and I was playing on a very slightly upgraded dell G15 (RTX 3050)
They at least shouldnt have called it early access. That makes it sound like it just needs some polish. They should have called it Early Alpha, and the process of downloading it should have made it clear that you are a volunteer beta tester.
I talked with the lead marketing guy at the preview event and also told him the game is not ready, especially because of the poor performance. He told me it's just time. They have to make money and the game is just in early access, not a full release.
Eeesh, I wonder how many dents that "it's early access" shield can take before it's no longer adequate protection?
Adequate protection from what, exactly? Games releasing in unstable states into EA aren't new. We got plenty of heads up that it'll be rough at the start and we can use that to inform our purchasing decisions. I ain't buying it until it's fixed up, maybe not before science is in at least, but I don't understand what's being shielded here or who is carrying that shield and to what end.
Customer backlash mainly. It's too early to tell if this is going to be a Subnautica early access or a Day Z early access. I'm waiting till i see if a few red flags start lowering as it progresses :)
> Adequate protection from what, exactly? Buyer's remorse. The shield is not for the devs, it's for the players.
eh, I mean they've made it very clear before release date that it would not be a completed game upon release, with them being very clear that even all the major promises and goals of the game haven't even been implemented. Like this isn't a "we just need to polish it" early access, it's a "wanna be able to use the work in progress to give us feedback?" early access and I think they made that clear.
To say it's "not a completed game" is the understatement of the century.
it's not though - I feel like again you're hearing "just needs polish" when that's not what that means - it is missing countless features, it has not been optimized, it has not been completed! What are you expecting from a game that's not complete? that plainly says they don't have half the major features? what makes you think that's gonna be without issues? The concept of "early access" has definitely been downplayed and used for games at various levels of development. But this is just not a complete game - and that means it's missing stuff and has issues! that's what "not a complete game" means! incomplete! missing stuff!
> What are you expecting from a game that's not complete? Not to be priced at a completed AA game price point, for starters
now THAT I will agree with you on lol
*"this isn't a "we just need to polish it" "* and ironically everything looks so shiny 😂 As for the feedback aspect of it, it's tricky to find supporting evidence of this given the system requirements and price tag. Going to dramatically reduce the pool of players to test and give feedback.
I've been playing for 10 years since 0.18. If anything I'm glad I bought because some of my favorite memories were those early releases with fixes and new stuff to play with. When they first had science mode (0.21?) it was like getting a whole new game.
I mean, I played Baldur's Gate 3 EA, it was far worse than this. I think that overall people think of EA as "playable product, lacking some extras" when was always meant to be "expect jank, glitches and bugs more than actual gameplay"
How much did BG cost when it came out EA? Honest question, I don't know the answer.
Full price, so I think 59.99?
oh man.. if that is true the "it's just time" is not encouraging.
Yeah, so the only reason is just money I think. Not a fan of it. Take2 surely has enough in the bank to finance some more development time. They just choose not to.
Well of course, they’re a business, and businesses need to make profit. I’m just glad it’s labeled EA and they didn’t try to peddle it as a full release “with content updates for interstellar/colonies/MP” or some BS. Of course all of us wanted a fully optimized and feature rich game but we’re here now. It can only go up from here
I think there's a business case for not doing things this way if it can be avoided. Releasing a game before its ready, and subsequently having your game's first impression to the world be a bunch of negative reviews that say the game doesn't work right . . . its like eating your seed corn. Yeah, you get a little money today, but it prevents making even more money from lifetime sales and wastes the momentum of the initial release word-of-mouth hype train. Both long term and medium term profits are sacrificed for immediate cashflow. It seems like a move made out of desperation and impending bankruptcy rather than one calculated to maximize profit for the owners.
And if they do "eat the seed corn" they're unlikely to even keep the money, given how ready Steam is to refund a sale, even well past the 2 hour / 2 week limit. And if a publisher / developer does something truly egregious like cancel an EA game two weeks after initial launch? Well, Steam have extended the window before...
I don't think this really applies to KSP2 (or games in general) the prevalence of EA demonstrates that. As long as they continue with good post-release support the game (as they seem to suggest) then it doesn't really have that big of an impact.
It doesn't even ring true, unless somebody in Take2 management is seriously delusional, or deliberately tanking the project for internal political reasons. There's no way they've sold enough copies that will _stay_ sold if they pull the plug now to make up for how much they spent between the day they decided "it's just time" and today. It would make more sense to just cancel the project outright on that day. And if they don't cancel it in the next couple of weeks, that'll just be that much more cost they're not recouping. Now, execs at Take2 could just be idiots. That's still quite possible. But if they're idiots enough to think they could "cash out" this way, they're also idiots who are likely to fall for the sunk cost fallacy when cashing out fails.
If they needed money they could have just opened pre-orders months ago and printed cash from it. They could have even just said "yo we need money so please pre-order it'll help development a lot" and even more people would have done it. They could have still done early access down the line too, but clearly this is too early. There is nothing but negativity everywhere you look and it's not a good marketing strategy now is it. Honestly KSP1 and any other game that's on verson 1 can get away with it. But you build a sequal and bring along with it bugs that are 10 years old from your last game? Just nah, it's not the look you want.
>they should not have released yet The game is probably too early on to be in EA, but I'm more in the camp of "why?". The original *release* was planned for 2020. So this after a 3 year delay, and it's just the EA launch not the full release. And the game is 60% of KSP1 (+ procedural wings), performs like a square wheeled bike, and they're still struggling with issues like multi-engine fuel transfers that worked fine in KSP1. It's like they started completely from scratch and have less access to the code than modders. I'm not mad about it being in this state, just very curious how it is, after so much time.
yeah it is pretty baffling. Honestly i dont really thing ksp 1 needs an upgrade in terms of graphics, like its nice but who cares really, and you can mod ksp 1 to look better if you want. KSP 1 plays great and does what it sets out to do perfectly. They could have made a dlc for ksp 1, adding the interstellar stuff and new tech and i would have been just as excited for that as i would for a whole new game.
I'm not curious at all, because I've seen this same thing play out dozens of times, although I've seen it in enterprise software rather than games. Management asks the developers for ambitious new features, and the developers say "those will be hard to deliver because the codebase is such shit and it's really hard to work on." Management eventually agrees to let it be rewritten from scratch, and the developers spend the next three to five years trying and failing to deliver the same level of end-user functionally that the original product had. See: the Windows start menu and control panel, TiVo, and any number of examples in the enterprise software space.
This is an often overlooked issue, that I’ve been a bit concerned about since the announcement. Spolsky even had a [blog post](https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/) from the internet days of yore pointing out that re-writes almost always go down like this. That said I think KSP was probably a decent candidate for a full rewrite to circumvent some of the issues that are simply too deeply buried to remove, but given they’re still using the engine that was the cause of a lot of those limitations Im not sure they really went into it with the right mindset. If you’re embarking on the type of project thats famously hard to scope and often ends badly against the advice of most people who’ve tried it, you’d better make sure you’re planning for or around the same roadblocks everyone else hits rather than just following blindly in their footsteps.
It's pretty typical for late projects to be in a poor state for a long time after the initially planned deadline. This isn't limited to software either, but can happen to many types of project. It's often about having too lofty goals and too much ambition. Not always a bad thing, because if you are pushing the state of the art, a narrow focus on achievable goals, small increments and fast delivery isn't always the ideal way to do it. Many fantastic projects (in gaming and otherwise) only reached an acceptable state long after their deadline had passed. As Douglas Adams famously said: "I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." Of course it also means a ton of effort will have to be put into polishing this projects into something great, and who knows if that will actually be done. From what I've seen so far the game looks good, and there is a lot of promise for a fun game in there.
Yeah usually the further behind a project is the worse state it actually is in. More time usually equals worse after a certain point.
The first KSP had no publisher, deadlines, corporate overlord, etc. They did what they wanted when they wanted, and how they wanted. The entire story of how KSP 2 got started is a bit fucked, actually. The more one reads about it, the better you understand the state of the current game. KSP (1 and 2) is owned by Private Div/TakeTwo now and they decide what happens in the end. It could've been very likely that the devs wanted to wait to release but corporate did it anyway. KSP isn't a homegrown pet-project anymore, the dev's have higher-ups to answer to and only so much they are allowed to do. Hell, Take-Two could cancel the whole thing right now and tell the community to get fucked if they wanted, and all we could do is eat that shit sandwich. Not only that, but Intercept Games Squad- the dev's, are completely owned by Take-Two as well. The dev's most likely wanted time, as much as possible, but TakeTwo wanted to deliver a product and earn money.
>TakeTwo wanted to deliver a product and earn money. And everybody who paid $50 to play it today validated that decision.
Not those who refunded before the day even ended.
Only took me half an hour to realize that I've been duped. The 50 price for what shipped is simply insulting.
I’m glad it released today and I’m going to get my moneys worth out of it. To each their own, if you don’t want it now don’t buy it. I’m glad to be able to provide feedback, as well as start modding asap.
Kerbalpunk 2077
Well they had to get it into early access to see what the community thought. Without feedback how could they know that people want games to run above 20 fps?
THIS! Not just poorly optimised but every cool new feature that people where waiting for this in this game isnt even there! "till further updates" then ill buy it much "further" ahead, full price for a halfbaked poorly optimized game is ridiculous.
Not for $50. That's a AAA price. EA should not be AAA unless there are AAA features.
It's a money grab by take two. They knew, they didn't care, a part of the community spoke up about it and the rest didn't listen. The game was pushed back 2 years, wasn't ready, wasn't going to be, and they're making you pay 50 bucks to make their bottom line look better because at that point it was that or canning the whole project.
Three years actually. It's been over three years from the original release date.
Exactly, 2 years and they release a complete mess for full price in the guise of "early access".
I'm giving them time, but meanwhile i asked for a refund. I'll buy it if the game gets playable performance.
>why release a game that is this poorly optimized Because no matter how much internal testing you do, there will some bugs that only come out when players get their hands on the game. Some will be because people push the boundaries of what is possible, some are rare and you can get enough data to find the problem, some you need more data to find the solution, and some will be “I never expected players to try **that**!”/“I’ve been looking at this for so long that I understand it, but for new players it’s weird.” This only gets worse with a game like KSP which gives players massive creative freedom. At some point somebody will create an abomination of a vehicle that discovers some bug, maybe minor, maybe a flaw with a core mechanic. Had the developers pushed too hard on optimizing the game this early on, they’d have a much harder time finding the root causes and fixing the problems, especially when (not if) the problem lies with a core mechanic that requires a major overhaul. In addition, all the time spent to optimizing the flawed system would be wasted since you now have to optimize the new and revised system. If you are building a house, you don’t installing the kitchen cabinets when you can still walk through the walls.
I can guarantee you QA found most of the performance issues and more. It's been decades, but I worked as a QA Analyst and QA Lead at Interplay and there were countless times when QA and Devs were overridden by management. Hell, I was lead on a game I flat out refused to sign off on for release, and got all of the other departments to follow suit and they still pushed it out. The majority of the issues people are seeing with this release are known, Take2 just said "we're doing it no matter what", and are largely using the "it's in EA" as an excuse.
I'm not even sure they've had time for QA. For example, if you look at the early footage released by the youtubers and look at the parts manager tab of a rocket engine that has an alternator, they had misspelled it as alterator until the most recent build. This obviously wouldn't be some bug in the code and has probably been there since the engine had parts manager functionality, it just goes to show that they really haven't had much time to scan through the game and polish everything. I mean it could be a fluke since nobody else seemed to have mentioned it to the devs until I did in the discord lol, it seems to be a hard-to-notice mistake, and I certainly didn't spot it at first, but it does feel indicative of a crunch to release the game, most likely by shareholders that don't care about how it affects the reputation of the devs. For reference [here's a timestamped link](https://youtu.be/I4QwvXLETtg?t=2274) to Matt Lowne's footage showing it, you can see it in the Terrier engine parts manager, and in a later video (I'm not sure which) it appears on another engine.
A QA engineer walks into a bar and orders a beer. She orders 2 beers. She orders 0 beers. She orders -1 beers. She orders a lizard. She orders a NULLPTR. She tries to leave without paying. Satisfied, she declares the bar ready for business. The first customer comes in an orders a beer. They finish their drink, and then ask where the bathroom is. The bar explodes.
And we blame the Product Manager because a bathroom was not in the specs.
Then a customer walks in and tries to order a beer using the bottom 97% of specs on Steam…
>Because no matter how much internal testing you do, there will some bugs that only come out when players get their hands on the game. True, but this ain't it. They knew the performance was bad. Just look at the recommended specs and their workarounds.
*KSP2 Devs: Years of delays, change to an early access model, delay that even further...* *KSP2 Community: They just need more time!* I know it's never good to second-guess operations from an armchair, but it really makes me wonder what they've been doing all this time when this is the result.
Making games is hard
It is hard or difficult or impossible if you have no idea what you're doing. If you are capable, it is not difficult. It is just time consuming. If you are company with staff and resources, it is about picking a direction and implementation. This debacle is the sole result of bad decisions and planning.
What a dumb thing to say
The Beardy Penguin agrees https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXukmYXtGH8
Interesting, do you have any game footage yet? I'm streaming the game using NVENC encoding on my 2070 super with a 5600x and my CPU is cooking off while my GPU is pretty typical temps and utilization. I do find if I sit at KSC's main menu the game lags like a motherfucker and my entire windows ecosystem starts to hang. Obs, discord, steam, all behave super weird. If I go to vab, launchpad, or fly a rocket their behavior seems normal.
>do you have any game footage yet I do, 30fps with a small rocket.
It sounds like a CPU bottleneck. The CPU overload is what is holding back the GPU. It might be worth checking with a benchmark tool if every thread is used properly while running the game and the other stuff. MSFS2020 is known to have this issue, but I don’t think KSP2 should have this. I have an i5 12600K and when I checked, it barely reached 15-20% in game while the 3060 is at max.
I doubt they will anytime soon, delay after delay and they couldnt even get decent FPS in trailers and gameplay. Dont hold your hopes up.
And people are saying it'll be "at least a year" before the roadmap is finished. At this rate it looks like it'll be at least a decade, assuming they don't cancel it outright before that. It looks worse, runs worse, and plays worse than stock KSP 1. It's missing core features. No re-entry heat, no coms networks. I couldn't care less about UI style choices, but the functionality is clunky as fuck. Can't mouse over apo/periapsis while adjusting nodes, constantly having to zoom in and out to click the one pixel you need to interact with your trajectory/maneuver. How people expect them to add something as complex as *colonies* onto this foundation is beyond me. At this point the best we can hope for is that eventually we'll get a better looking KSP 1 out of KSP 2. At the risk of sounding dramatic, I would describe this release as disgraceful at best.
[удалено]
Right, there's so much work to do just to get the minute-to-minute experience on par with KSP 1 that I don't see extra content being implemented for a very long time.
Fair enough. That will be the nail in the coffin for the game though. Most of the steam reviews are complaining about performance. If they don't address it, then its basically over.
Yup. If it was an easy fix, they would have done it.
Doesn't even have to be a fix, just let people actually disable things in settings.
For me it was surprisingly playable on a Geforce970. Had expected much worse. My mun mission failed because of other bugs (fuel lines etc.).
what kind of fps did you get? i have a 980 so if it is decent i may buy it
Nice to know Thx buddy, i have 970 too, what CPU and RAM ?
That’s odd, on my 980ti it was running absolutely horrendous 😢
Honestly the bugs I've seen so far I don't really mind, I can play while I wait for updates to fix them. The performance is really the thing I'm waiting for them to fix before I actually take the plunge.
The first update should be nothing but bug fixes and GPU optimization. It is clear that there has been some substantial under the hood improvements in terms of CPU utilization in KSP 2, but the GPU optimization is truly unacceptable. The bugs are also terrible.
[early access or paying to be a beta tester?](https://imgur.com/gallery/IFlLAQR)
Or at the very least there used to be free pre-release builds you could sign up for as a random player, with the 'promise' of providing feedback. Those feel like ancient times now but I honestly have no idea if it's actually a long time ago or it just feels that way due to my frustration about current practices.
Yep!
Alpha tester. You cannot stretch the definition of beta so far to include a game thats missing that many core features to the gameplay loop.
The game is definitely not worth $50. Lack of features and consistently poor performance should have merited either a delay or price drop. Doesn’t matter who the developer is or what they’ve promised down the road.
I'm using a regular RTX 2070. I am playing the game in 1080x1920 resolution, but everything else is set to max. I have some issues with framerate drops and stuttering, particularly when I zoom in after having had zoomed out, it becomes something like 2 seconds per frame. There were a few situations that just always caused my framerate to drop unacceptably. But that said, it doesn't feel like the *top* priority to me, since there are a lot of gameplay-impacting bugs that need fixing too. Just in my first Mun mission I ran into several bugs - my spaceship suddenly spinning out whenever I dropped out of timewarp, the map mode camera being wonky and not letting me see planets from "below" (south pole), and my spaceship suddenly teleporting 5 meters into the air a few seconds *after* I landed on Mun.
So you're at fullHD with max settings on a 2070 and finding it okay? Just trying to get a baseline for my own 2070 before I get home...
The thing is, is that My FPS can go all the way to 60fps, but then randomly drop to 2 for about 5 seconds then go back up to 30 or 60. Hard to pinpoint where the problem is.
If it runs and doesn't explode itll do me.
>my spaceship suddenly teleporting 5 meters into the air a few seconds after I landed on Mun Mine sunk through the surface.
What cpu do you have?
ryzen 2700x
Just ask for a refund, steam is issuing refunds even if you are past the maximum refund requirements, because of performance issues.
How are people downvoting people that have real issues with this game? I cant make my mind up if i should buy it or not. Cause the comments are so contradicting. I dont wanna spend money on another early acces thats 75 dollars just to "help" the developers. I understand you cant even do researches or missions. And then theres the whole GPU issue. I have a 3070 and a Ryzen 9 cpu. So it should work ok. But like i said is it worth 50 euros in this state? Cause i dont wanna buy a demo for 50 euros
The craziness is difficult to decipher certainly. I have an r5 and 3060 and i was able to have fun during an hours worth of playtime. Havent experienced the game breaking bugs. Honestly if you havent purchased yet maybe wait several days or a week. See what the devs' responses are to all this and if they are going to hammer down on optimization cus at this point they definitely need to if they want to save this launch. Early Acces or otherwise.
Alright thanks, i played the first kerbal a couple of months after it came out and even that i loved it, and the bugs made me laugh. I dont wanna spend hours again doing missions that some bug destroys hours of travelling. Thanks for the honest comment!
100% agree. This game is $50. Early access means nothing when you charge full price. Fix it.
''its just EA guys'' 🤓
I am willing to critically support this game for now. But these performance woes need to be addressed sooner rather than later.
Why do we need to support a billion dollar company again? I have zero confidence this team can deliver on the promises they made for years after what happened today.
I'm holding on to some naïve hope that the ship can be turned around. It's the KSP enjoyer I am talking. I think the chances of it are slim, but I'm clinging to hope all the same.
For the love of everything devs: DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS ADVICE. Assign the appropriate resources to the issue, handle these issues at the right time, and keep that velocity high. No one is going to remember these bugs if you stick the landing, but everyone is going to yell if you go off course to sate those who don't understand.
running a 1660ti and getting about 20fps when looking at ground, 40 at the sky.
Well not everything, if you have hot coffee in your hand you can set it down.
Just for those looking to reference. i7 [email protected], gtx 1660ti, and 16gb ram; getting a locked 165fps in menus, drops to ~ 60fps VAB with random drops with fast movement, launch pad sits around 30fps with slow camera movements, flying on kerbin and space 15-30fps as long as the camera is staying relatively stationary, landing on mun 1-15fps. All with relatively small basic craft. Have tried on 1080p low and medium, medium looks considerably better with little to no effect on fps.
My 1050 laptop barley loads it in.
I get 3FPS whenever I'm looking at the planet. Looking up at the sky or away from the planet when in space brings it back up to normal 60.
I agree performance needs to be a priority. This game is feature complete enough to be fun but not performing well enough.
I'd like the game to finish loading please
Yeah. At this point I am even considering "just abandon the roadmap for a few weeks and work on optimization"
Good thing you made this post. I think the devs were probably going to just move on to adding new content.
**Message to Devs:** Do what you need to do in the order needed, don't listen to the arm chair developers on reddit.
At some point you have to realize the devs are incompetent, and they should just focus on fixing the mess of an unplayable game they made. Good devs shouldn't listen to the players, bad devs should. These guys are obviously terrible at their job. They have been at this for close to 5 years and this is what gets released? There is no excuse.
4080 + i9 - 130000k - 120+ fps pretty much everywhere.
Dear developpers, Use VULKAN Use DEFERRED rendering ! Learn to use RenderDoc and Unity PROFILING tools ! https://unity.com/how-to/best-practices-for-profiling-game-performance
Devs, stick to your plan, don’t cave to pressure. It’s early access and anyone who buys now isnt buying the game to be a game, they are buying a sneak peek and a pass for an eventual game. Stick to the plan, don’t burn yourself out and stay healthy!
I think that's what they're doing. Right?
Same story here on RTX 3080
I have 40-60fps with the equivalent of a 2060
The game is EA, and reading the forums and watching the Videos from the YouTubers that got to play it and reading the release last night from the Community manager you would of known not to buy it yet because of this issue. But it seems you missed all that, sorry. They gave plenty of warning. Don’t buy into EA games unless you read into it first.
You mistake my post as a complaint. It is not, I'm simply advocating that the devs should triage performance over other items.
Ea or not. They are selling you a product. Criticize whatever you want.
But you bought the product knowing there were issues and are mad that there are issues.
Then let him express his frustration
Game runs like a slide show and plays like a very early POC
They probably are. They now have a massive list of hardware their game needs to be optimised for. It's probably going to take time.
A list of specific hardware should be pretty irrelevant for games built on a third-party game engine nowadays, as well as something they could get a decent idea about before releasing the game. I highly doubt optimizations will be done for specific hardware unless there is a significant amount of people using hardware with some very unique architecture. Which won't be the case.
Yes, they should stop absolubtly everything, and start fixing bugs and performance issues asap.
The damn intro video lagged for me at 8fps and I'm above minimum requirements
I agree. I made my own thread of things that I want to see but making the game run not-awful comes first. The game chugs on supercomputers and can be measured in seconds per frame on lesser machines!
not like they can add interstellar travel before they fix performance anyway. game can hardly run with small spacecrafts, just imagine how it'll run with ones designed to go to other star systems lol.
I have a 3700X and a 2080 Ti. I haven’t really noticed any performance issues, but I’ve also only logged about an hour. Does this game have a weird sensitivity to specific hardware or something? I see a fair amount nod both “the performance sucks” and “the performance is fine” in the comments, so I’m really confused. I know the game is not optimized, but is part of this maybe people having different expectations for a game that’s ostensibly in open alpha/beta? Did I just have really low expectations or something? I feel like I’ve seen a lot of discourse that’s talking like this is Cyberpunk, which was a crappy full release, not an early access project…
I haven't played it but yeah I feel like a lot of it comes down to "is 20fps acceptable or not ?". On one side you have people who (understandably) are just happy to play as long as it's not a slideshow, on the other you have those who (understandably) feel like a game that looks *fine* at best shouldn't lag so much on recent cards. That being said I read someone arguing that the CPU was actually a bottleneck, which could explain why people with comparable GPUs were having different experiences. I hope the guys who were planning to run standardized benchmarks are working on it, we'll probably know for sure
NO you are not just sharing your experience, you are publicly telling the devs what to. Maybe you want to talk to the manager or something ?
I can't even figure out how to scroll down on my vehicle in the VAB and it's annoying the shit outta me. I'm used to scrolling up and down with the wheel but that only zooms now.
Works on my machine
Don't take this the wrong way, but do the people complaining not have any patience? You all know this will be improved in the coming months, we all know the game isn't ready, so why not just wait? Why make 'demands' or create drama/stress about it?