#KSP2 

Crysis doesn't hold a candle. Crysis recommended hardware in 1660 ti. The KSP2 is 3080.

You have to think in terms of context. Back in 2013, there weren’t even RTX graphics cards yet (I believe), and I’m sure a gtx 1660 was pretty powerful back in its day.

@@kvjbreaker7054 KSP, the one they showcase, didn't have anything that will suggest it need that kind of hardware.

@@kvjbreaker7054 the GTX 1660 Ti was released in 2019, six years after Crysis 3 launched. The highest end cards at the time were the GTX 780 Ti and R9 290X. (Both released in 2013.)

Crysis came out in 2007. My bro bought an 8800 GTX at the time, which was a pretty powerful card. It did run Crysis. 😁

It looks very similar to how SAS used to perform before it was redesigned circa 0.21

​@@kirkkerman 😰 doesn't bode well

I hope they switch the md/lg of the spaceplane parts into mk2/mk3

@@5000mahmud Well, that just goes to show it's been fixed before, it can be fixed again.

Hardly a bug, KSP1 did the same thing! I had a craft called velociraptor that literally flapped it's SAS Wings to fly 😂

ɢʀᴇᴀᴛ ғᴀɴ, ʏᴏᴜ ᴀʀᴇ ᴀᴍᴏɴɢ ᴛʜᴇ sʜᴏʀᴛʟɪsᴛᴇᴅ ᴡɪɴɴᴇʀs❤️massage ᴛʜᴇ ᴀʙᴏᴠᴇ ɴᴀᴍᴇ ᴏɴ ᴛᴇʟᴇɢʀᴀᴍ ᴛᴏ ᴀᴄᴋɴᴏᴡʟᴇᴅɢᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ᴘʀɪᴢᴇ.……

This, well done

All I watched were calm and with explanations...?

@@dr_birb I didn't say they weren't. I just said this was the most calm. Some of the others were understandably excited, having fun, etc. Nothing wrong with that either.

Hey Linux, kind of random but thank you for all the incredible work you do adding to and maintaining so many of the mods that make KSP so great! Hope to see your work again for KSP2 :) have a nice day!

the games isnt launching tho, the thing that is "launching" is early access for the game.

It's still Unity (AFAIK) so it's still using PhysX. PhysX is essentially as good as it gets for game physics engines. They're just not designed for this type of game, so it requires hacks and workarounds to make them work. Building your own physics engine is entirely doable but you miss out on the decades of research and improvements that the mainstream physics engines benefit from. Also, the primary limiting factor with game physics engines is time. For the game to run at 60fps, all processing (including physics) must happen within 16.666ms. That's not very long! Game physics engines are optimised for speed first, accuracy and precision second. The devs can adjust the numbers (like increasing the number of substeps, for instance) to get more reliable physics results but the cost is performance.

@@APPLEJUlCE they wont change the engine now tho

Yeah, I am sorry for the devs that they have to deal with all those who can't see the bigger picture. Tho on the flip side, if I was anticipating the release that much and looking forward to play it on launch day, I would also be very dissapointed.

I mean, they have said they will be improving it as time goes on until final release

Hopefully the devs will optimise the game through the early access period ( like squad did with ksp1)

It would need at least a $3k pc I'm used to play at like 2 fps with large crafts in ksp 1 but if a very small craft cant run at least 30 fps it'll become a huge problem

@@razorback8300 The problem is that Squad never really got the physics performance under control for KSP 1. It has improved, but not by THAT much. And a lot of that is probably due to processors becoming much faster since many of us started playing KSP 1. I'm a software engineer myself and I'm very much aware of how much work can still be done. But some improvements require architecture changes to make possible. I really hope they have a plan to make significant, order of magnitude, improvements to physics performance because the theoretical scaling on those is atrocious. Now I'm aware as well that Private Division inherited a mess given how troublesome the development of KSP 2 has been. I can understand that if they have a proof of concept of how to improve physics performance, they'd shelf that for now to get the game actually shipping to players ASAP and start generating some revenue. But we don't know, and they haven't been very transparent about it either. I'm a bit worried.

Ya I was about 5 min into Tim’s when Scott’s popped up 👍

Thanks captain obvious 👍🏻

Can't wait to get Scott Manley's Video, he's true true OG space RU-vidr

I've been watching them all morning, can't wait!

Scott manley ksp 2 videos when?

I suspect that as the game starts early access, the devs will start to heavily focus on optimization. It dosent make financial sense to spend 10’s of millions on making a game that only a fraction of people have hardware to play. I think that Private Division just wants to release the game to see what they can improve before focusing on bringing it to the masses. The faster they get rid of the bugs, the faster they can focus on optimizing every aspect of the game so more than just the upper echelon of people can afford the hardware required to play.

@@CooperE. Yeah, it just sucks that they haven't been honest about performance up until now, and knowing I won't be able to actually play the game for a long while, but oh well, skill issue

@@aq_ua I wouldn’t say that have been dishonest on account of the fact they havent said anything until like last week. I was never under the impression that the game would be well optimized at release, and I think it was a conscious decision to not specify system requirements until now, when they are sure that the game is ready, at least on the most foundational level. I suspect it will improve fairly quickly, and I would implore people to not flood the devs with vitriol about the requirements. Early Access releases are meant to gain insight and data from actual players so that the game can be more efficiently finished. The faster they get the game out at all, the faster they will be able to make it widely accessible. Patience is key, and it was likely an options between releasing a very system demanding game in Early Access, or not releasing the game at all for another few years. I personally prefer the first option.

Given how the performance improved the moment the side boosters detached, even though they were still onscreen, makes me think the performance issue there wasn't due to the GPU/graphics.

It's the CPU, not the GPU. Unfortunately running a physics engine on a single core doesn't allow much complexity. I wish they would use GPU acceleration instead. And multi-GPU support would be awesome. I don't mind building a $10K PC if I can build huge spacecraft in exchange.

Now the Kraken wears sheep's clothing. :/

And make it cost 50% more. Bargain!

Bruh it’s lex.

👊

Since you've been playing red dead 2 I hope you'll dabble in ksp 2! It'd fit the theme 😁🚀

Dude. You're the man Lex. Found Everyday Astronaut and countless other amazing people from your podcast. Thank you very much for everything that you do.

Oh lex Fridman is here oWo

The fuel system should be a pretty good target for optimization and multithreading, if that's what was doing it.

@@BradyBrenot well at the end of the day it should just be a few numbers going down every couples of frames... really shouldn't be hard to calculate

@@iCore7Gaming You would think that, but alas crossfeed says otherwise. I'm no game calculations specialist, all I know is that crossfeed in KSP1 is laggy and it's likely laggy in KSP2 as well Though as free vbucks mentioned, Stratzenblitz's tests of crossfeed were at a much larger scale to what was seen here. We're talking... god knows how big it was but it was a lot. Here it was 8 engines. Oof.

@@iCore7Gaming it's also a shifting center of mass

Agree, this video screams red flags everywhere. I mean we can see big performance issues...Oh and reentry heat was disabled for this video, I mean c'mon you've been working on a game for 5-6 years now and the reentry is still not finished? No wonder they had trouble at production.

@@julienbo If they say reentry is going to be in the early access launch in a few days I do think they have finished it for some reason it was not on. Maybe you have some trust issues since you just see the worst in people. If youre worried about the "red flags" like performance issues or incomplete features NEVER play an early access game this game is no where near finished thats why its early access.

I have nothing against Early Access. Most of my games are early access. But when a sequel to a game looks and feels worse than a modded original, which is still riddled with bugs years after it’s release, and the Early Access release is 2 years past due and requires a hardware upgrade, I’m not going to be wiling to spend a thousand bucks upgrading my rig so I can play it right away. I can wait a couple of years.

Many of the performance issues KSP1 has today have existed since the first couple versions. If they haven't fundamentally fixed the engine issues, I see no reason to assume they will *ever* be properly fixed.

No way it'll be ready in 2026.

This was one of my personal favorite discoveries in KSP. You could design an ultra-light drone craft with about 5 individual parts that could destroy itself from aerodynamic heating a few seconds after takeoff due to the insane acceleration this "bug" provided. The flappy-bird effect would generate thrust proportional to speed with a light enough craft. Getting off the ground was slow-going, but once you had literally any forward movement it created an exponentially-increasing loop that led to the fastest acceleration possible in the base game. It was even possible to go fully orbital, but took good "aim" as the only way to control thrust down was by gaining altitude, and it was surprisingly too easy to leave Kerbin and enter a heliocentric orbit. I was able to get one of these crafts to Duna encounter once, through many, many attempts and with sheer luck, but missed the Duna atmosphere. I hope something similar awaits in KSP2, and you can bet I will be trying on day 1.

I remember building SAS / Fin 'flying jet engines' that would easily go 900ms on SAS torque alone.

Too be equally fair in counterpoint…since there were lots of bugs with SAS in KSP1… they should have learned from their previous bugs and corrected it. Very low hanging fruit!

@@cneuhauser1 First part: there might be a good deal of developer turnover that might preclude a lot of the lessons-learned from being so straightforward. More than that, this is mostly a brand new game from the ground up, I believe. So if anything, we could expect developers to have an entirely new problem set to grapple with in terms of bugs. I expect there to still be a kraken, but SAS bugs are a coin-toss imo. At the very least, it wouldn't be surprising to see some bugs or exploits be present even in the final build. That is just a reality of simulating physics in a game engine. Second part (very low hanging fruit): See above. Even seemingly simple or mundane bugs can be indicative of far more complicated problems. All of the low hanging fruit is going to be fixed first regardless, and we can expect that anything that remains only remains because it is in fact more complicated to solve. The fact that some bugs last for years and never get patched is because there is no good way to fix them without a huge amount of work. To use a car analogy: sometimes a tiny leak requires you to take out the engine to fix. Sometimes it just takes replacing a gasket, tube, or fitting. Sometimes you need a new transmission entirely. We only see the leaks, a bit of fluid on the ground; maybe even just a few drops of viscous amber liquid. You can probably even drive 10 miles to take the car to a mechanic without any discernable issue. It isn't until the mechanic can take everything apart that he may tell you that your entire transmission is borked because of a barely-perceptible crack in the casing and that it is only a matter of time until the whole thing goes unless you replace it. Bugs in software can be that way sometimes. A little issue sometimes takes a redesign of a significant portion of the game's underlying codebase. TL;DR Sometimes thing seem simple, but is really complicated. Developers are smart and work hard to fix what can be fixed.

Or when mechanisms would break all physics laws in static tests

Istg it's inexcusable to sell a game that has that much of an awful performance

This doesn't seem to be a problem about the size of the craft. Don't forget that he just ditched very few parts and it got much better. Also Matt Lownes KSP2 video shows a much more fluid performance with a more complex rocket but with less engines. It wasn't the part count, something seems to be wrong with either the graphics (many engines plumes at the same time) or the mechanics of the part. Either way, this shouldn't scare you too much in the long run. The development of this game is kinda a wild ride. They are 3 years above initial plan, people forced them to release something and that's the state it's in now, they focused 3 years on rebuilding another game plus adding big new features which they can't show now and didn't have much time for optimization which always comes at the end.

It’s early access. When you buy the game in early access you are accepting the fact that it is far from the finished product and will likely be full of issues and bugs. It is the same with almost all games that performance optimisation is usually the last thing that the developers do before releasing the full game, so it will get better

@@lukeb9501 cope

@@lukeb9501 then why if im expecting an unfinished product are they expecting a full triple A title price for it?

it's a roadmap lol, not a feature list. of course it wouldn't be complete in a prerelease version

@@yutiros5174 it's a roadmap, that lists the features. Derppp

the chance of him going to the moon in the next 10 years is pretty high tho

@@GerdLPluu 1070TI is still more powerful than the average on the steam hardware survey (GTX 1650, closely followed by the GTX 1060)

Bad software development is limiting our civilization in so many ways that's why AI will change everything code optimization. Having been a dev for many years the more powerful our systems become the worse our code is AI is the only thing that will change this pattern.

well you'd probably get the equivalent to 4080 in next 4 years if not less... But what's stopping a 10080 to need a kidney and more...

@@jana31415 he’s literally going around the moon soon

Not only is it missing important features from KSP1, it's also missing the features which made KSP2 exciting: interplanetary missions and multiplayer.

@@hirvielain9013 very true. I'm going to stay in KSP1 and keep my money for the time being 🙂

100% this all of this.

May 27 2026.

2030 maybe

Who cares. Remind me when it's close, I'm not gonna sit in anticipation for the next decade.

On Starship? I think we should focus on getting it out of the atmosphere first. Everyone is always clamoring about how good Elon is at this, yet NASA plans, builds, and launches a new rocket, first flight, all the way to the moon and back. ...and to anyone saying he's inventing it as he goes, he's not. He's re-inventing a wheel that doesn't need to be re-invented instead of standing on the experience of those that have gone before. The same research and knowledge that was available to NASA during the contstruction of SLS was and is available to Space X. Starship is just the new spaceshuttle and there is no way that it's turnaround is going to be anything close to what they have said. The same was said of the space shuttle and yet it took much longer because re-entry is hard on things. Not to mention the idea of landing a manned rocket like that vertical in Earth's atmosphere... it's a matter of time before it kills someone. It's called a suicide burn for a reason. For Tim's sake I hope I'm wrong, but I'm skeptical and I'll believe when and if I see it.

@@GerdLPluu I'm just kind of frustrated.... As someone that basically only plays KSP with graphical mods like EVE, Scatterer, TUFX, 16k textures plus RSSVE; this new footage is not really that amazing. Additionally, the whole new "look" is exactly what I do not want. It looks way too artificial and oversaturated. And then again, the performance is worryingly bad for what you're getting. So I'm probably not going to buy it on launch. Now, to be fair: the new way airplanes handle looks awesome. I hated this in KSP [1], since it was just off. Nothing felt realistic or fun at all...

@@GerdLPluu Early access is a marketing ploy to get free money with 10% of the game done. Once they have everyone's money they just leave with the cash and start working on a "sequel", rinse and repeat.

@@GerdLPluu people are dumb, they cant get how the early access works in their minds.

@@GerdLPluu You are aware that KSP 1 was an Early Access game right? Yes, a studio can abuse this scheme and everyone should check for themselves if they want to buy into it, but Early Access can be a powerful tool for game development. Depends on each case.

@@norinokia2307 I don't think they do. I think most of the people flipping out and groaning about it not being finished didn't play KSP1 before 2015

Agreed, it just seems to have had a lot of the fun sucked out of it. That and the poor performance and crazy PC requirements are extremely offputting.

@@SlartiMarvinbartfast the performance is weird, I thought one of the reasons that they justified having a second game in the first place was to improve on the first's performance... But now the performance is even worse??? Hopefully they can fix it later on but it's not a good first sign right out the gate.

@@Freak80MC The devs have mentioned that one of the big things to look forward to is actually significantly improved performance in relation to part count, so let's hope that was just a bug related to some part or feature in the boosters. The fact that there was such a night and day difference, and not just a small gradual difference when he stages seems to suggest that. I mean, not sure if this is the case, but I really hope so.

I think that’s just nostalgia and rose tinted glasses.

@@KellyWu04 Maybe so. But I haven't actually played KSP1 for that long

DLC probably.

I have the same CPU as you and a 3080. I will not be buying EA at this stage based on what I've seen. 5-10 fps for a relatively simple vehicle is inexcusable. Whatever they did with their time, it was focused on all the wrong priorities... if they were even working at all.

@@sciencecompliance235 I always enjoy when people are complaining and bitching that an Early Access game is... oh shocker... NOT FINISHED! lmao

@@sciencecompliance235 I love when people say "what were they doing with their time". Well, they were rebuilding the game from scratch. It's not like they had anything to work from. Refactoring KSP1 to work with the long-term plans of KSP2 would have taken even longer and been even buggier, so don't even suggest it. Now they have a better foundation to work from for the rest of the features.

I really hope they were playing at 4k resolution. If they were then performance will be much better on 2k or 1080p monitors. But yea it was still pretty bad.

@@green7449 I believe it was 1440p. Pretty sure that's what Matt Lowne or Scott Manley or someone said. It appears that they were very much CPU limited, not GPU limited.

They've already said they will be having automated missions.

ʜᴇʏ ғᴀɴ,🔝 ᴛʜᴀɴᴋs ғᴏʀ ᴡᴀᴛᴄʜɪɴɢ, ɪ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ᴀ ᴘᴀᴄᴋᴀɢᴇ ғᴏʀ ʏᴏᴜ. ᴍᴇssᴀɢᴇ ᴍᴇ ᴏɴ ᴛᴇʟᴇɢʀᴀᴍ ᴡɪᴛʜ ᴛʜᴇ ᴀʙᴏᴠᴇ ɴᴀᴍᴇ ᴛᴏ ᴄʟᴀɪᴍ ʏᴏᴜʀ ᴘᴀᴄᴋᴀɢᴇ 🎁💝🙏

🤦‍♂

I can tell you why…it’s because there was a “come to Jesus” meeting whereby the publisher realized the dev team would NEVER be able to realize the promises they’ve made… so it’s a cash grab to try to get a return on investment… or break even. Get ready, KSP2 will be the next Cyber Punk. Now I know why the KSP forums were silencing the dissenters… because the truth hurts!

You’re a fool then

this aged like wine, LOL

So modular SRBs?

ɢʀᴇᴀᴛ ғᴀɴ, ʏᴏᴜ ᴀʀᴇ ᴀᴍᴏɴɢ ᴛʜᴇ sʜᴏʀᴛʟɪsᴛᴇᴅ ᴡɪɴɴᴇʀs❤️massage ᴛʜᴇ ᴀʙᴏᴠᴇ ɴᴀᴍᴇ ᴏɴ ᴛᴇʟᴇɢʀᴀᴍ ᴛᴏ ᴀᴄᴋɴᴏᴡʟᴇᴅɢᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ᴘʀɪᴢᴇ.…🎉

lmaoo ikr and scott manley too

... that was the limit set by the ksp2 marketing team, they all released their videos as soon as they were legally allowed

The embargo lifted at the exact time,thats why it was uploaded so quickly

it's because of a thing called embargo that was just lifted now (14:00 UTC)

cool

ɢʀᴇᴀᴛ ғᴀɴ, ʏᴏᴜ ᴀʀᴇ ᴀᴍᴏɴɢ ᴛʜᴇ sʜᴏʀᴛʟɪsᴛᴇᴅ ᴡɪɴɴᴇʀs❤️massage ᴛʜᴇ ᴀʙᴏᴠᴇ ɴᴀᴍᴇ ᴏɴ ᴛᴇʟᴇɢʀᴀᴍ ᴛᴏ ᴀᴄᴋɴᴏᴡʟᴇᴅɢᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ᴘʀɪᴢᴇ.…

He was flown out to Europe and probably wined and dined very nicely as well. His opinion is not to be trusted on this.

@@sciencecompliance235 I'm more inclined to believe Matt Lowne and Scott Manley's takes. They got the same treatment but they ended up saying "you know probably just wait until it's had a few updates" I don't think there's any real bribery happening here as they all got the same treatment, I think Tim's just letting the hype get away from him a bit which is understandable

@@QuantumJump451 Understandable considering his personality, yes.

I always read the Steam negative comments.. that's how you know the truth.

After watching this i still have some concerns, mainly regarding performance and craft rigidity. I am confident the devs can solve most issues, but the main change i want from ksp1 is complex, large rockets without kraken attacks and decent performance, and so far ksp2 seems to lack this. I really hope they will be able to make this work eventually, since it seems to be crucial to the scope of the game. I’m also very suprised TWR and autistruts are not in the initial release, i’m sure that will go well for me😅 also, cool to hear you also play ksp on laptop! anyway, thanks for this video Tim! You showed off the new UI, parts and controls beautifully!

ɢʀᴇᴀᴛ ғᴀɴ, ʏᴏᴜ ᴀʀᴇ ᴀᴍᴏɴɢ ᴛʜᴇ sʜᴏʀᴛʟɪsᴛᴇᴅ ᴡɪɴɴᴇʀs❤️massage ᴛʜᴇ ᴀʙᴏᴠᴇ ɴᴀᴍᴇ ᴏɴ ᴛᴇʟᴇɢʀᴀᴍ ᴛᴏ ᴀᴄᴋɴᴏᴡʟᴇᴅɢᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ᴘʀɪᴢᴇ.……

🎉 ɢʀᴇᴀᴛ ғᴀɴ, ʏᴏᴜ ᴀʀᴇ ᴀᴍᴏɴɢ ᴛʜᴇ sʜᴏʀᴛʟɪsᴛᴇᴅ ᴡɪɴɴᴇʀs❤️massage ᴛʜᴇ ᴀʙᴏᴠᴇ ɴᴀᴍᴇ ᴏɴ ᴛᴇʟᴇɢʀᴀᴍ ᴛᴏ ᴀᴄᴋɴᴏᴡʟᴇᴅɢᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ᴘʀɪᴢᴇ.……

ʜᴇʏ ғᴀɴ,🔝 ᴛʜᴀɴᴋs ғᴏʀ ᴡᴀᴛᴄʜɪɴɢ, ɪ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ᴀ ᴘᴀᴄᴋᴀɢᴇ ғᴏʀ ʏᴏᴜ. ᴍᴇssᴀɢᴇ ᴍᴇ ᴏɴ ᴛᴇʟᴇɢʀᴀᴍ ᴡɪᴛʜ ᴛʜᴇ ᴀʙᴏᴠᴇ ɴᴀᴍᴇ ᴛᴏ ᴄʟᴀɪᴍ ʏᴏᴜʀ ᴘᴀᴄᴋᴀɢᴇ 🎁

ɢʀᴇᴀᴛ ғᴀɴ, ʏᴏᴜ ᴀʀᴇ ᴀᴍᴏɴɢ ᴛʜᴇ sʜᴏʀᴛʟɪsᴛᴇᴅ ᴡɪɴɴᴇʀs❤️massage ᴛʜᴇ ᴀʙᴏᴠᴇ ɴᴀᴍᴇ ᴏɴ ᴛᴇʟᴇɢʀᴀᴍ ᴛᴏ ᴀᴄᴋɴᴏᴡʟᴇᴅɢᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ᴘʀɪᴢᴇ.……🎉

50$ is too much for me lol i cant even pay for the game itself

this 100%

🏴‍☠🏴‍☠🏴‍☠😂😂😂

yes, this crap does not deserve anyones money

Cope

Seriously, I was amazed by how much of a newb this guy was tbh.

ɢʀᴇᴀᴛ ғᴀɴ, ʏᴏᴜ ᴀʀᴇ ᴀᴍᴏɴɢ ᴛʜᴇ sʜᴏʀᴛʟɪsᴛᴇᴅ ᴡɪɴɴᴇʀs❤️massage ᴛʜᴇ ᴀʙᴏᴠᴇ ɴᴀᴍᴇ ᴏɴ ᴛᴇʟᴇɢʀᴀᴍ ᴛᴏ ᴀᴄᴋɴᴏᴡʟᴇᴅɢᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ᴘʀɪᴢᴇ

With a TINY part count too.. and the wobble. Extremely disappointing. That was one of the biggest things I had hoped they fixed

@@kapytanhook I think that's just part of the core game design of KSP: you have to spend mass to get a more stable ship. It's a nice stand-in for similar trades made in real rocket design. I do indeed wish there were methods other than struts to accomplish this: a "reinforcement" slider that adds mass to a part but gives it stiffer joint physics might be a simple, if inelegant start.

@@ConnerAnderson you make a fair point, but the fact some cylinders stacked on eachother wobble just seems so silly. I suppose it's a decent stand in for plastic deformation that would be more realistic. I like your idea of having a rigidity slider that costs mass to nudge up and down on some parts, especially tanks. In real life high aspect ratio rockets are normal but in KSP the same aspect ratio behaves like spaghetti sometimes

They have ample evidence already that KSP players will spend thousands of hours in a poorly optimized game. Most people who buy KSP 2 on launch will be KSP 1 veterans. Thus, prioritizing finishing game systems and mechanics over performance optimization seems a sane move to me. The main point of releasing Early Access at this date is mostly financial I suspect: the game will now sustain itself with less investment, and so they can tolerate waiting a few months to convince the rest of the crowd to buy it with performance improvements.

Did you forget that ksp1 is, was, and will always be, a broken and unfinished sandbox? I love the game but to pay for it is a crime. Private division need to grow up abd start expecting more from their developers.

@@ConnerAnderson Yeah, but the whole point of KSP 2 to me was the increased scale and new mechanics. Bigger crafts, giant planetary bases, interstellar travel, multiplayer etc. None of that stuff is in the game and likely won't be for several years. Who knows if the scope will be as big as promised in the early trailers? I don't intend to buy a $2.5k+ system just to run a lesser version of KSP 1 with "better" graphics ... (For reference: I'm a huge fan of KSP and played the game since long before it came to Steam, but there are limits to my brand loyalty :/ )

@@fappylp2574 I'm sure the scope of the game will reach what they promised, nothing seems too far fetched. My only worry is if the performance aleady is that bad launching one rocket without anything in space, how will the performance be when you have dozens of stations and colonies. Having many satellites in orbit always killed my performance in KSP1 already. And now you have multiple star systems where things are going on in real time and everytime you time warp you have to simulate everything faster. Their number one goal right now should be fix performance asap to be better than KSP1 before adding any new features. Don't stack up on technical debt. A 4080 ought to render this at 200 frames minimum in 1440p.

@@ConnerAnderson As someone who has been playing since the atmosphere was more like soup than it was air, I very much disagree. Rebuilding the game from the ground up is a huge opportunity to improve all those core issues with the first game. I was expecting it to run better than the first game and to improve how floppy the attachment points were. I was also very much hoping for procedural fuel tanks to finally be added for this game. It not only would have made it far easier to make great looking rockets, but would also help a lot with the performance due to not having to calculate so many parts. None of my expectations are being met. Making the game prettier at the expense of 80% of people not having the hardware to support it isn't a good move. As a veteran player and someone who has a strong interest in game development this release is quite disappointing, especially considering this game is being produced by an established company not just some small indie group. They have more than enough experience and resources to do better than this.

ahhh but one thing it has shiny and new? a $60 price tag.

Exactly. How is the game gonna handle massive interstellar ships + their necessary massive gateway stations at this rate?

Yea, so far the only thing that is justifying the purchase is the eventual multiplayer and interstellar travel. Since everything else can just be done with mods in KSP1...

@@julialasseguarde5798 Is it gonna be 60? I thought I heard Tim say 50.

@@green7449 50 in EA with a probably price increase with new features in the future...charging 50 bucks for this product is insane though. Barely runs and doesn't add anything of value over ksp 1.

Right? It feels like a UI and reshader update. My modded version of KSP1 looks better, probably runs better, and has a ton more features.

My bet would be that it's a combination of building the basics of the rest of the features (colonies, interstellar transfers, multiplayer, etc.) out internally so they don't have to deal with having to build them on top from scratch and needing to overhaul basically everything in the basic code because KSP1's implementations weren't able to be ported forward for whatever reason.

@@glitchrr36 Yeah, it makes sense from a Game Development stantpoint - I'm not arguing that at all. But after all the trailers, all the countless delays and pushbacks, we are left with a barebones EA (thats laughably being marketed as a good thing rather than trying to keep the community happy by releasing -something- ). The issue is we essentially get a pretty looking KSP1 - with less content.We pay more for it, and then are expected to wait at a minimum for a year for the 'new' features. it's an actual slap in the face to long time fans.

I'm going to buy it as EA price and wait until its ready to play it.

And then they only gave them a few hours to play the game. Seems to me that there are some edge case bugs they wanted to hide from the RU-vidrs.

It'll come later on

yeah they need more object variety and MORE PARALLAX the problem is too much big stuff no small stuff

@@jzjzjzj Very very true