We just had a good chuckle at this on the IRC, so thanks!

Linear why are you trying to argue with people who probably know more about pc's then you do?

And i can guarantee you don't need a high end i5 to play what ever ksp is.

Linear wrote

Terrabytez wrote do i need to say again, you DO NOT need an i5. my friend has several missions with his laptop running 2GB RAM, integrated graphics and a Pentium Duo.

No, you are wrong. If you want to feed people rubbish, go ahead. I can't be bothered helping anymore.

Hey everyone! Listen to this guy, you can run KSP with a few mods and a load of persistence parts with 2gb of ram and a pentium duo! He promises

Did i say anything about mods? I was stating that my friend runs KSP on his laptop.
also about having a laugh. Cool Story Bro, do I look like I care.

oDallen wrote Linear why are you trying to argue with people who probably know more about pc's then you do?

And i can guarantee you don't need a high end i5 to play what ever ksp is.

I tell you what, after studying computer science for the best part of 10 years, building around 100 PC's and writing a paper on n-body physics, and working closely with people working on the better integrator project for KSP and other newtonian simulators, i have a good clue.

KSP is one of the most CPU intensive games right now, however the curve of CPU use is erratic. If you play the game a bit, you will notice you are watching a slideshow with anything other than an i5, and now with my i7 - it really struggles sometimes.

I hate to reiterate, but you can run KSP if you don't have an i5/i7 and that it is not a slideshow with anything other than an i5/i7. Do you also want to tell em how hyper-threading improves this game while you are at it?

Linear wrote

oDallen wrote Linear why are you trying to argue with people who probably know more about pc's then you do?

And i can guarantee you don't need a high end i5 to play what ever ksp is.

I tell you what, after studying computer science for the best part of 10 years, building around 100 PC's and writing a paper on n-body physics, and working closely with people working on the better integrator project for KSP and other newtonian simulators, i have a good clue.

KSP is one of the most CPU intensive games right now, however the curve of CPU use is erratic. If you play the game a bit, you will notice you are watching a slideshow with anything other than an i5, and now with my i7 - it really struggles sometimes.

So you're saying even a FX 6300 wouldn't run it? i can guarantee it would.

To you kids:

There's a difference between running a game, and being able to play it.

KSP is a game where it gets increasingly intensive.

I have never said a 6300,i3,pentium etc wouldn't run it. But you won't be able to play or experience the game anything like you would if you used an i5.

If you want to argue that point, go ahead - anyone who has played the game for more than a few hours will just mock you.

No, I have over 24 hours into that game and with a 6300 I have had no issues with ships up to 200 pieces each.

I think people are mocking you as you clearly have no idea what you are on about.
I respect your opinion, but it is merely that, an opinion.

200 part ships? You have spent 24 hours and you've only done thins requiring 200 parts?

There is no difference between me saying that i can play battlefield 4 on low with a 6670 okay, but on ultra its awful.

You can play ksp on an i3, but as soon as you get bored of stock things and you add 1 or two mods, decide to go jool, or land and return from eve -it's going to be a slideshow just as how a 6670 will act playing bf4 on ultra.

Please explain to me how you can't understand that?


And honestly, i've been playing for 3 years and rewritten the damn physics in ita few times to suit my needs.

Watch a couple youtube videos - it's blood easy to see xD

see, I don't enjoy the game for making ultra space missions, i enjoy simply blasting Kerbals into space and landing them on the mun, to then get blasted back to home.

But after launching 3 200 part rockets and having them crash for some reason there was no lag.

But I may add that KSP is not hard to run.

"2.0Ghz Dual Core CPU or higher (preferably higher)
4GB RAM
512MB Video Card, Shader Model 3.0
1GB Free HD space* Windows XP, Vista, 7 or 8
An Intel-based Mac running Mac OS X 10.6 or higher
A Debian based Linux distro"