Very low FPS

[iTudor]

Hey guys, I just bought KSP and I'm experiencing very very low fps in 1.0.5, I'm playing with -force-opengl and only with Chaka Mod. I'm getting 8 FPS while in orbit facing only 2 vessels, same 8-10 fps in KSC and all the time.

My pc:

FX-8320 3.50 GHz

HD7770 OC

64GB Sandisk SSD

8GB ram

I'm not even playing the game at 1080, got it on 1600x900 windowed mode, all graphics on low.

here some screens: 

Spoiler

 

Edited December 4, 2015 by iTudor

[Wjolcz]

I'm no expert, but I think KSP depends a lot on processor clock speed. What's yours?

 

E: 3.5GHz, right?

Edited December 4, 2015 by Veeltch

[iTudor]

4 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

I'm no expert, but I think KSP depends a lot on processor clock speed. What's yours?

 

E: 3.5GHz, right?

yup, edited , and it barely uses my CPU, look at screen, only 30% usage of CPU

Edited December 4, 2015 by iTudor

[boxman]

There is no way it should run that low with such small crafts/few parts. With your system you should get closer to 60fps with everything about maxed out.

Are you sure you dont have a integrated gfx card in that system as well?? It might be that the game is for some reason using that instead of your actual GPU. Also make sure your drivers are upgraded.

It could also be one of the mods that are bugged out. I had a similar issue with a "timeslow" mod causing the game to suddenly drop into one digit frame rates after maybe 30-60mins of playing even when not using the time altering feature, so to rule out such issues try to install a clean vanilla version and see how it runs then.

Offtopic: Btw what is up with the forums now causing skipping a line whenever i press enter??

Like this happens when i press enter ONCE.

It is damn annoying as hell

Edited December 4, 2015 by boxman

[Wjolcz]

That's unusual. I have a really poor laptop with 2.2GHz and my average FPS is around 20.

[VenomousRequiem]

That doesn't make any sense... your computer is so much better than mine, yet I can easily get >60 frames while in orbit with 2 small vessels.

Try running it not in OpenGL. I've heard lots of reports saying that OpenGL tanks your FPS bad.

[boxman]

5 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

I'm no expert, but I think KSP depends a lot on processor clock speed. What's yours?

According to google it is 3.5ghz... And KSP even runs 60fps as long as part numbers are low on my old phenom 2 945 and even on my even more ancient dual core intel, so something is really wrong here...

[iTudor]

3 minutes ago, VenomousRequiem said:

That doesn't make any sense... your computer is so much better than mine, yet I can easily get >60 frames while in orbit with 2 small vessels.

Try running it not in OpenGL. I've heard lots of reports saying that OpenGL tanks your FPS bad.

Tried without OpenGL, getting same FPS, maybe 5 more sometimes, and game is constantly crashing because of lacking memory

PD: sorry, English is not my first language.

[jmosher65]

Are you sure you're laptop isn't in power saving mode?

[VenomousRequiem]

2 minutes ago, boxman said:

According to google it is 3.5ghz... And KSP even runs 60fps as long as part numbers are low on my old phenom 2 945 and even on my even more ancient dual core intel, so something is really wrong here...

The first computer I ever played KSP on was back in 0.23.5 on a desktop with:

4Gb DDR3 RAM

AMD ATI 1.4GHz dual core processor

Radeon HD 7310 intergrated graphics

All stuffed into a cheap Gateway SX2110. My average was about 10-15 FPS, with not a single part loaded on screen. But man, did I play that game anyways. I feel your pain yo.

[iTudor]

3 minutes ago, jmosher65 said:

Are you sure you're laptop isn't in power saving mode?

I'm not on a laptop

[Speadge]

does that happen in Dx9 (defaultmode) as well?

[Guest]

Maybe try 64 bit?  It'll use more CPU, but as you said, it isn't really using a lot of it.  How many cores?  KSP doesn't support multithreading.

[Speadge]

damn forum / cant edit:

next question: did you check the debuglog that might be spamming errors?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Speadge said:

damn forum / cant edit:

next question: did you check the debuglog that might be spamming errors?

Definitely check that and post the contents.

[iTudor]

 

 

19 minutes ago, Speadge said:

damn forum / cant edit:

next question: did you check the debuglog that might be spamming errors?

Spoiler

20 minutes ago, CliftonM said:

Maybe try 64 bit?  It'll use more CPU, but as you said, it isn't really using a lot of it.  How many cores?  KSP doesn't support multithreading.

Tried 64 bit version, still same.

22 minutes ago, Speadge said:

does that happen in Dx9 (defaultmode) as well?

Happens in DX9 mode  too.

 

Now I just noticed that in VAB and KSC I started to get more fps, but when I reach orbit or launching vessels fps drops to 8-20. 

[sal_vager]

Moved to modded support, as Speadge and CliftonM say we need to see your logs to have a better idea of what's going on, you can find the output_log.txt in KSP_Data and put it on pastebin.

The log will say what graphics card and driver KSP found, and will show if an addon is spamming the log.

Your dxdiag hardware report would also be useful as it can show the date and version of your drivers, and your settings.cfg will show if you are using the fallback modes or have the delta time slider up too far.

[Sean Mirrsen]

45 minutes ago, iTudor said:

yup, edited , and it barely uses my CPU, look at screen, only 30% usage of CPU

The CPU percentage matters little if you're on a multicore. The FX-8320 is an octa-core, even, so the single-thread KSP process can only use 12.5% of the total at maximum load, auxiliaries like the sound system not taken into account.

I would recommend using something better than the built-in process manager (even if it's win10's, as I assume you have as you have Cortana), a-la [url=https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx]Process Explorer, which allows you to see what happens where in more detail.

Also, it might just be a Windows 10 thing. See about updating any drivers, turning off any intrusive security services, etc.

Also look into the game settings and check that you haven't accidentally cranked the max physics delta time to the minimum. And check if setting it higher improves anything.

[iTudor]

24 minutes ago, sal_vager said:

Moved to modded support, as Speadge and CliftonM say we need to see your logs to have a better idea of what's going on, you can find the output_log.txt in KSP_Data and put it on pastebin.

The log will say what graphics card and driver KSP found, and will show if an addon is spamming the log.

Your dxdiag hardware report would also be useful as it can show the date and version of your drivers, and your settings.cfg will show if you are using the fallback modes or have the delta time slider up too far.

Here is the DxDiag:

http://pastebin.com/EJ7X9FQk

And I can't upload the output_log to pastebin because its too large, I uploaded it to Mega:  https://mega.nz/#!7hoFER4C!qZkeyCerFMcoULBQca_2Ikg4llM1hF1cu1-HZ9dGw38

And the settings.cfg: http://pastebin.com/p907ejAF

Edited December 4, 2015 by iTudor

[sal_vager]

The system looks fine, you could try setting the AMD card to its performance settings if it isn't already, there is a lot of logspam though from the addons, particularly KAS, KJR, Chacka and something else I don't know, it's not showing the part names when logging the collision or the oversized collider mesh.

You could try removing addons one by one until the lag stops, also try starting KSP with -nolog as that will cut out the logspam.

[Delta_8930]

In the settings screen, if you turn down rendering to the "fantastic" and aerodynamic fx to "minimal", it should work. I had a very similar issue and now KSP works fine. Also, you might want to adjust the "max-Physics Delta Time-Frame" setting. If you turn it to the right, the game will work smoothly, but it will be slow because it is attempting accurate calculations. If you turn it to the left, the game will be fast, but it will not be as smooth because the physics calculations are not as accurate as the smooth setting.

I hope this helps!

[iTudor]

42 minutes ago, sal_vager said:

3 minutes ago, sal_vager said:

The system looks fine, you could try setting the AMD card to its performance settings if it isn't already, there is a lot of logspam though from the addons, particularly KAS, KJR, Chacka and something else I don't know, it's not showing the part names when logging the collision or the oversized collider mesh.

You could try removing addons one by one until the lag stops, also try starting KSP with -nolog as that will cut out the logspam.

I'll try later stock KSP without any mod, but  last time I tried that I also had poor performance, I think i'll just wait to Unity 5 update. Thank you guys for helping

[sal_vager]

Trouble with that is, if something is slowing KSP now it may also do it in 1.1, KSP shouldn't be running that slow unless you're flying high part count vessels.

It'd be useful to know just how many parts you're using per ship, and may be useful to know what other processes you're running screenshot taskmanager) in case there's something on your PC slowing KSP down.

For example Fraps is known to seriously impact KSP's performance.

[curtquarquesso]

So, with extensive testing, I've figured out a few things: 

• Start the tuning process with stock KSP, and a brand-new settings.cfg file. You can reset all your settings by just deleting the settings.cfg, and starting the game. KSP will generate one.
• Set Anti-Aliasing to none right away. It's a huge FPS killer.
• Drag Render Quality down to Fast, or Fastest if you can. It can save a lot of frames. Note that this will override the Pixel Light Count and Shadow Cascade settings. Render Quality effects shadow rendering, as well as particle stuff and light counts. 
• If you're running the standard 32-bit build of KSP, run half textures, or lower. If you're using the 64-bit workaround version on either Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux, go ahead and use full textures. You won't see a bad frame hit as far as I can tell.
• Oceans on Kerbin, Laythe, and Eve are rough on frames. Follow this forum link here to keep them from killing your frames: 
• Terrain Scatters are the rocks you see on the moon, the trees you see on Kerbin, etc. They have no collision, so you can pass right through them. I believe they are tough on frames, so disable if you can. Disabling overrides the scatter density. 
• If you're on Mac OS X, or Linux, your game will be using OpenGL by default. There is no DirectX on either of these platforms. In Steam, you can use -force-opengl if you want, but I don't believe it has any effect.
• If you're on Windows, your game will run on DirectX9 by default. You can force KSP to run in DirectX11 by using -force-d3d11. You can also force KSP to run in OpenGL by using -force-opengl. I'm not sure which is better. More info here.
• Run in windowed or windowed-borderless mode. For windowed-borderless, in Steam, you can use the startup command -popupwindow.
• Obviously, your resolution effects frames a lot. It'd be nice to run it at at least 1920x1080, but for some, it's just too much. If you don't see the resolution you want in settings, you can set a custom resolution in the settings.cfg. 
• You could use a texture reduction add-on, like Active Texture Management, but with the stock game now using .dds, and most mod-authors now fully adopting, there's little reason in most cases. 
• Regarding the 64-bit workaround, remember that it will only increase the amount of memory that the game can use before crashing, not your FPS. This will allow you to load full textures in most cases, and use more add-ons without crashing.
• Your CPU clock-speed will greatly effect your frames when dealing with large vessels, and physics. All the physics calculations are run through the CPU.
• Because the CPU is heavily utilized by KSP, the framerate is sensitive to other processes running on your computer. Close everything out, and perhaps reboot. See if that improves frames as well.
• You can get some frames by adjusting the Max Physics Delta Time parameter in your settings.
  • Increasing the value will make the game appear to run faster and choppier, but your physics will be less accurate, as less physics calculations will be run per second, thereby decreasing physics accuracy. 
  • Decreasing the value will make the game run smoother, but slower. Your in-game speed will slow down so that your computer can keep pace with physics without cutting corners. 
• Your GPU has little impact on performance at the moment. Usually, your CPU will be the limiting factor, lesser-so, the GPU. 1.1 should help with this. 
• Use the debug toolbar (Alt-F12) to check your framerate, and more importantly, your framerate smoothness, as well as checking the debug log for errors. 

This is a general list of information I'm trying to assemble. I'd like to start one big gigantic performance thread. All the good info seems to be scattered about the forum.

In your case, the Chaka Monkey add-on is specifically stated to be not supported in KSP 1.0.5. It says so right in the forum page. On top of that, in my opinion, Chaka Monkey is a really badly optimized add-on, at least in it's current state. It's got a ton of unconverted .png files and normal maps. Both are tough on performance. Additionally,I believe Chaka Monkey still has concave colliders, so if your rockets are exploding when you stage them, that's why. Wait for a properly supported update to run Chaka. 

 When you're tuning performance, do so without any add-ons installed, and then add mods as you go, noting the effects of each addition. 

Hope this helps some.

Edited December 4, 2015 by curtquarquesso

[iTudor]

11 minutes ago, curtquarquesso said:

So, with extensive testing, I've figured out a few things: 

• Set Anti-Aliasing to none right away. It's a huge FPS killer.
• Drag Render Quality down to Fast, or Fastest if you can. It can save a lot of frames. Note that this will override the Pixel Light Count and Shadow Cascade settings. Render Quality effects shadow rendering, as well as particle stuff and light counts. 
• If you're running the standard 32-bit build of KSP, run half textures, or lower. If you're using the 64-bit workaround version on either Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux, go ahead and use full textures. You won't see a bad frame hit as far as I can tell.
• Oceans on Kerbin, Laythe, and Eve are rough on frames. Follow this forum link here to keep them from killing your frames: 
• Terrain Scatters are the rocks you see on the moon, the trees you see on Kerbin, etc. They have no collision, so you can pass right through them. I believe they are tough on frames, so disable if you can. Disabling overrides the scatter density. 
• If you're on Mac OS X, or Linux, your game will be using OpenGL by default. There is no DirectX on either of these platforms. In Steam, you can use -force-opengl if you want, but I don't believe it has any effect.
• If you're on Windows, your game will run on DirectX9 by default. You can force KSP to run in DirectX11 by using -force-d3d11. You can also force KSP to run in OpenGL by using -force-opengl. I'm not sure which is better. More info here.
• Run in windowed or windowed-borderless mode. For windowed-borderless, in Steam, you can use the startup command -popupwindow.
• Obviously, your resolution effects frames a lot. It'd be nice to run it at at least 1920x1080, but for some, it's just too much. If you don't see the resolution you want in settings, you can set a custom resolution in the settings.cfg. 
• You could use a texture reduction add-on, like Active Texture Management, but with the stock game now using .dds, and most mod-authors now fully adopting, there's little reason in most cases. 
• Regarding the 64-bit workaround, remember that it will only increase the amount of memory that the game can use before crashing, not your FPS. This will allow you to load full textures in most cases, and use more add-ons without crashing.
• Your CPU clock-speed will greatly effect your frames when dealing with large vessels, and physics. All the physics calculations are run through the CPU. You can get some frames by adjusting the Max Physics Delta Time parameter in your settings.
  • Increasing the value will make the game appear to run faster and choppier, but your physics will be less accurate, as less physics calculations will be run per second, thereby decreasing physics accuracy. 
  • Decreasing the value will make the game run smoother, but slower. Your in-game speed will slow down so that your computer can keep pace with physics without cutting corners. 
• Your GPU has little impact on performance at the moment. Usually, your CPU will be the limiting factor, lesser-so, the GPU. 1.1 should help with this. 
• Use the debug toolbar (Alt-F12) to check your framerate, and more importantly, your framerate smoothness, as well as checking the debug log for errors. 

This is a general list of information I'm trying to assemble. I'd like to start one big gigantic performance thread. All the good info seems to be scattered about the forum.

In your case, the Chaka Monkey add-on is specifically stated to be not supported in KSP 1.0.5. It says so right in the forum page. On top of that, in my opinion, Chaka Monkey is a really badly optimized add-on, at least in it's current state. It's got a ton of unconverted .png files and normal maps. Both are tough on performance. Additionally,I believe Chaka Monkey still has concave colliders, so if your rockets are exploding when you stage them, that's why. Wait for a properly supported update to run Chaka. 

 When you're tuning performance, do so without any add-ons installed, and then add mods as you go, noting the effects of each addition. 

Hope this helps some.

Thank You sir, just installed stock without mods and everything on low  and voila: http://prntscr.com/9a9xjo

In my case Chaka Monkey mod doesn't explode any vessel decoupling, that happened with FASA last time I tried in 1.0.5.