Jump to content

Eisfunke

Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Good

About Eisfunke

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. See my thread here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/84203 DX10 isn't available, DX11 is quite buggy, you should either use DX9 or OpenGL. OpenGL is slower on Unity, how much depends on your hardware, and has some minor graphical glitches, but saves a lot of money. Very worth it if you use many mods, but if not - use DX9, the standart.
  2. Where did you get that claim from? OpenGL generally doesn't perform any worse, rather better, than DirectX, the problem is that Unity is sadly not as optimized on it as on the (sadly) generally more often used Direct3D, that is why you get the framerate losses. That's important to me as I'm a proponent of open-source and therefore generally favor OpenGL and don't like if it's called worse just because it's younger and free. Same thing I said to Jason Cox. While NVidia cards perform a bit better on DirectX, AMDs perform better on OpenGL. See, I have a AMD R9 290, and a benchmark with Unigine H
  3. That's odd, as this isn't the case for me and OpenGL generally performs just as good as D3D in benchmarks (or even better). What graphics card do you use? Hm, just searched and found that Unity generally performs worse with OpenGL. I never noticed, probably because I have a really beefy GPU and my only bottleneck are the physics, but for many players that might be a problem. Pity!
  4. Looks really nice! Maybe kommunity will accept this better than Curse. Keep up the good work! Where do you host this? Is it going to endure the load of the kommunity if it grows bigger?
  5. The Story In the KSP 64-bit thread, where Lilleman showed us how to use KSP with 64-bit, gpisic noticed that when forcing the game into using OpenGL instead of the standart Direct3D as rendering system, KSP uses significantly less memory.For example, I use 70 mods, resulting in a 2GiB GameData folder, and normal 32-bit, and get the following memory usages: Direct3D: Crashes while loading at about 3,223,600K ≈ 3.07GiB OpenGL: 2,266,200K ≈ 2.16 GiB Difference: 0.91GiB You see: By switching to OpenGL I could save almost a whole GiB of memory and get my KSP to start with all my mods!
  6. I don't think so. I think it's a good sign they are watching and caring about the community. Well, as I didn't find any other thread about the OpenGL memory fix, I'm going to start a thread to let people know that this can help tremendously, if there are no objections. I will edit the link into this post then. Edit: The thread is up, click here!
  7. Well, that's great! I just tried myself with the following mods: ...where "Custom" is my custom ATM configuration. OpenGL: 2,266,200K ≈ 2.16 GiB DirectX: Crashes while loading at about 3,223,600K ≈ 3.07GiB Difference: 0.91GiB So, I don't know why, but using OpenGL saves me almost a whole Gigabyte with my huge amount of mods. Some people say yes, but personally, I don't see any difference. I would prefer OpenGL anyway because it's open-source.
  8. As soon as they add 64-bit, they will probably do it just like that - the Linux version also has two binaries for 32- and 64-bit.
  9. Currently I'm running KSP on 32-bit and OpenGl. That saves a lot of memory and thus works well with all my mods installed (70, to be precise, with ATM only for the mipmaps) and crashes less than 64-bit with any of the engines, without the annoying little bugs like the missing decoupler force. So, with OpenGL I'm quite happy without 64-bit for now. I think Squad shouldn't focus on 64-bit and instead optimize the texture loading (so that not every single texture is loaded when starting the game and remains in the memory regardless of whether it is ever needed), incorporate something like ActiveT
×
×
  • Create New...