ekstrj

I did! See my last post where I gave it a shot (Knowing full well that beast was meant to break machines). I got the same performance Mark Thrimm got, which was perfectly acceptable given I could fly it fine (with patience). Once I resolved the stuttering issue, 9-10 FPS wasn't a big deal at all. Before I made this topic, I thought the stuttering was just another part of the performance drop from 100 to 10 FPS. I didn't know it was due to all the Garbage collection happening like every 3 seconds. Thanks to Padishar's MemGraph mod, I was able to reduce the frequency significantly. Stuttering every 3 seconds at 9 FPS meant the game was virtually unplayable (for me). Stuttering every 30-60 seconds at 9 FPS is way more manageable.

Further playing around with things got me to a constant 45 FPS launching Mark Thrimm's smaller space station: Deleting all mods Installing the MemGraph mod and triggering its functionality to reduce the frequency of Garbage Collections I had no idea all my stutters were caused by this. With Mark's station and all my mods, garbage collection occurred every 2-3 seconds which obviously caused massive stuttering and severely affected my FPS each time they occurred (between -5 and -10 FPS briefly each time they occurred) Enabled TurboBoost on my processor to 4.2GHz within my X99 Extreme4 Motherboard BIOS Set Power options to keep processor state at 100% and thus keep processor speed at 4.2GHz at all times Note: I use Kaspersky Antivirus, and disabling it made no significant difference to performance which was surprising. Now to reenable my mods one by one and see how badly each contributed to Garbage Collection frequency. Hopefully I'll still be able to at the very least run KER without worry about frequent stuttering. It's the only mod I'd prefer to not have to live without. [Edit] So far KER isn't severely affecting anything and the MemGraph mod is easily able to reduce Garbage Collection frequency to the point where they aren't major distractions anymore. One more update - I'm able to get a stable 9-10 FPS when trying to launch Mark Thrimm's larger space station "Cassiopeia", and that's with the KER mod installed. Given that's what Mark himself was achieving as well, I think I'll happily call it a day and move forward with building my own ships now. Thanks again everyone!

Yeah I'm currently sitting on the default (Balanced) Power Options where my minimum processor state is 5%. I know I could kick the state up to 100% to allow for the natural OCing to occur at all times rather than under load. I was planning on doing that as a test until I watched HWMonitor during my initial tests. No core was ever reaching 100% utilization, and only one ever really peaked at 60%. This made me think that any additional processor tweaking (Like running at max GHz at all times, Overclocking it manually, etc.) wouldn't make a significant difference. Maybe that was an incorrect assumption. I'll give it a shot and see. I already bumped up the visual settings back to high - I agree that they didn't make any significant difference in the tests I was running with high part counts. Screen resolution is limited by my monitor for now which is why I'm still running at 1920x1080. I'll definitely see whether pushing my processor will make a difference and report back. Thank you for testing it out on your rig, LoSBoL, as it's close enough to my setup to show that I should be getting higher FPS in my tests. [Edit] Wow - Setting my power options to 100% minimum processor state made all the difference in the world. Also, I saw in HWMonitor that one core did in fact jump to 100% utilized. I successfully launched Mark Thrimm's smaller space station into LKO without dropping below 20 FPS the entire time. And, I was averaging 30 FPS the majority of the launch. Once I finished the orbit but before detaching the launcher, I was sitting at 40 FPS. I guess I will go ahead and do some minor OCing of my processor as well and see how high I can get it! Thank you for the suggestion, LoSBoL!

Fair enough. Thank you for confirming what the other Steve said and elaborating a bit more. I tried setting Nvidia Settings to use GPU based PhysX, but I'm guessing based on your response that that didn't do much. Either way, I reinstalled my mods and set the graphics settings back up to relatively high. I attempted to launch only the Launcher part of Mark's (smaller) massive space station, and sitting around 118 parts without the actual space station, I was sitting at a constant 70 or so FPS the entire launch. I'm guessing I could tweak some graphics settings to get that back up further. I then attempted the 408 part count Launcher+Station mammoth, and was able to keep a constant 10-15 FPS throughout the launch. Looking at some of the comments on Mark's video, Mark even mentioned he struggled with FPS issues (especially with his larger design) and that the smoothness of the video came from editing, not from high in game FPS. Guess I'll have to wait until Squad optimizes the game for high part counts. In the meantime I'll work on keeping part counts small like you both mentioned and also look into the Part Welding mod now that I'm ready to start designing my own large ships. I was excited to finally reach the point where I could design my own when I decided to check out Mark Thrimm's design first for inspiration. Little did I know it would cripple my system and temporarily let the wind out of my sails a bit motivation-wise. I've recovered a bit now that I understand the limitations a bit more. Thanks again for the quick, informative responses.

I tried both the x86 and x64 clients, and both produced the same results. I thought the same, that it might be a memory issue. It sadly didn't make a difference.

Thanks for the quick reply. So even with more processing power, the part count will always cause that significant of a drop (100 FPS down to 7 FPS)? The ship I'm using is shown in the video I linked in my post, and it has a part count of 408. It's the first space station Mark Thrimm lists in his video I linked. I'd be fine with using another mod so long as it doesn't break other mods (I haven't starting using KIS and KAS, but from the sound of it, part welding may conflict with their functionality). I just want to understand why the FPS drop is this significant even with fairly high end hardware, especially since I'm not seeing the hardware even reaching 100% utilization under load. It really makes me think I'm missing something, and that there's a setting or two (either within KSP or through Nvidia's software) I'm unaware of that might resolve this. Or perhaps the bottleneck is elsewhere, and my monitoring isn't actually capturing what the bottleneck really is.

Hi all, I've got a fairly strong gaming desktop, and I can get >100 FPS on average even running a few mods (KER, MJ, KIS, and KAS) on my main career save. The problem is that I'm now reaching the point where I want to launch large ships (All-in-one Stations, Motherships, etc.), and my FPS is dropping to literally 7 FPS on average starting from pre-launch and continuing into orbit. I'm running: Intel Core i7 6850K (not overclocked other than the standard native OCing that happens under load to about 4GHz) NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 16GB RAM SSD 1920x1080 Fullscreen I've dropped all settings to the lowest, uninstalled all mods, and started a new Sandbox. I've set the Process priority to Realtime via Task manager. I've confirmed that nothing is running that should strongly affect performance. During launch, I monitored CPU and GPU utilization - my GPU is only reaching maybe 20-30% utilization, and most Processor cores are sitting between 10-30% Utilization with one core reaching at most 60% utilization. Temperatures are low. I can't seem to find any bottlenecks based on utilization and temperature. I don't really know what else I can tweak here, and I'd really like to be able to start using larger ships and larger part counts. I don't understand why my machine is struggling this much given that normal ships sit well above 100FPS on average. I can understand it dipping to 30-60 FPS, and I'd be perfectly fine with that performance drop. I'm getting literally 7 FPS, however, and I'm getting periodic FPS drops even below that to the point where the screen appears to lock up/stutter. It doesn't make sense, especially since I reverted to Vanilla with the lowest settings. The ship I used as a benchmark is the first (smaller) of Mark Thrimm's Single Launch Space Stations shown at the start of this video: I found other topics that were from years ago, and trying their suggestions didn't make any significant difference. I really appreciate in advance any tips or suggestions you can provide.

Yep. That's definitely it. I changed the UI Scale in the Main Menu settings after changing the resolution from 4k back down to 1920x1080. The In-Game settings menu shows the warning about needing to restart the game to properly adjust the UI Scale, but if you quit to the Main Menu and open the settings there, there is no such warning. Thank you for the quick reply!

I recently came back to KSP having played when 1.0 came out, so I don't know if this was changed at all since then. I was doing the usual orbital manipulation to land on Mun, but when I encountered it, my orbital map didn't properly change to show the actual Mun. It's still showing the mini-icon of Mun with Apoapsis and Periapsis relative to it instead of the actual Mun. See the attached screenshot. The Mun icon inside of the actual Mun is what the Apoapsis and Periapsis are surrounding. Is this normal now?

Hi all, I've gained so much information from this board and from the huge wealth of video tutorials (especially Scott Manley's). What I can't find though despite trying to search using a wide variety of keywords and phrases is how to most efficiently design planes to fly around Kerbin. I'm playing through Career mode and have a huge amount of various scientific survey contracts around Kerbin, so I've started to shift from rockets to planes. I'm at the point where I've unlocked the Turbo jet engine, and I've made a decent plane accounting for intake, center of lift being slightly behind the center of mass, and the shifting of the center of mass due to fuel consumption. The problem is that I can't find how to calculate the most efficient altitude, speed, incline, etc. to make sure I can make it to all of the spots halfway across the globe and still have enough fuel to get back. Here's my problem: I can fly it at low altitudes (2-5 km) and turn off the various Intake components to reduce drag. The speed however isn't nearly as fast as higher altitudes. I can fly at higher altitudes (8-12km) and maintain at least .20 air intake, but if I don't keep adjusting the pitch with S, the plane wants to constantly tip the nose slightly downward killing my altitude and wasting fuel. If I increase the physical time warp, the plane severely pitches down and strangely the air intake drops to almost 0 within a second or two. If I try to go any higher (14km+), I notice the plane start to have the reentry flames (I assume due to the overall velocity of the craft), and within a short time the velocity vector points down toward Kerbin and I'm unable to adjust the pitch upward at all. The pitch essentially gets locked until I reach a significantly lower altitude (~6km) despite me being able to fly at 8-12km without issue normally. What exactly is causing this effect, and how can I prevent it through design or flight? I guess the main question is if I'm using Turbo Jet Engines, what kind of altitude should I target, what kind of speed should I target at that altitude, and how do I prevent this pitch-lock phenomenon and maintain a high altitude? Also, can I design my plane such that without intervention it maintains a level resting pitch (or in other words keeps the nose level and not pointed toward the ground)? Do I not have enough lift with my wings? Thank you in advance for your assistance, and I apologize if somehow I missed the answers to these questions while searching. I can take a picture of my craft if it'll help.