• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

110 Excellent

About Jebs_SY

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer
  1. Hi all, good points here. I have to say, that I missed to point out a fact in the video... with "fast" ascent, I didn't only mean "don't fly slow", I also mean, "try to get to orbital velocity (PE>70km) as fast as possible" (meant time wise). And at the same time flying as shallow as possible while also not flying to long in the thickest atmosphere, too. The video should be dedicated to situations, which I (often?) see at twitch, where people slow down the throttle, cause they feat atmospheric drag. So extending the time where they fight gravity drag at the same time. BR Jebs_SY
  2. Hello everyone, I tried to make a video, showing that the gravity losses are much more important than the drag losses and that this is the cause, why one shouldn't fly to slow on ascent trying to minimize the drag losses. If someone is interested: o/ BR Jebs_SY
  3. Nertea just updated his mods for KSP 1.3.0 but Cryo Tanks does not show up in CKAN. The CryoTanks Netkan has a hardcoded version reference to KerbalAtomics. CryoTanks now has it's own version file in the CryoTanks Folder in the release zip file. So I think the netkan needs an update now.
  4. Just as note, there seems to be an problem in the version file, which confuses CKAN for Cryo Tanks. If youre interested, you can check: Error is: "AVC: Invalid path to remote GameData/KerbalAtomics/Versioning/KerbalAtomics.version, doesn't match any of..." I don't know why it refers to Kerbal Atomic, tho EDIT: OK, CryoTanks Netkan has a hardcoded version reference to KerbalAtomics. I think that's something for the CKAN guys. Reported it here.
  5. Hey @linuxgurugamer The DLL of 0.3.0 is binary identical with 0.3.1. *looking to the build script* o/ And I still have the 0.3.0 bug and no resource filtering, so I assume its 0.3.0 in
  6. I am trying GCMonitor with KSP 1.3.0 and having issues with the HUD text only being squares instead of letters. Am I the only one with this problem? o/
  7. Because that's the exact point I wanted to show. The maximum performance with big scenes with the current (unmodded) KSP is limited by that single (main) thread. (Even while the game uses multi threads). Bringing the game into a measurable (fps) bottleneck situation and give and take cores to see if something changes. And if I take away 2 of 4 cores and the performance does not noticable change, I think it's pretty safe to say, that core3 and core4 doesn't help in the high part count bottleneck situation in vanilla KSP. So in the end the best for KSP is to get a CPU where this single thread is running the fastest while having some more cores for the other KPS threads and windows. For example a fast i5. But I think a fast running core for the main thread is more important than hyperthreading or 6 or 8 cores. For example, as I once checked a ryzen, it had a single thread rating of "only" 19xx points, while my older i5 has over 2000 points. So in the end the (bottleneck) KSP main thread would run faster on my old i5 than it would run on that ryzen, that I check a while ago, leading to more FPS on my older i5. Or, to say at least, an upgrade to a ryzen system from my i5 would not give me more KSP performance in flight. But before we turn in circles with that discussion, I'm perfectly fine, when we have different opinion on that topic. Still nice to hear different thoughts to that topic. o/ Regarding the modded state, my main 1.2.2 install has around 180 mods including visuals, and I think every time I checked, they also not really got over 50% CPU utilization ( 2 cores) in the flight scene. But I didn't made intentional tests here, Maybe I will check that again, if I find time. It is definitely interesting, that you managed to get KSP to 63% CPU utilization in the flight scene. So if Hyperthreading was off and it was not just a peak, something is utilizing a third core. Would really love to see the utilization per thread, like in the sysinternals screenshot.
  8. @LoSBoL Thx for the screenshot. So your KSP is (often?) over 50% utilization in the flight scene with hyperthreading disabled? Just trying to understand and draw conclusions. I assume this is KSP 1.3.0? Have not tested that, yet. I saw the screenshot in your first post, but apart from high overall system utilization I cannot draw conclusions from that. I don't know how much KSP draws from that and how much other processes draw from it. Also I don't know in which scene KSP was. Cause the Editor can/could utilize more cores than the flight scene. So it's hard to gain information out of that screenshot. As in my (highly) modded main install the part count is the limiting factor (400 part station + many mods) and the FPS go down. For the video/comparison I don't used mods, so the game can handle more parts, but the bottleneck is the same. I mean, I have 7FPS in that video, and 2 cores do idle more or less and do nothing for KSP. What's the benefit for the 2 cores then? Having mods will show the bottleneck even faster. Don't get me wrong, I don't say buy a i3 instead of an i5 for KSP. But I think, a fast i5 with 4 full cores is price-optimal for KSP at it's current state. An i7 with 4 cores + hyperthreading or even 6 cores + hyperthreading wont get you (much) more performance than a fast i5.
  9. @LoSBoL When you disable hyperthreading in the BIOS on an i7, you have 4 fully equivalent cores. This means 100% is the full system utilization and 25% is equivalent to exact 1 core. If you're in the mood to test, I'd love to see a screenshot of a Sysinternals Process Explorer - KSP threads window, with disabled hyperthreading, like below. I really wonder if one can get the overall utilization by KSP.exe go over 50% in the flight szene in space. I still doubt it. Maybe something changed with KSP 1.3, I didn't had time to test. The editor indeed can utilize more than 2 cores.
  10. Totally agree. I can't understand why that "free" DLC is so important to so much people. I see a payed DLC as a nice option to support the developer, without the need for buying the game twice (ups, I already purchased it twice), get something nice from the DLC and enabling the continous development of a great game at the same time. Take a look at DCS world.... the modules are expensive, but compare it, with what you get for that... 20+ modules all multiplayer and multicrew compatible... it's expensive, OK, when on sale, but worth the money. I have no problem investing more money into KSP if we get stock clouds, multiplayer, and maybe even better performance... I'd love to put money into THAT.
  11. Well, I know my 10% are being pessimistic, but even intel only talks about 18% ("our results show that Hyper-Threading Technology offers a cost-effective performance improvement (7%-18%) for multithreading without doubling hardware cost"). And then let's take a look at some real case HT benchmarks, check the difference and build your own opinion, unrelated to the marketing people : Link1 Link2 Link3
  12. Hi all, I found a little time to catch up. I really wonder, who has seen my video at all, that we discuss here, cause some things get re-figured-out here in the thread, that I thought I have pointed out in the video already. But it's cool to have some discussion around the topic. KSP does multithreading, but at least in the flight scene a huge amound (maybe like 80%) of the workload is in one thread (the unity main thread?), which is the bottleneck. Intel Hyperthreading: Please don't mix up a "i3, 2-core, 4 threads" with a "i5, 4-core, 4 threads" there is a noticable difference. Simplified said, Intel Hyperthreading "only" gives you access to the (small) unused parts of a core (currently in use) to use it. This usually "only" gives like around 10% performance boost. So a "i3, 2-core, 4 threads" has around 60% of the performance of a "i5, 4-core, 4 threads" at the same clock speed and the same CPU architecture. On the other hand, as long as the flight scene only utilizes 1,5 cores of a 4-core i5, then a i3 can fully give the same performance, as and i5 can do. @Gotmachine Did you saw my video? I think you got plenty much to the same results as I, even If I only tested it with 3 ships a 800 parts in space. But even that utilized only 1,5 cores of my 4 core system. Thx for your work and more or less proven my theory. Are your core load percentages only from KSP.exe or windows overall utilization? Cause I could not reproduce for example a "91/84/83/83" = 341 = 3,4 cores utilized by KSP.exe only in the flight scene. So I assume that are values from the taskmanager, including all windows processes. If not, that would be interesting. Thx for your work at your tests. For these tests it would be helpful, to disable Hyperthreading in the BIOS, cause the 8 threads are not fully equal, cause of the hyperthreading thing I described above. So you can not really compare the task manager bars. Without Hyperthreading you have 4 fully equal cores, so you can compare them against each other. This makes it hard to get information out of the screenshots. And one more thing, windows usually shuffles the load around the cores (also said that in the video) so when you have ONE thread that runs as fast as it can at it's limit, on a 4 core system, being the bottleneck, you not see 100/0/0/0 in the taskmanager, but you see 25/25/25/25 in the taskmanager, cause windows shuffles the load to the less used core. KSPs flight scene seems to be limited by the performance of the main thread (which seems the only one thread running maxed out). So that's only one thread fully utilizing the performance it has aviable. In this case seeing 25/25/25/25 on a quad thread CPU (or 12,5/12,5/12,5/12,5/12,5/12,5/12,5/12,5 on a octo thread CPU, if the cores would be equal, which they not fully are) in the taskmanager means, the application runs at the limit of the CPU, more in detail, of the performance of one core of the CPU. Cause you see 100% load of one core / one thread with its computing spread out (shuffled) over all cores. I want to say, yes and no. The game definitely does multi-threading. But what do (let's say) 40 threads help, when one of these 40 threads needs to do 80% of the workload, so limiting the overall performance. In the video I had 3 ships with each 800 parts and one thread of the game fully utilized core1, while at the same time all other ksp threads added up didn't even fully utilize core2. (Shown in the video.) But again, I did not want to bash ksp/unity at all, I know there are computational dependencies, which I tried to explain with a simple example in the video, too. So fully utilize 4 or more cores in a flight scene is no easy task, I am sure. I only want to point out, if you get an CPU for KSP, get one with a high SINGLE THREAD RATING. For example the new Ryzen CPUs have a huge overall performance (cause they have plenty cores), but not that good single thread rating per core. So that would not be the best choice for KSP, as it is nowadays.
  13. Yeah, there is a NullReferenceException, at around the ROKEA agency, which is the last entry in the ingame console. So it seems the debug logger looses the "connection" to the ingame console at this NullReferenceException. If that's still present and unmodded, you could/should report it as bug.
  14. Would it be possible to transfer "DATA" between different science labs in the same station? I added multiple science labs to a station for using them as USI LS recyclers mostly. But when I deliver now experiment results to the station and putting them into a lab, one can not choose in which lab they should go. But cause a lab runs faster, when it has more data, it would be useful/important, to have all "data" in one specific science lab.
  15. May I add 2 more ideas? -It would be cool, if Fusebox can read the power consumption from USI parts. This is maybe tricky, cause it depends on the configuration of the parts. Don't know if that's possible. -Also a window, showing which part (can) consume what, would be nice. Maybe with a checkbox, if tis part should be added for the overall result, like the filter, but on parts. But that's just ideas, no request. o/