Jump to content

Linear

Members
  • Posts

    882
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Linear

  1. 1 hour ago, Poodmund said:

    Your system resources are there to be used. It looks as though you're getting around 60fps there (V-Sync on?) so what's the issue?

    55fps max with a three part craft, when i unlock the unmodded version I'm getting over 100, seems a little off. As a soft dev, i'd have to mark this as a problem!

    EDIT: I'm more than happy to mark this as my hardware getting old, but there's no way a 30% increase in CPU usage is realistic, and it seems others with similar configs are not getting this problem :-)

  2. Here is an album link to an EVE on/off - it's the only mod installed here (might want to open each pic in separate tab and zoom - couldnt display CPU data on OSD: 

     

    You can see a small bump in GPU, 10-15%+ with EVE installed, but CPU being used a LOT more (1GB RAM increase seems normal). Am I just having to face the fact is the CPU is getting a bit too old now?

  3. 5 hours ago, Waz said:

    Certainly when looking at the horizon the number of polygons to be rendered for the 2D clouds is highest, but I've never heard of it being particularly expensive. What graphics card are you using? Did you mean to use both "CPU" and "GPU" above?

    GTX 1060 6GB, older i5 3330. GPU usage never goes above 50%, however at certain angles (horizon really stood out) the CPU usage can double/triple. I'll do some more testing when I'm home in a few hours. It really made frames tank, and I had to uninstall :-(

  4. Gaming computers in late 2015 typically have at least eight cores.

    Some of us, however, have a bit less sanity than others and....

    Well maybe I bought this chip last week.

    There's little to no point in having more than 4 cores for gaming, and currently the majority of +4 core 'gaming' pc's are sucky 8*** chips

  5. Hehe, see, that's my problem. I may have 20 Firefox tabs open, as well as Unity, and Photoshop with 10 or 20 different images, and a few other things all running at once, and then fire up a game on top of that. So 32GB is kinda nice from my perspective.... but I'm not a typical gamer in that regard. ;)

    (I've occasionally had WoW open, running dailies while testing parts in KSP. So I'd have all those editors open, plus be running two games)

    You're really a power user then, what makes me go crazy is an average gamer buying it, and never going above 6 or 7!

    People using 30gb of ram actually makes me happy.

  6. It's an ARM processor, and therefore, performance compared to 'i5 to i7' is subject to extreme skepticism. We don't know yet, but we can probably guess.

    Previous generations haven't been a million miles away, and the a9x is a good improvement upon their own hardware so I don't see why it would be far off, the 'shop display was impressive, yet their price point is still too high.

  7. iPad Pro would probably be fine, I imagine it sits somewhere around the same performance level as a high-i5 to i7 surface, which runs KSP 'okay'.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Can you get an iPad to calculate the physics of multiple objects on one object whilst simulating areo-forces and re-entry effects, and drawing orbits in the map view, drawing high quality planets like Kerbin and others, whilst calculating and presenting velocity and height values and rendering screaming kerbals?

    Ah-hah, I don't think so.

    Be realistic, you most probably could. The new ones are effectively surface tablets which run the game.

    Coming from a non-apple consumer, just somebody who reads device specifications.

  8. I think the next logical port is a VAB/SPH for iOS and Android...

    This would be my suggestion.

    To be honest, I'm struggling to see how FT are going to simultaneously develop the three ports (okay, It's Unity, but still) without significant help from the KSP development/testing/experimental(?) team. And if they do do it themselves, I am worried. Saying this just in case Squad want to do something else. PLEASE DON'T. NOT YET.

  9. I'm starting to think the console versions won't be as close to the PC version as initially thought.

    Tri-core under developed processor with 2gb memory, running a game that's struggled/failed to keep to 60fps on modern core i5 desktops with 4gb+ ram, unless U5 is a crazy performance, it must be a very different game. As much as I'd hate to see that.

  10. 32, and I intend of upping to 64the moment a stable 64-bit KSP built is released. I already have the funds put aside, and I need to upgrade to win7 professional as well (my version caps at 16, but w/e at the moment).

    Going to run this thing with all the mods I wanted AND those shiny 8megs textures for each planet in RSS.

    Why on earth would you need it with dds textures?!?!?!??!?!?!?

  11. I just don't get why people have a problem with the new aero. It's actually easier to make a spaceplane now, unless you were one of those guys that spammed air intakes so you could get almost into orbit on jets alone.

    People hate change.

    OP: I would recommend learning the new aero system. I know, it takes time and isn't fun for a while - but when you get it down, it's amazing.

×
×
  • Create New...