Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'performance'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP 2 Discussion
  • General KSP
    • KSP Discussion
    • Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • Making History Expansion
    • Making History Missions
    • Making History Discussion
    • Making History Support
  • Breaking Ground Expansion
    • Breaking Ground Discussion
    • Breaking Ground Support
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 38 results

  1. Why discontinued? Im am not supportive of the newer versions of the game, because a) I am lazy and don' want to check my work again after a new version comes out; and b) I don't like the new versions in general, so I don't feel motivated to check them out. That doesn't mean that everything mentioned here won't work 1.3, you still can go ahead and try out what works in the newer versions. I still will be updating the guide with new non-version specific content. Contents: 1. Software 1.1: KSP Graphic Settings 1.2: KSP Physics Settings 1.3: Mods 1.4: Graphic Driver Settings 1.5 Additional Software Tricks 2. Hardware 2.1: CPU Overclocking 2.2: Computer Parts 2.3 RAM-Caching Notes: 1. Software 1.1 KSP Graphic Settings (+10 FPS) 1.2 KSP Physics Settings 1.3 Mods (+15 FPS) 1.4 Graphic Driver Settings (+5 FPS) 1.5 Additional Software Tricks (+10FPS) 2. Hardware 2.1 Overclocking 2.2 Computer Parts 2.3 RAM-Caching:
  2. This is just a rant about KSP's memory and GPU/CPU usage. How good/bad do you think it is?Can it be improved? KSP isn't, by a long way, the most graphically taxing game out there. Compared to the kinds of graphics demands we see in other modern games - even on their lowest settings - the graphics demands in KSP are minimal by comparison, especially in vanilla. Which makes it so frustrating how this game can grind to a virtual halt just because you wanted to install one or two mods, or because you happened to have been playing for 5 hours straight. Even though my PC is at least 7 years old (2GB video RAM, 16GB of installed RAM, an i7 multicore processor) it still more than meets the game's current MINIMUM specifications as set by Squad. The fact an old bucket like mine can still run this game fairly well, even with many mods installed, says it all. But do I sound like an entitled little gamer when I say that if I have 7GB of RAM available (as shown in Task Manager) I expect the damn thing to be able to access it, and it can't. Even in 64-bit! Or perhaps this is still more of a Windows problem than a Unity problem? Or both? I just get the feeling that KSP could and should be able to run at least 60fps even with many mods installed, and it's frustrating that it doesn't. Depending on the scene I can get maybe 24-30fps (in v 1.6.0), but that depends heavily on how busy the scene is. While docking with a moderately sized station it can drop to 9-12fps (I thought 1.6.0 was suppose to improve multicore rendering for multiple ships, but I really can't see any difference); in maximum time warp I've seen it drop to 6fps and then shoot back up to 20 then back to 8. Indeed the framerate can be VERY inconsistent with frequent lag, and again I can't tell if it's my PC (toggling V-sync makes little difference, nor does setting a frame limit) , the mods, or the game engine. And please don't tell me to stick to vanilla; mods have defined this game just as they have defined SkyRim. Even Squad members themselves (Nova Silisco for example) contributed mods to this game. KSP just isn't appealing to me any more in vanilla, because I KNOW KSP can do so much better. The forums are always full of players suggesting or requesting new mods, especially visual enhancements, which says to me the community wants this game to be as good as it can be, and we really need to be asking if it is. Even after Unity5 and 64-bit mode were introduced. I'm not a programmer but I can't help feeling that despite the move to Unity5 and its undoubted improvements, KSP still isn't running at its full potential; and it feels as if it never will as long as it's still using Unity. Programmers, mod-makers feel free to disagree. My suggestion to Squad-Private Division: stop producing DLC and focus instead on continuing to improve how this game already uses available resources. No point in creating more 'stuff' for the game if in turn the game becomes so bloated and slow no-one can play it. No-one should need a StarCitizen-type setup to play this game satisfactorily, it ain't Star Citizen!
  3. I'm playing KSP 2 years already and I always thought that only stock KSP can load faster then 5 minutes. My modpack was loading 15 minutes until yesterday. Now it loads in 5 minutes. The same modpack. What changed? I shrinked almost all addon textures in half! I had some issues and need to take a look at addon resourses and I was shocked. People, are you serious? 2k textures??? I mean, it's not Star Sitizen! 2k textures even for a tiny parts!!! That's beyond good and evil. I'm in 3D modelling for games since 2001 and I'm always asking myself "how large will be an object on the screen in the game?" And playing KSP, 90% of time my screen looks like this: Now think about this: every part has a texture of 2048x2048 pixels. Every ~40 pixels wide part has 4000000 pixels texure!!! What a RAM waste. Thus I spent 2 hours shrinking textures and I don't regret this. I got tripple performance gain with no visual difference. So thi is my public appeal to all mod developers. I beg you, review all your textures or release optional low-res packs. 2048 only for huge >5m parts,1024 is more then enough for 2,5-5m parts, 512 for smaller parts and 256 for various bells and whistles. Remember: it's Kerbal Space Program, it's vulnerable to RAM wasting, so pay attention to it. P.S. Near Future Tech mods don't need any optimization. Respect, guys!
  4. I play KSP at 3440x1440, modded, near max settings. GSYNC monitor. Usually it's fine, and I get upwards of 60 frames per second and it runs perfectly; however, at random points during play the FPS will tank down to 10-20 fps (as a side note, it always tanks the frame rate if I alt-tab out and back into the game). Every time this frame rate drop occurs, a scene change will fix it (i.e. switching from active vessel play to tracking station, or from VAB to space center view). I've tried uninstalling and reinstalling different mods and uninstalling mods completely, but I haven't found a specific mod to attribute the issue to. Does anyone have any ideas?
  5. Hi, I've been wondering about my game's performance. The main things that are bothering me (in order) are the loading times between scenes, garbage collection stuttering, and low FPS at ground level. I know I have a lot of mods installed. I am wondering if this is a case of just being too greedy or if there is something else at play? If it is a limitation of the game at this time, then ok (although it is sad, because there are so many good mods ). The game uses up about 9GB of RAM on start up. I am using memgraph. I have SVE installed with Scatterer. I have my antivirus set to exclude my install path. I am running from an SSD. I get about 20-25 FPS at the launchpad with a reasonably detailed 3.75m ship. Stuttering gets worse the longer the game runs (memory leak?). I am running full shadow cascades, full pixel lights (turning these down makes little difference tbh), with full texture resolution and full terrain detail. I have 32GB of RAM i5 7600K @ 4.42ghz max nVidia GTX 1060 6GB Here is my log: https://www.dropbox.com/s/u7dkl4dszr1yw0p/KSP_perf.log?dl=0 Are there any other things that might be affecting performance and loading times?
  6. Does the Scatterer addon have an adverse effect on the performance of KSP when it is running on a Mac? Does it slow the game down?
  7. Okay, I asked this once in Tech Support, and got no response over several days. I then concluded that the issue was probably a performance setting on my computer, but it turned out I'm already optimized on that front. So I'll try again here. I'm running KSP 1.3.0 on Ubuntu MATE 16.04.3 LTS on my Thinkpad T430, with Core i7 (dual core, 2.9 GHz nominal, turbo up to 3.5 GHz), 8 GB RAM, platter hard disk, and on-board Intel graphics. I have more than 100 GB free space in the Ubuntu partition on the hard disk. I'm playing on AC power, and have the system's clock management set to "performance" (the only other alternative is "power saving", and changing this seems to have little effect, since both do on-demand clock management; "power saving" is just more aggressive in slowing down the cores when demand drops). What I've read says this computer should nicely outperform my desktop machine, Kubuntu 14.04.5 LTS (with alternative XFCE desktop installed), Core2Quad 2.7 GHz, 8 GB RAM, and SSD with ~50 GB free. My experience since installing KSP on the laptop contradicts this; overall performance is about the same. I'll get a yellow clock when flying any vessel with more than 20 or so parts. I've had the laptop since October. Over the past couple weeks, however, I've been running into serious lag. What used to be an intermittent yellow clock with a 20 part vessel is now a solid yellow clock, proceeding at close to half actual time rate, with the same vessel size. Worse, when flying an aerospace vessel (glide reentry orbiter or HOTOL spaceplane) I'll get near-freezes, where engine sounds continue to play and altimeter and velocity displays update, but there's no response to control inputs for several seconds. If this occurs at low altitude when attempting to land, it's prone to cause a crash, and if at high altitude, it can lead to overcontrol. I'm running essentially stock: the only mod I have is Better Burn Time, which ought to be completely quiescent unless I have a maneuver node set, or am close to entering or leaving atmosphere, to a rendezvous with a set target, or to impact with a body like the Mun. Even when active, it's not demanding; it does calculations I could have done in real time in BASIC on a 1986 Tandy Color Computer. I have one other flight in progress, a Kerbal day or so from a maneuver, but that vessel ought to be on rails when I'm not flying it, so shouldn't take machine time comparable to a vessel in focus. I'd welcome any suggestions how I could improve performance, short of buying a faster computer. I regularly see my cores stepping up to as high as 3.4 GHz, and given modern Ivy Bridge or Sandy Bridge architecture, this ought to handle more than twenty parts, and reasonably should do so without the long "almost freeze" effect.
  8. Hi guys! Hope everyone is doing great today! I am writing to try and solve an increasing doubt I've been having lately: how on Earth to improve performance in KSP? I have a super-heavy modded install (100+ mods, +100,000 MM patches) and I'm not willing to let any of the installed mods go. Loading time is roughly 15 min. Game works just fine with small vessels (<100 parts) but gets sluggish when exceeding that limit. Given that I play with RO, RSS, Principia and the sorts, a normal Moon rocket with a payload usually consists of 100-150 parts. Space stations, surface bases and complex orbital structures are the worse, as they receive docking vessels and part count multiplies to well over 300 parts. I have what I consider a decent PC (i7 4770k @ 3.8ghz, 16GB ram & GTX 780ti - the game is installed in a WD Black @ SATA 7200 RPM) and I can't stand the poor performance any longer. I want to create massive crafts and stations without the pain & suffering! What I really want to know is what makes a modded KSP creep and crawl, and how to make it better. Do I need more computation power (i.e. CPU)? Do I need more RAM, more GPU? Can I make my GPU help my CPU? Do I need all of the above? Please halp!!!
  9. I have throughout KSP history ever since 1.0 had a performance issue in KSP. While performance on 1.4.1 is much better than it has been I still experience one specific thing which I think is related to a mod, but I have been unable to isolate the mod. Every few seconds it's like the game freezes for just an instant and then continuing - making the experience just a little less smooth than I could wish for. As stated I think it's one of my mods, since I have not recreated it in KSP unmodded. So my quetion to you (the community) is, does anyone else experience this, and have anybody been successful in isolating the mod causing it? I remember having this issue at least since 1.1, and I do think it is because I keep installing many of the same mods. My mod/dll list from my KSP log. I have highlighted some of the .dll's which I seem to recall having back in the day as well, however it is a little foggy. Does anyone have a clue. PS: I have tried installing them one by one, and somehow I missed when the problem started... Might be it is a combination thing.
  10. Hi -- Boy do I love this game. However, my most up to date machine is struggling to run it. Motions are jerky, sometimes I have to repeat actions because they fail to 'take', and my laptop vent is burning my leg. Note, I am running KSP via Steam on a Linux box (Slackware Linux, for what it is worth). This laptop is ca. 2012 -- a bit old, sure, but has a core i5-3210M CPU @ 2.50GHz and 16gb of ram. Should this not be adequate to run the game well? What else should I be considering? I just installed the Making History expansion. Could that be causing problems (I didn't think this was a 'mod' so posted here)? I'm looking into changing settings, too, but any insight would be welcome. Thanks, Glenn
  11. Hello Fellow Pilots, I have a little maybe known problem. I have annoying microlags every 10 seconds. a little freeze frame for maybe quarter a second. the length of the freeze extends with the progress in the game (more spacecrafts, satellites.. etc) I heard this is a RAM issue. But do you guys have other solutions for me? Its really anoying. Thanks alot H0FF1
  12. Hello there, I am running into a interesting issue lately and I was wondering if anyone has experienced (and hopefully solved) something similar. I run a heavily modded game in an HP Omen with i7 processor and Nvidia GPU. Been playing the game for years, mostly problem free. Since a few days the following happens: - I start the game, go through the loading screen, all seems good but when the game actually starts the FPS are painfully low. - I restart the game multiple times (sometimes once, sometimes twice... ) and then the game will be running again on its desirable FPS. The interesting thing of all this is that, since HP Omens are (in)famous for their noisy ventilation system, one can tell how hard the GPU and CPU are working at any given time just out of how noisy the laptop is. When the game starts on the slow FPS mode the ventilation system is quiet, seems like the CPU is deciding by itself to run on diesel mode, whereas when the game finally decides to start in the desirable FPS mode the ventilation kicks in right away. From my non technical background it seems to me that my laptop decides, based on it's mood, to either dumb itself down and not make an effort, or to actually do... Anyone, any tips?
  13. I am curious if anyone has experience serious performance issues when upgrading to Nvidia 390.65 drivers on Windows 10 64bit. I'd been away a lot in January and only got to updating my windows rig at home last weekend. After the upgrade I experienced some pretty serious performance issues with framerates as low as 10fps in any situation. ie in the VAB, at the KSC screen and in flight. At first I thought it might have been a mod update I did within CKAN but moving to a fresh install of 1.3.1 I still experienced the 10 fps problem. Reverting back to the Nvidia 388.71 drivers immediately resolved the fps issue. I did also notice issues in other games as well. I always use the express install for the nvidia drivers. I'm wondering if it's a driver issue or if it was a driver install issue. I didn't have time to do a whole lot of testing but when I get home this weekend I'm looking to spend more time troubleshooting and I'm curious if anyone else has seen performance problems with the driver versions mentioned. I've googled the update and seen many reports on various games but lots of explanations including the windows creator update. Rig info (from memory): Intel i7 6700k, 16GB Ram, nvidia 980TI, run off SSD on 3x 2560x1440 gsync displays in surround (7680x1440 ksp resolution in fullscreen mode). On the old drivers I get very good fps so the 10 was very noticeable.
  14. So, I just installed A LOT of mods: BDArmory CameraTools Chatterer Stock Visual Enhancements Pack Kerbal Engineer KerbalX PhysicsRangeExtender Targetron TweakScale And Vessel Mover Quite the shopping list, eh? So that means that it'll take a big hit on my FPS, but that's kinda unfair, since I have 8GB of RAM. So how do I give KSP more RAM?
  15. Hello everyone. Is the current version of the game with similar performance on masOS vs windows? My install on macOS is running into a few issues, not sure if it's something I;m not doing or that they perform (FPSwise) differently on these platforms. Thanks for your time.
  16. These are the top processors in the server and enthusiast class of processors for my motherboard. If I'm using a dedicated 1080 nvidia gpu, which would I see the better performance out of general gaming, and Kebal specifically? I am thinking that without the need for the on-board GPU the Ceon may be better. Appreciate your feedback/input.
  17. I sure hope I didn't miss somewhere that this got suggested already, as usual, because as soon as I thought of this it seemed like an obvious thing for someone to have suggested. ANYWAY. Software like the Unity Engine and Minecraft have "profilers" or "debug screens" which show nifty graphs of what the game is doing every frame so that users can diagnose where the lag is coming from: In Minecraft's case there is a nice pie graph on the side with sectors illustrating how much of each frame is being used on lighting, rendering, terrain generation, etc. In the Unity Engine's case there is a very snazzy stacked line graph and a clickable list of which tasks are occupying the most processing power. Long story short I want SQUAD to add something akin to one or both of these to KSP. I'd ask a modder to do it, but the low-level nature of a profiler screen makes it the kind of thing that the original developers would have a much easier time implementing, assuming it's even possible for a modder to do it at all. It doesn't need to be quite as fancy as Unity's, but I feel like a few profiler features would be very useful, e.g.: - How many milliseconds per frame are being spent on aero and thermal FX - How many milliseconds are being spent on part physics and traversing the vessel part tree - How many milliseconds are spent waiting for the GPU to render pretty pixels. This would help out a lot of people who can't tell whether their game is truly CPU- or GPU-bound and find the optimal balance of rendering quality, physics fidelity, and vessel complexity (can I REALLY handle an EVE or Scatterer installation?), and with any luck help cut down on the number of threads going "I have a [crap processor] and a [pwntastic GPU] and [large amount] of RAM, why is KSP unplayable?" If some L33t pr0 modder thinks s/he can handle this, by all means go ahead, but I suspect it's a task better suited to those in possession of the KSP source code and scene files.
  18. I would like to know if the 16mb of cache on a Ryzen CPU (which is shared, so all 16mb can be used with a single core if need be) will improve frames on KSP over say a equal IPC intel processor. Basically, will the extra onboard cache improve performance of KSP, or will it not matter?
  19. As you may guess from the post title, i have a problem with timewarp causing me to los performance. Whenever i engage timewarp, FPS drops down to 1ps, in the highest gear. I have about 5FPS on 1k timewarp. This coincidentally met with deepfreeze telling me i dont have enough electricity on my craft ot keep one kerbal frozen, despite having 20k EC and a reactor from USI. Does anyone have any idea, if that is the issue? Before i do anything drastic and purge my KSP directory. Modlist in file and screenshots below http://imgur.com/K95mJPn https://pastebin.com/usecMkWb
  20. 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.
  21. I wonder if reducing number of portrait slots to 0 actually removes IVA and kerbals from processing. If it is not, it should. I tried it when I was desperate for even a small increase of framerate, but got none whatsoever.
  22. Im thinking about getting a computer, specifically for running KSP with RSS full resolution, RSSVE, and any other combination of mods I may desire. I currently use a.... Mac mini (Late 2014) Processor: 2.6 GHz Intel Core i5 Memory: 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3 Graphics: Intel Iris 1536 MB Explain to me just what exactly would be ideal to run KSP comfortably with RSS, RSSVE, and anything. What type of computer, OS, performance. Whats Ideal for this?? Cheap, or not, just tell me what would be ideal. Because I'm telling you, my current computer can't run it very well at all.
  23. Hello, fellow Kerbonauts, I've sold my old gaming laptop and bought a MacBook Air instead (could get one for cheap and needed that battery). Problem is, KSP now runs nowhere near as smooth as it used to. It's the 2016 MBA (Skylake I5 @1.8GHz, 2.4GHz turbo boost, 4GB RAM, 128GB SSD). Meaning that it's pretty much the bare minimum of what can run KSP. Do you people have any idea how to improve my framerates?
  24. I started playing KSP on the 2012 mac book pro which ran it (albeit at low settings) relatively well for what it was. Now I'm not sure on the exact specs of that laptop but they weren't anything to write home about. In the summer of last year I purchased a new computer with considerably better components: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700HQ CPU @ 2.60GHz 2.60GHz, 8.00 GB Ram, 64bit, GeForce GTX 960M. You should by now know, through the way I typed that, I'm no technical wiz kid but I do know it should be more than enough to run the game at at least low settings. However whenever I boot it up (no mods btw) it stutters to the point where it's unplayable. Incredibly frustrating. I've watched and read many articles explaining how to fix it. Even downloaded a performance fix. But nothing. I've racked up a considerable amount of time on the game and love it to bits but this is making me want to build my own rocket and fly into the sun tbh. Please send help any information is much appreciated. Thanks
  25. hello there I have a performance related stupid question, which may be irrelevant since everyone uses DirectX. In the past, I used to play KSP 1.0.5 with opengl because it was so much faster and used less ram, when moded with EVE. Indeed the rendering is slightly not as good as with directx but honestly, for a 20-30% FPS boost I wouldn't care less. Now I switched to 1.2.1 and thanks to my G15 keyboard, I can monitor in real time the RAM and CPU while loading and playing. Here is the point: When launching KSP in opengl: start KSP_x64.exe -force-opengl -popupwindow the loading time is 2 times faster, and my i3770 CPU peaks at 80% whereas it is stuck at 34% with directX. The HDD is not the issue as I launch KSP from a RAM drive. Why is there such a difference? Could that be because of DirectX 11? I am using SEVEN and I know most of you guys switched on Windows 10 + DX12 but, well, could that really be the problem?? Why would the CPU be caped at 34% btw? Has anyone experienced this?