Is KSP unstable or is it OK for you?

[Deddly]

I've seen many comments expressing worry that 1.0 will be unstable, and I see others say they have no problems with 0.90, so why shouldn't 1.0 be stable?

I think it would be interesting to find whether it's only heavy mod users or also stock players who are experiencing the most problems. This is relevant because, as far as Squad is concerned, a 1.0 release needs to be stable as a stock game, but stability for heavy mod users is relatively less important.

The responses will be highly subjective, of course, but I do feel it would give us an idea who are experiencing the most problems. No need to discuss technical details here such as memory leaks, and we don't need to talk about performance either, this is just an attempt to gather information.

Edit: I also don't think we need to have another thread about how we may or may not think 1.0 will be unstable because of all the new features and there being no public beta.

I have included a poll with this post, so please vote what most closely matches your KSP experience. You may choose more than one option if you have more than one install.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Deddly
Poll added

[worir4]

I think most crashes in KSP are caused by going over the RAM limit. So this mostly affects those who run lots of mods and those with low amounts of RAM. Other crashes are caused by glitchy parts such as the claw and also ramming into planets at high speeds (Go watch Danny on Youtube). Apart from these it is quite stable. In 1.0 i don't think the RAM limit will be solved however in the future when 64 bit is re-released then i think people will have less problems.

[Uncle Mort]

0.90 is very unstable for me. I fear 1.0 will be unplayable on my current computer.

[SkyRender]

The main concern with 1.0 stability is that they're adding a plethora of new features combined with extensive bugfixes for older features. Generally in software development you keep the tasks of new implementation and bug-hunting separate. Certainly you don't try to do them simultaneously under normal circumstances, as new systems can cause synergistic bugs in old systems and lead to a massive amount of rework in the process.

[Deddly]

The main concern with 1.0 stability is that they're adding a plethora of new features combined with extensive bugfixes for older features.

Thank you for your input. Yes I've seen a lot of similar comments about that, but I'd really appreciate your experience of playing 0.90 in the poll. I don't think we need to have another thread about our worries for the future

- - - Updated - - -

0.90 is very unstable for me. I fear 1.0 will be unplayable on my current computer.

Thanks Mort. Don't forget to add your experience to the poll.

[Uncle Mort]

Just seen the poll ~ can't vote because I run KSP stock but there aren't loads of bugs, just crashing due to RAM overload.

[Deddly]

just crashing due to RAM overload.

OK I'd say the closest match would be "I run stock KSP and there are loads of bugs"

In retrospect, I should have written "problems" instead of "bugs" but oh well.

[Leszek]

I have about 30 mods, it is hard to count. I am right up against the memory limit with ATM set to normal. I can make it crash by doing things like visiting the Kerbin northern tundra and ice caps. If I avoid them there are almost no issues. If I go there, I can get the science and then the game crashes, I restart the game, recover the craft, good to go.

If I used ATM on aggressive or took out some mods I could go to the north just fine meaning that the issue is in my control and I have tuned to taste.

Now I will be happier when Unity 5 and proper 64 bit support comes out but until then the game is very stable and playable so I just chill, relax, lets visit Duna!

[Uncle Mort]

OK I'd say the closest match would be "I run stock KSP and there are loads of bugs"

In retrospect, I should have written "problems" instead of "bugs" but oh well.

duly noted and ticked.

[CDRW]

I run a couple mods. Engineer Redux, Alarm Clock, Hyperedit (for testing purposes only) and FAR are my big ones with no glitches whatsoever except for a few wrong delta-v numbers with Engineer. I recently added a welding mod so that I can keep my partcount down while I make my endurance scout ship (over 70,000 delta-v whoop!) which has the occasional hiccup, Planetshine to make things look a bit cooler, and waypoint manager because how the hell are you supposed to navigate to those things otherwise? All in all, the only glitches I seem to experience are contained to the mods themselves and are quite rare.

[Pecan]

I've seen many comments expressing worry that 1.0 will be unstable, and I see others say they have no problems with 0.90, so why shouldn't 1.0 be stable?

...This is relevant because...

The thing is, 0.90's stability is practically irrelevant to how 1.0 will perform because soooo much is changing or being newly-introduced.

Aerodynamics, cargo-bays & fairings, engine nerfs and general parts rebalancing, level-0 buildings, etc. etc.

[MarvinKitFox]

Just seen the poll ~ can't vote because I run KSP stock but there aren't loads of bugs, just crashing due to RAM overload.

If you are running pure stock, and you have a 4Gb machine, you should not be ram-crashing more than once per about 6 hours / 20 entries into VAB.

The game *does* leak some memory when entering & exiting the space center view, and also when loading surface textures. And during overuse of F5/F9.

With a mere 2Gb machine, I can quite happily build 600-1000 part rockets, do a manned mission to Duna and Ike, and return.

And only really worry about a ram crash when parachuting back onto KSC at the end of the mission. And then only if I never exited the game at all during the 4-hour+ mission.

[Ignath]

I have 72 mods installed at the moment and the only crashes I've ever seen are due to 32bit memory restrictions, I haven't experienced a whole lot of bugs over my 550 or so hours of playtime.

Very rarely do I see a floating-point issue with orbits or a timewarp issue, but never anything gamebreaking other than the RAM limit.

[Deddly]

The thing is, 0.90's stability is practically irrelevant to how 1.0 will perform because soooo much is changing or being newly-introduced.

I do agree with you, to a certain degree, but hopefully this poll will help us see who is more likely to be worried about bugs in the 1.0 release.

[micr0wave]

i have also something around 70+ mods running and the current installation runs pretty good, crashes sometimes but generally running for several hours non-stop.

[Uncle Mort]

If you are running pure stock, and you have a 4Gb machine, you should not be ram-crashing more than once per about 6 hours / 20 entries into VAB.

The game *does* leak some memory when entering & exiting the space center view, and also when loading surface textures. And during overuse of F5/F9.

With a mere 2Gb machine, I can quite happily build 600-1000 part rockets, do a manned mission to Duna and Ike, and return.

And only really worry about a ram crash when parachuting back onto KSC at the end of the mission. And then only if I never exited the game at all during the 4-hour+ mission.

Well it is a 7 year old HP. Ex Vista upgraded to Windows 7 32 bit with 4GB Ram. Oh the poverty!

[Deddly]

Windows 7 32 bit with 4GB Ram. Oh the poverty!

Is it not possible to run Windows 64 bit on your machine? I'm not totally certain about this but I don't think 32 bit Windows will be making full use of your 4 GB there. Someone please feel free to correct me otherwise.

[Uncle Mort]

I think I could run 64 bit but I have some legacy programs that need 32 bit. 32 bit doesn't use the full 4Gb and once KSP reaches 2.6~2.7 GB things get a bit unstable.

[Pecan]

Is it not possible to run Windows 64 bit on your machine? I'm not totally certain about this but I don't think 32 bit Windows will be making full use of your 4 GB there. Someone please feel free to correct me otherwise.

32-bit allows up to 4GB for KSP, 64-bit removes that limit - but hey, you're asking about stability and suggesting a version of KSP that even Squad label as 'unstable' and don't recommend!

[kujuman]

Yay, another meta-discussion about the program and not the game ;-)

That said, 0.90's been a bit buggier for me (stock) than past versions. Well, more prone to CTDs; I do experience far fewer actual bugs, although part of that is avoiding risky behavior (e.g., the claw). With Mu saying he is working on fixing some of the memory leaks, I expect 1.0 to be a bit more stable than 0.90 (I've come to trust the test team as being pretty good these last few versions).

As a final data point, I watch a lot of KSP streams, and CTDs are fairly rare even in moderately modded setups. Known issues with the claw and fuel flow and such still are problems, but knowing the game can help avoid that. Knowing to not trust radial decouplers is an example of that.

[Gotcha]

I think the major problems is memory... if it could be fixed would be awsome!

Then could be other prroblems, bugs or incompatibilities... but memory... please, you need to chosee which mod install and watch for the memory.

[problemecium]

I run into loads of bugs on a daily basis, but few of them do I end up considering major problems. Most bugs I encounter are either so minor I can ignore them or I've perfected a simple way to avoid, work around, or recover from them.

[basic.syntax]

64-bit Windows is very compatible with 32-bit applications. More than half of the stuff I run on my Win64 installation is 32bit. But upgrading from Win32 to Win64 and reinstalling everything, can be more trouble than its worth.

Comment on KSP issues: I run 2 UI mods, Kerbal Alarm Clock and Kerbal Engineer. All stock parts. Even without the mods, I have seen the following issues in KSP .90 32-bit on Win8.1 x64

1. Reverting from the Launchpad or runway, back to the SPH or VAB, with a 200+ part craft in order to make one change, and going back out again, inevitably ends in a KSP crash after 15-20 times.

1a. If not reverting a bunch of times, I can happily explore the solar system for hours, like many other people.

2. During the above sequence, animation stutter will develop at some point, where everything stops for one frame every 5-10 seconds. This is generally agreed to be a Unity problem.

3. Maneuver node math glitches. The lines may jump around like crazy while plotting intercepts, the numbers madly trying to agree with each other.

4. Various Bugs with changing symmetry modes in the VAB / SPH editor. Claw did a lot of work in this area for his "stock bug fixes" patches.

5. The random wing destruction bug... is infrequent, but terribly annoying when it occurs. It is noted in the KSP bug tracker, but there does not seem to be an easily repeatable method that will reproduce the problem. Players would reload their saved games, and sometimes it would happen again, sometimes not. Therefore, I pin my hopes for getting this infrequent problem fixed, on an accidental side-effect of the many other changes that are occurring in 1.0.

Edited March 4, 2015 by basic.syntax

[Deddly]

you're asking about stability and suggesting a version of KSP that even Squad label as 'unstable' and don't recommend!

Don't worry, Pecan. I was suggesting 64 bit Windows, not 64 bit KSP, the idea being I think that would give him more memory to play the game (up until recently I also only had 4 GB and although I've noticed a performance increase after increasing my RAM, I never had any actual problems running KSP and one mod (clouds and city lights). As I understand it, 32 bit Windows only really recognises 3 GB, but again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

[magico13]

I play with a lot of mods in 0.90 and the only real issues I have are crashes from hitting the memory limit after a few hours of gameplay. There's definitely a serious memory leak somewhere, cause loading a save I'm at 2 gigs and 2 hours later I rarely go below about 3 gigs. While 0.90 is pretty stable for me, I am afraid of bugs in 1.0. It's not because of current experiences with KSP, it's because I've seen them have pretty bad bugs on releases with substantially fewer new features. They're trying to do so much, and I'm sure it'll be really awesome when it works right 85% of the time, but that 15% that they didn't encounter in the limited testing is what scares me, and is why I wish there was one more "beta" release where they could have all those features and let us bug test, and then have 1.0 as the ultimate bug free release version.