Is 1.0.x more resource intensive?

[pearldrumbum]

My game has been very laggy compared to 0.90 since updating.

On 0.90 I was even running 20+ mods, while I only run KER, and procedural parts in 1.0.2. Even a <30 part rocket drops frame rate at launch. I have all the graphics settings the same as I did in 0.90.

Is 1.0.x really that much more intense?

[Renegrade]

After some testing, I've come to the conclusion that it is a bit more demanding than 0.90.

It's not a huge difference though..

[panzer1b]

After some testing, I've come to the conclusion that it is a bit more demanding than 0.90.

It's not a huge difference though..

defenetely a bit more resource useage, especially at higher part counts.

In 0.90 i could have a 500 part ship with 0 lag (well it did sometimes stutter, but it wasnt exactly unpleasant to fly). Now i start to get minor stutter with a 300 part ship.

Also, before i could actually spawn around 1500 parts without too much issues (although ofc it did lag), now thas dropped down to around 1200ish.

Its nto a massive difference, but ive found i need to cut part count down even further now, something i had issues with before, as its kinda tough to make good armor and weapons while staying at low part counts.

[Alshain]

It has a lot more parts so despite the DDS switch it is still going to consume more RAM while loaded. I haven't noticed any lag due to part count, but I haven't built any bases or stations yet (waiting on my mods to all update before doing anything that elaborate)

You shouldn't be seeing that big of a difference on a 30 part rocket. If you are I would question whether or not one of your plugins is doing something it shouldn't be. We would need an output log to confirm it.

[pearldrumbum]

I'll try playing stock for a bit and see if the problem persists. But of the 2 mods I'm using right now, I haven't seen anything on either of their threads to indicate that they're a problem.

I don't have the greatest machine in the world, but as I said, 0.90 worked great, even with 20+ mods so I'm a little a confused about why 1.02 runs so badly.

[sam.johnson841]

My finds are that its physics are harder to run, resulting in time slow downs with less part counts, but that memory usage is below 0.90 levels but slightly above 0.25 memory usage levels.

- Sam

[hazens1]

0.25 to 0.90

- Memory same usage on average

- CPU/GPU average FPS loss of 25% (Had to reduce terrain and graphics quality to maintain the same FPS as 0.25 when I upgraded to 0.90)

0.90 to 1.0

- Memory less usage on average (Never really had memory issues before so moot point)

- CPU/GPU average FPS loss of 33% (Had to reduce terrain and graphics quality to maintain the same FPS as 0.25 when I upgraded to 1.0 from 0.90)

Conclusion: While I use less memory than 0.25 or 0.90, which didn't really matter much to me, the load times have been better so I guess that is a bonus. Although the FPS issues having 50% less graphics and physics quality over the last few versions have made me sad. I guess I have to upgrade my pc to get back to where I was with the game performance wise around 0.24-0.25

God forbid if Squad ever introduces clouds, dust storms and precipitation on planets. I have tried mods for these features and while I could run them 0.24-0.25 by dropping the graphics quality of the game a little, since 0.90 and 1.0 I cannot use these features even on the lowest game settings unless I want to play with only 15 fps with rockets that only have 50 parts... Squad would probably have slightly better environmental effect code, but not much.

I am hoping If/When KSP moves to Unity 5, I can get some of my performance back that I enjoyed before the last few versions of the game. I think most of my issues are CPU related as my video card never gets maxed out running KSP so I am hoping multi-threaded physics would give me that crisp performance from before.

[Temeter]

It has a lot more parts so despite the DDS switch it is still going to consume more RAM while loaded. I haven't noticed any lag due to part count, but I haven't built any bases or stations yet (waiting on my mods to all update before doing anything that elaborate)

At least directly after launch KSP is actually ~200 mb smaller. Not sure how KSP handles loading tho, this is assuming it loaded all parts at that point.

[nedlee]

Well now we have parts heating and new aero with mach effects. They should require more cpu time.

[pearldrumbum]

Well now we have parts heating and new aero with mach effects. They should require more cpu time.

I've noticed the issues are mainly during launch and re-entry. In my career right now I don't have retractable solar panels yet so I just accept that they will burn up on re-entry. Right about the time they overheat is when the fps drops to a really unacceptable level.

If I re-enter with just a capsule and heat shield there is no issue. At launch, however, it always lags until I'm at about 2km regardless of how simple the rocket is, leading me to believe it's just my machine's limitations, but I never hit those limitations with 0.90

[En_Dotter]

I thought i was imagining things but it does seem to be a bit more demanding in the PC. Its not a biggie for my pc and i havent been building large stuff but i feel a bit of a lag every now and then.

Any news from the Squad about unity 5? I tested unity 5 myself and physics is way more faster as well as bunch of other stuff (im not an expert programer but i can still see a lot of performance improvements). Not to mention way better collision precision with new PhysX engine they added to Unity 5.