Jump to content

Which version performed best for you?


xtoro

Best performing version  

188 members have voted

  1. 1. Best performing version

    • 1.x
      75
    • 0.90
      41
    • 0.25
      23
    • 0.24.x
      21
    • 0.23.x
      15
    • 0.22
      13


Recommended Posts

A way to reduce the performance drop due to aero is to set 'aerodynamic fx quality' to very low, fps is better during ascent or reentry.

Another way to increase performance is to limit part count, efficient minimalist design and tweakscale (and kjr to reduce struts) can help. (or you will end in a lagfest anyway)

I have ships with 300-400 parts and they are playable but i try to limit new designs to 100-150 parts for a better gameplay experience. That said code optimisations are always welcome.

I didn't vote because i started the game in 1.0.2 (i remember red glowing bouncing spaghetti rockets, i prefer 1.0.4 as long as i don't have skin temperature increasing very fast)

Edited by xebx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I picked 0.90 and 1.x because

0.90 was a big performance boost.

1.0.4 boosts performance even more, but aero effects started lagging very much.

1.x hopefully includes 1.1, which hopefully cures these headaches even more and doesn't crash of memory usage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like everyone bought it late ended up voting as well making this poll completely useless :\

I dont understand how anyone who played 1.0.x as well as older versions like .20~ would say that 1.0 perform better.

People have shown again and again that 1.0.x slows down much quicker with high part count ships.

I recall a time when I was able to launch ships with well over thousand parts even on my old phenom 2. Now people with even modern high end system start having huge frame rate drops already long before 500 part count.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the problems with 1.x and its performance drops are all the new calculations the game has to do with heat and aerodynamics compared to the previous versions.

It started before the new aerodynamics... It started slowing down already in the last .2x.xxx versions.

I have a feeling alot of people forget or dont know that the game slows down over time when persistance file/save file start accumulating stuff and then when they install a new version and start from scratch they believe they get a boost, when in reality the only boost is because they started a fresh game.

Even planting flags on other planets/moons will make the game run slower even though you are nowhere near even the planet they are on.

- - - Updated - - -

This poll and its shape are very interesting. Wonder why so many people said 1.x?

Also, .90 was best for me. 300+ part ships with playable framerates.

Now, it seems like once a ship gets to 100 parts or above, there's a massive wall of lag. Am i the only one who thinks this?

150+ parts now is subtle psychological torture...

Even my ancient core 2 duo laptop was able to handle that in .19 with 25-30fps. Amazing how now modern high end system have issues with what even the lowest end systems could handle before.

I hope they fix the underlying issue or else the multicore support is only going to make it play catch up to older versions and yet not reach same performance of older versions.

I bet if you tried .19 you would be able to get about same performance with 600 parts ;\

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Back in .23.x on Windows 7, the crashes were numerous. Mostly because of a butt-ton of mods, but even on the stock game it would crash. Windows 8.1 with .90 32-bit ran flawlessly, even with a load of mods. No crashes whatsoever, only time it would happen is if a mod got cranky and decided it was not its day. Now i'm on Linux with 1.0.4 in 64-bit, and the first installation gave me problems when loading the game on the AMD Galium open-source drivers. I installed the fglrx drivers and it fixed problem. If I have to install a different driver to fix a simple problem, then there is something fishy with the stability. Score: 0.90 (1), 1.0.4 (0)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to tell - I used more mods in 0.25 & 0.90 than say, 0.23 so that knocked performance a bit. Older versions were really crash happy though. Also I remember trying to dock a spaceplane with a station in 0.20 or something around then & it taking literal hours.

I still use 0.90 rather than current for anything other than challenges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

0.25 or 0.90.0 here as well. Had several multi-hundred-part craft in physics range together in atmosphere and the lag was negligible. 1.0.4, and the game lags pretty hard with multihundred part ships.

I don't blame anyone, the new aerodynamic and thermal heating systems take a larger toll on the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been on KSP since .13. I have had far less crashing and more mods on the current version than ever before.

This I don't agree with. In terms of FPS performance v1.0+ Is the lame duck too. I do have high hopes for unity 5 though. And the thermal system will likely be reworked and streamlined too. Preserving performance should be forefront of Squads mind when making game changes. In my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been on KSP since .13. I have had far less crashing and more mods on the current version than ever before.

This I don't agree with. In terms of FPS performance v1.0+ Is the lame duck too. I do have high hopes for unity 5 though. And the thermal system will likely be reworked and streamlined too. Preserving performance should be forefront of Squads mind when making game changes. In my opinion.

You're not even disagreeing. The quoted post says nothing about performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...