How many/what mods will you run once 1.1 and 64-bit KSP drops?

[GoldForest]

Since 1.1 is getting unbroken(*crosses fingers*/*Knocks on wood*) 64-bit version of KSP, how many mods will you be running since the 3.5 GBs will be passable?

[Seeker89]

I think you need to expand your options... I'm already at 60 mods

[GoldForest]

3 hours ago, Seeker89 said:

I think you need to expand your options... I'm already at 60 mods

60? Wow. Lol. Yeah but you're using texture reduction and memory helping mods aren't you? 

[GoldForest]

2 minutes ago, llanthas said:

Science Alert, Visual Enhancements, and Kerbal Alarm Clock. 

I might use 1 or 2 others just for funsies, but those are my core needs.

Only three mods?

[SinBad]

At the moment im on 46. Basically the USI constellation and a few part packs so i can actually launch and use them, as well as some qol mods (i include far with those). I get six scene changes before it crashes.

if i could use all of my ram i would put in RO, EL and some visual enhancements as well, and B9. I miss B9.

 

[GoldForest]

2 minutes ago, SinBad said:

At the moment im on 46. Basically the USI constellation and a few part packs so i can actually launch and use them, as well as some qol mods (i include far with those). I get six scene changes before it crashes.

if i could use all of my ram i would put in RO, EL and some visual enhancements as well, and B9. I miss B9.

 

How much ram do you have?

[RizzoTheRat]

None to begin with, as a lot won't work straight away (although some developers will have had a head start with early release versions)

[SinBad]

@GoldForest32 atm. Mobo is half full (wife promised me the other half for my birthday, but thats way out in november). Not that it matters in 32bit. Why? Do you think six scene changes is too often? It loads around 2.9, then creeps up to 3.5ish and crashes.  i do use an active texture manager, i cant remember which one, its the one that unloads the textures until you need to use them. I also run with 1/8th texture resolution in the settings. Its ugly. But the physics still work ;)

[GoldForest]

7 minutes ago, SinBad said:

@GoldForest32 atm. Mobo is half full (wife promised me the other half for my birthday, but thats way out in november). Not that it matters in 32bit. Why? Do you think six scene changes is too often? It loads around 2.9, then creeps up to 3.5ish and crashes.  i do use an active texture manager, i cant remember which one, its the one that unloads the textures until you need to use them. I also run with 1/8th texture resolution in the settings. Its ugly. But the physics still work

Lol. I plan on upgrading to 64 Gigs as well. Running 16 right now.

[Joshwoo70]

Soon getting a few ram stick soonish...

[Wild Cobra]

21 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Since 1.1 is getting unbroken(*crosses fingers*/*Knocks on wood*) 64-bit version of KSP, how many mods will you be running since the 3.5 GBs will be passable?

I won't run any more mods than I already do. I just hope it will use the full capabilities of the processor, instead of most of the program only operating in one core.

[GoldForest]

1 hour ago, Wild Cobra said:

I won't run any more mods than I already do. I just hope it will use the full capabilities of the processor, instead of most of the program only operating in one core.

I've heard that ksp will still use one core for physics loading(which causes most lag), but other tasks will most likely be multicore.

[Hannu2]

Difficult to say because it opens a whole new world. I have 20-30 mods I usually use but so far I have not used graphical mods except in 0.90 when I played in Linux. I came back to Windows because I felt it important to be able to run other software when I play. I have 16 GB memory and it gives possibility to use nice mods and certainly I will try something.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, my system is sporting the i7-4790, which according to PassMark, is the 7th fasted processor for single core speeds. The fastest is the i7-4790K. Once I go over maybe 400 parts, I max out the one core being used for the critical part of the game. The utility Passmark allows you to download and benchmark with shows I have about a 7% gain if I turn off hyperthreading in the BIOS. A 14.75% increase in physics.

 

Passmark Test	HT ON	HT OFF	Percent
CPU Mark	7956	8504	106.89%
CPU - Integer Math	10065	10123	100.58%
CPU - Floating Point Math	8096	9044	111.71%
CPU - Prime Numbers	37.6	45.3	120.48%
CPU - Extended Instructions (SSE)	27.9	29.1	104.30%
CPU - Compression	9268	9823	105.99%
CPU - Encryption	1441	1520	105.48%
CPU - Physics	522	599	114.75%
CPU - Sorting	5783	6250	108.08%
CPU - Single Threaded	2331	2380	102.10%

[Wild Cobra]

12 hours ago, GoldForest said:

I've heard that ksp will still use one core for physics loading(which causes most lag), but other tasks will most likely be multicore.

Well then only the 64 bit addressing will do me any good. That 3.5 GB limit is hit at about 2,300 to 2,600 parts, depending on parts and edits.

I have 32 GB of memory!

I have the GT 720 graphics card in my system which is is capable of handling this game no sweat. I have the GTX 950M in my laptop. It could probably handle 10 times what this game gives it or more. My laptop also does almost as good as my tower with it's i7-4720HQ and 16 GB.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Wild Cobra

[razark]

14 hours ago, Wild Cobra said:

I won't run any more mods than I already do.

This is pretty much my thought.  I'm not having a problem with memory, and the mods I run now are the ones I want.  I'll probably lose some due to incompatibility and lack of updates, though.  If more mods I like show up, I'll add them to the list.

[GoldForest]

7 hours ago, Wild Cobra said:

Well, my system is sporting the i7-4790, which according to PassMark, is the 7th fasted processor for single core speeds. The fastest is the i7-4790K. Once I go over maybe 400 parts, I max out the one core being used for the critical part of the game. The utility Passmark allows you to download and benchmark with shows I have about a 7% gain if I turn off hyperthreading in the BIOS. A 14.75% increase in physics.

 

 

Passmark Test	HT ON	HT OFF	Percent
CPU Mark	7956	8504	106.89%
CPU - Integer Math	10065	10123	100.58%
CPU - Floating Point Math	8096	9044	111.71%
CPU - Prime Numbers	37.6	45.3	120.48%
CPU - Extended Instructions (SSE)	27.9	29.1	104.30%
CPU - Compression	9268	9823	105.99%
CPU - Encryption	1441	1520	105.48%
CPU - Physics	522	599	114.75%
CPU - Sorting	5783	6250	108.08%
CPU - Single Threaded	2331	2380	102.10%

 

 

 

There's actually no real world performance gain or loss with turning hyperthreading off. I wouldn't turn it off at all as some of your free performance will be unused.

Here's the best way to explain hyperthreading:

Hyperthreading Takes unused performance of a core, and uses it for another task. Most people think, "Hyperthreading makes my four core an eight core!" This is not the case. HT just takes the idle time of your CPU and makes it into load time.

Example without HT: 
Core 1: Task 1: 64.6% load - 35.4% - idle

That 35.4% is unused cycles, which means your CPU actually idles for that 35.4%. Hyperthreading makes it so that your CPU doesn't idle and works 100% of the time. That 35.4% might be nanoseconds or milliseconds, but it's still unused performance.
Example with HT:
Core 1: Task 1: 64.6%
Core 1 HT: Task 2: 35.4%

LinusTechTips has an excellent video showing that HT on has identical performance most of the time compared to HT off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvkDKucAI1M

If KSP is getting HT support, or better HT support, I would recommend keeping HT on, even if the physics load stays single core non HTed load, as the other tasks KSP runs will use that HT performance.

[sarbian]

Fun thread to read while eating popcorn.

[godefroi]

I'm with @sarbian; practically nothing that has been posted here is accurate or meaningful.

[SinBad]

Eh, its a different flavor of hypethread. Nothing wrong with that :D Speculation ftw!

[Hysterrics]

1.1 isn't going to change how many mods I used, considering I use the super forbidden workaround.^{please don't lynch me}

Other than that, I'll be playing with stock until mods get updated. Probably be working on my mod a little bit too.

[GoldForest]

On ‎3‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 0:18 PM, Sequinox said:

1.1 isn't going to change how many mods I used, considering I use the super forbidden workaround.^{please don't lynch me}

Other than that, I'll be playing with stock until mods get updated. Probably be working on my mod a little bit too.

Mods will most likely be updated before 1.1 even hits your computer as they aren't doing a regular experimental release, instead they are releasing beta's on steam now. All mods have to do is msg one of the staff of Squad, ask for a beta key, and then get to work. I wouldn't be surprised if someone released a 1.1 mod tmrw.

[Tangle]

Considering that my highest amount of mods (including tiny tiny patches!) on record for 1.0.5 is SIXTY, on something that I'm pretty sure is around 16 gigs of ram or maybe even 8... 

 

I feel confident.

[Wild Cobra]

On 3/8/2016 at 8:46 PM, GoldForest said:

 

There's actually no real world performance gain or loss with turning hyperthreading off.

Then how do you explain my benchmark testing showing improvement?

[godefroi]

48 minutes ago, Wild Cobra said:

Then how do you explain my benchmark testing showing improvement?

Whether or not Hyperthreading increases performance depends completely on the load. KSP's physics is probably the kind of load that does not benefit, but I haven't run any tests. Remember, if you read it in this thread, and it had any of the words "thread", "core", or "hyperthread", it's probably false.