Worst Computer ever

[Corey D]

Okay, I have an HP Notebook 15 Pentium core. When I got the game I left the settings how they were and launched my first ship. It was laggy as hell, so I dropped the settings to the lowest possible setting and it still lags lol. I do not know much about computers so yea, it also has 4GBs of ram.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Corey D

[Snark]

Moving to Technical Support.

[sumghai]

That's not a lot of information to go on, but given you've stated that it's an old laptop with a Pentium processor, it's likely that your computer is too slow to run the game (KSP's physics calculations are limited by how powerful your CPU is).

What version of Windows are you running? Can you bring up the system properties window, and describe the system specs in more detail?

[Rocket In My Pocket]

I used to play KSP on a 10 year old laptop, with decent frames per second.

Have you turned down "Physics Delta Time" in the options menu? That should help quite a bit.

As stated above more info about your computer would really help!

[Vaporized Steel]

My dads computer has a old Q9300 intel quad core cpu, originally 2.5 ghz and overclocked to 3ghz.

it also had 4GB ram.
Result, the game ran like crap. Although it used to be a older version of KSP.
It runs ksp at 32 bit under windows.
Windows used 2GB of ram with background running apps.
What happened is that even under stock a uncomplicated craft would run the KSP.exe process into the region of 2GB ram usage. The other remaining RAM the game required was used from the designated swap area. I believe that term is different on windows but I use Linux. It means it will use the memory requirements not with RAMs quik access memory but that of the harddrive.
Windows has this system to. When it does this, expect any application that uses swap space to lag heavily.

As a application process KSP can use a little over 4GB ram, but from this 4+GB only around 3.6gb RAM effectively. This is because 4+ GB of accesible memory isn't used by RAM alone but also by active VRAM and I believe other onboard memory chips that the application in question uses.
Had your computer 5.6gb ram instead of 4 (which isn't possible, it's either 4, 6 or more) Then your pc could use 2GB for windows and the remaining 3.6gb for ksp.
Because it only has 4 GB anything over 2GB of ram used by KSP will use the swap space.

If your on windows press Ctrl + alt + delete to open task manager. Make sure KSP is not running. And see how much RAM your computer is using with only the background processes. Let's say it is 2GB.
Now open KSP and launcha rocket on the launchpad. Your game is stuttering you say, ok then. Now switch to task manager and look for KSP.exe.

Does it read close to 2 GB or more?
If yes, then your computer is using the remaining RAm requirements for the KSP process with your swap space.


Long story short, upgrading from 4Gb to 6Gb of ram or even more might do miracles. Although it's the question whether a 10 year old laptop can fit more then 4Gb of ram.
Youĺl likely use DDRII ram on such a laptop, plus laptop Ram is usually more expensive, so is DDRII because these modules are EOL. They're still sold as new but I believe there are next to none in the market that still fabricate them.

If this isn't your issue then it's your cpu. Since the CPU is very old it will always bottleneck you.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Vaporized Steel

[T-Bouw]

It also depends on what operating system you have running in the background.

Vista, for example, is a known memory hog and can take all that precious RAM away all by itself.

If I want to run a game of which I know needs lots of RAM, Minecraft for instance, I shut down all unnecessary programs (printer, browsers, office, updaters, etc). You'll be amazed how much resources some programs need.

Edited June 16, 2016 by T-Bouw

[p1t1o]

15 hours ago, Corey D said:

Okay, I have an HP Notebook 15 Pentium core. When I got the game I left the settings how they were and launched my first ship. It was laggy as hell, so I dropped the settings to the lowest possible setting and it still lags lol. I do not know much about computers so yea, it also has 4GBs of ram.

Is that supposed to say "i5" or is it really an oldskool pentium chip?

[Slugy]

Post some detailed specs of the laptop, or people are left guessing.

4Gb of RAM is plenty to run KSP on any OS, unless you go mad with mods, so don't even think of trying to upgrade RAM yet.

[wumpus]

Also, check a few threads on low memory usage.  I'm pretty sure tricks like forcing opengl or older directx versions result in significantly less memory useage (and were critical in using excessive mods before 1.1, at least on windows machines).  Here's one:

PS.  While hp has certainly cratered compared to  when Hewlett and Packard were alive, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of KSP players who can top your "worst computer".  Some of us even had packard bells at some point.

Edited June 16, 2016 by wumpus
oldschool whine, plus helpful thread

[Ultimate Steve]

I used to run KSP on Windows XP, or something like that. Time ran at 1/4 the normal speed at all times, you could count the frames, and I had one of those "ball" mouses that doesn't have a scroll wheel or a MMB. The graphics card couldn't support re-entry heat, so whenever I re-entered my ship would turn hot pink. I am now on a Windows 10, so way better now!

[Fredbear12returns]

I have a Windows 10 HP laptop, has 5.53 GB, and KSP crashes as soon as before all of the first mod even loads.

[sumghai]

37 minutes ago, Fredbear12returns said:

I have a Windows 10 HP laptop, has 5.53 GB, and KSP crashes as soon as before all of the first mod even loads.

You need to provide more detailed computer specifications.

Is your operating system 32- or 64-bit? Are you running the 32- or 64-bit version of the game?

How many mods are you trying to load? Does a unmodded stock game run ok?

[Fredbear12returns]

1 hour ago, sumghai said:

You need to provide more detailed computer specifications.

Is your operating system 32- or 64-bit? Are you running the 32- or 64-bit version of the game?

How many mods are you trying to load? Does a unmodded stock game run ok?

64 bit. I use both 32 and 64 bit versions. 6 mods.

[sumghai]

@Fredbear12returns - you still need to provide more detailed computer specifications.

What processor/RAM/graphics are you running?

[Fredbear12returns]

I have no idea, I'm young.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT RAM IS

[sumghai]

17 minutes ago, Fredbear12returns said:

I have no idea, I'm young.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT RAM IS

What operating system are you running?

Windows XP? Windows 7? Windows 8? Windows 8.1? Windows 10?

[sumghai]

5 hours ago, SmokeyM said:

I'd like to point out that the vast majority of laptops are NOT designed for gaming, and will give you a horrible experience. Some laptops (Dell's Alienware series, or Asus' ROG series, for example) are designed specifically for mobile gaming, but most are designed for power-saving, which is pretty much the exact opposite in design philosophy.

Last Christmas I bought myself an Asus ROG GL752VW (Intel i7-6700HQ 2.6GHz processor, 16GB DDR4 RAM, NVIDIA GTX960M 2GB graphics card, 128GB SSD + 1TB HDD), and while it not a top-of-the-line laptop, it runs KSP x64 very well with a moderate number of add-ons - decent FPS and max graphics settings.

The very occasional crashes I experienced were due to user stupidity on my part - specifically, quickly switching between KSP and other applications during scene loading transitions.

[Fredbear12returns]

On ‎6‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 7:30 PM, sumghai said:

What operating system are you running?

Windows XP? Windows 7? Windows 8? Windows 8.1? Windows 10?

Windows 10

[MircoMars]

if you need help and expect answers instead of questions, please open KSP.log in your ksp folder (perhaps someone with steam needs to explain where to find it) and copy the first lines down to "Log started: ..." and paste them here. Only paste the header and not the stuff below "Log started: ...", use spoilers if you can! these should contain enough info to help a little more.

Edited June 21, 2016 by MircoMars
clarified that I mean the header of KSP.log, only the header and nothing more but the header...

[sumghai]

1 hour ago, Fredbear12returns said:

Windows 10

Right-click on the Start Menu and select System from the context menu.

Reply back with the Processor, Installed Memory (RAM) and System type listed in the dialog.

14 minutes ago, MircoMars said:

if you need help and expect answers instead of questions, please open KSP.log in your ksp folder (perhaps someone with steam needs to explain where to find it) and copy the first lines down to "Log started: ..."

Actually, KSP_win\KSP_Data\output_log.txt -OR- KSP_win64\KSP_x64_DATA\output_log.txt (depending on which version of the executable you're running) is much more useful than KSP.log

14 minutes ago, MircoMars said:

and paste them here. these should contain enough info to help a little more.

I strongly recommend not directly copy and pasting the log contents into the forum reply - it make reading the thread long and tedious. Instead, upload the output_log file to pastebin, Google Drive or Dropbox, and add a shareable link to it in your forum post.

[Combatsmithen]

10 year old laptop? I think its time for an upgrade. You can find some 400-500 dollar computers out there that will be able to run KSP pretty well. I used to run KSP on a 400 dollar Acer from early 2012 using 2011 hardware until about 2 years ago.

[MircoMars]

50 minutes ago, sumghai said:

Actually, KSP_win\KSP_Data\output_log.txt -OR- KSP_win64\KSP_x64_DATA\output_log.txt (depending on which version of the executable you're running) is much more useful than KSP.log

actually not for this issue. output_log.txt only contains info on the graphics, KSP.log's header has info about OS, CPU, RAM and GPU, which all are needed to help this poor fellow. 

54 minutes ago, sumghai said:

I strongly recommend not directly copy and pasting the log contents into the forum reply

I explicitly wrote "down to Log started", so s/he only pastes the header here. and yes @Corey D, only paste the header, don't paste any lines starting with [LOG hh:mm:ss.000]! or use the OS' info as sumghai described.

 

30 minutes ago, Combatsmithen said:

find some 400-500 dollar computers

sadly this is not an option for all of us. 400 $ or € is a lot of money for many people, me included...

[Combatsmithen]

4 hours ago, MircoMars said:

actually not for this issue. output_log.txt only contains info on the graphics, KSP.log's header has info about OS, CPU, RAM and GPU, which all are needed to help this poor fellow. 

I explicitly wrote "down to Log started", so s/he only pastes the header here. and yes @Corey D, only paste the header, don't paste any lines starting with [LOG hh:mm:ss.000]! or use the OS' info as sumghai described.

 

sadly this is not an option for all of us. 400 $ or € is a lot of money for many people, me included...

 

Im saving up to build a 1400 dollar gaming monster! Should have all the money by the end of the summer. Right now im on a 700 dollar ASUS I got in Early 2014 and its using late 2012 early 2013 hardware. It is holding up pretty well. It will probably be too weak in the next year or 2 to be considered a "Gaming PC" I don't really play the latest games, and the newest games I have aren't very demanding.

[MircoMars]

@Combatsmithen I wish I had the spare 950 - 1200 €, depending on which dollar you're talking, to invest in new hardware. right now I'm calculating 600 € for a low end rig, but without a timeframe. ironically when I was in school, it took me 3 months to save the money for my "700MHz monster pc that will last me ages!". But today I have to pay for my food, rent, installments, transportation and want to save for vacations and improving my/our home... 

so my tip for people with no money to invest in gaming: look if friends are getting a new rig and get their old one. desktop is better than laptop, because you can easily 'update' single components. over time try to get the best hardware that you can afford and fits in the machine, start with graphics then RAM then CPU then SSD then new computer, because a 'new old' mainboard is nonsense if you don't start with it... most important read a lot and plan ahead, so you don't build yourself into a corner (looking at you, RAM modules which won't play with the others because of timing problems or wrong capacities or too few slots on MB). and always compare to current hardware, so you know when an update is inevitable and cheaper. pro tip: look for 2 - 3 years old PCs that broke down because of busted capacitors, buy for low price, replace capacitors, profit!