Jump to content

[Discontinued][1.1.x to 1.9.x] How to improve Performance


xXKSP_playerXx

Im curious.  

208 members have voted

  1. 1. How is your average performance in KSP ?

    • Good (above 50FPS)
      35
    • Below Good (40-50 FPS)
      19
    • Playable (30-40FPS)
      43
    • Below Playable (20-30FPS)
      55
    • Bad (10-20 FPS)
      38
    • Sh*t (1-10FPS)
      18
  2. 2. Did the guide help you ? (if no, whats the problem?)

    • Yes
      163
    • No
      43


Recommended Posts

  • 4 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Just another option to mod users. Usually, moders are using very large textures. For example, 2k texture weights about 20Mb, to comparision, 1k texture is about 5 Mb and most of time you will not see any difference between them.

Just shrink large textures in half and you will get <5 minutes to main menu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hello all,

I am relatively new on this forum but I have being using KSP in a very intense way in the last 8 months.

I really don't understand why kerbal space program say those Hardware requirements, and suggestions on that low-end hardware, the idea is make it slow!?

Of course not, but they should point at least in my opinion for one Minimum version, 2 Medium versions and 2 High-end versions.

There are some bugs related with mode screen changes, between screen resolution and view port, that is basic I don't know why that was not solved, from a developer point of view.

 

Now related with the KSP performance I personally have 3 or 4 instances of KSP in order to allow me to boot fast when I want and do a full load mods when is needed.

My original 1.7.2: (Zero MODs)

VpOcUSh.png

https://imgur.com/VpOcUSh My original 1.7.3: (Zero MODs)

https://imgur.com/aZgwEfk aZgwEfk.png

7xzfBce.png

 

r4XIRHF.png

Edited by pmborg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Computer Specs:

Motherboard Asus MAXIMUS IX CODE  (all builds)
Memory 13.4 GB free of 16 GB @ 2.1 GHz
Display 1920 x 1080 - 32 Bit colors
OS Windows 10

UserBenchmarks: Game 105%, Desk 102%, Work 82%

OC BOARD: (Automatic BOARD BIOS OC for all System)
OC CPU: Intel Core i7-7700K - 117.6%
OC GPU: Nvidia GTX 1070 - 103.7%
SSD: Kingston SSDNow V300 240GB - 52.7%
SSD: Toshiba DT01ACA200 480GB - 72.1%
SSD: Crucial BX200 480GB - 92.7%
HDD: Toshiba DT01ACA200 2TB - 80.4%
HDD: Seagate M3 Portable 4TB - 22.4%
USB: WD Elements 10B8 1.5TB - 20.9%
USB: ST1000LM 024 HN-M101M 1TB - 17.1%
RAM: G.SKILL F4 DDR4 4000 C18 2x8GB - 73.7%
MBD: Asus MAXIMUS IX CODE

More details:

https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/18585655

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hey there,

I just decided to upgrade my system with a new CPU.

I'd like to know whether anybody has any experiences and could tell me whether to better get an R7-3800x or an i9-9900k .

I saddly d'ont have any experience with these, so I wanted to know, whether you guys could give me some tips (my CPU is an FX-6300 at the moment;.;).

Thank you in advance

 

 

(Sorry for my bad english, it's not my native language:wink:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rettter3 said:

Hey there,

I just decided to upgrade my system with a new CPU.

I'd like to know whether anybody has any experiences and could tell me whether to better get an R7-3800x or an i9-9900k .

I saddly d'ont have any experience with these, so I wanted to know, whether you guys could give me some tips (my CPU is an FX-6300 at the moment;.;).

Thank you in advance

 

 

(Sorry for my bad english, it's not my native language:wink:)

For this game an i9 or even i7 is pointless.  You'll get nearly identical performance with an i5-9600K,  and it's half the price.

Kerbal Space Program performance is almost singularly dependent on single-thread speed, which depends mostly on the clock rate of the processor. If you really want maximum KSP performance, get an i5-9600K and spend the money on a decent water-cooling kit to overclock the hell out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tsaven said:

For this game an i9 or even i7 is pointless.  You'll get nearly identical performance with an i5-9600K,  and it's half the price.

Kerbal Space Program performance is almost singularly dependent on single-thread speed, which depends mostly on the clock rate of the processor. If you really want maximum KSP performance, get an i5-9600K and spend the money on a decent water-cooling kit to overclock the hell out of it.

Or solve KSP and all other issues by getting a 9900k and water cooling it and overclocking it to 5.1Ghz. That's the machine I just built for myself, along with a RTX2080 for other games and apps that is useless for KSP. 

I need the machine HP for other purposes, not just games. You're right that a KSP-specific build could be much cheaper with a less expensive CPU and 32Gb of the fastest RAM the motherboard will support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, vossiewulf said:

Or solve KSP and all other issues by getting a 9900k and water cooling it and overclocking it to 5.1Ghz. That's the machine I just built for myself, along with a RTX2080 for other games and apps that is useless for KSP. 

I need the machine HP for other purposes, not just games. You're right that a KSP-specific build could be much cheaper with a less expensive CPU and 32Gb of the fastest RAM the motherboard will support.

I know the i9 is a different beast, but at least with the prior generation the only difference between the i5 and i7 was the addition of Hyperthreading, which doesn't make a nutsack's worth of difference for most games at all.  It's still questionable if adding another couple of cores for the i9 is really worth it either, given how few applications will still take advantage of it.

But they do give a giant e-peens to wave around at your local LAN party, so that's gotta count for something.

Edited by tsaven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tsaven said:

I know the i9 is a different beast, but at least with the prior generation the only difference between the i5 and i7 was the addition of Hyperthreading, which doesn't make a nutsack's worth of difference for most games at all.  It's still questionable if adding another couple of cores for the i9 is really worth it either, given how few applications will still take advantage of it.

But they do give a giant e-peens to wave around at your local LAN party, so that's gotta count for something.

(waves around giant e-peens)

I'm a little past that actually, the machine is built for modeling and rendering performance, the games performance is a secondary advantage. In fact looking at the preferred 3dMark benchmarks, it seems like they're all 3d card and the CPU is almost meaningless, I think you could hook up an i5 to an RTX2080 and be only slightly below an i9 running the same card. The days of CPU being important to average users, even most gamers, seems to have gone by the wayside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Apologies for the resurrection, but I thought this might save someone a few cycles of frustration.

I spent a lot of time debugging performance issues, and it turns out that one mod in particular was responsible for my problem: Trajectories. 

 

In the dialog for that mod, they warn you if you are having performance issues, turn on caching in the settings for the trajectory mod.  Took me from <20 fps back to 120.  I am a big fan of the mod, but the difference in performance was staggering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 5/9/2020 at 11:15 PM, Eogen said:

Apologies for the resurrection, but I thought this might save someone a few cycles of frustration.

I spent a lot of time debugging performance issues, and it turns out that one mod in particular was responsible for my problem: Trajectories. 

 

In the dialog for that mod, they warn you if you are having performance issues, turn on caching in the settings for the trajectory mod.  Took me from <20 fps back to 120.  I am a big fan of the mod, but the difference in performance was staggering.

Thank you very much for tracking this one down.  Disabling Trajectories seems to have given me back about 50 fps.  I was getting less than 20.  Same as you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

This might be a weird question since this thread is about wanting more performance... But I have a GTX 1650 and can play at 1080p with every setting at max, at 60 frames per second with Astronomers Visual Pack, which to my knowledge is the most demanding EVE mod out there. With SVE+Scatterer I can get even more, about 80-90 FPS, but the posted minimum for SVE+Scatterer at 1080p is a 1660, which is about 60% faster than my 1650, and I wouldn't consider 60 FPS a "Minimum" at all.

I'm obviously not complaining, just a bit confused. I thought I would have to dial some settings back, but I don't need to at all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 8/4/2020 at 12:14 AM, Delta Space said:

I'm obviously not complaining, just a bit confused. I thought I would have to dial some settings back, but I don't need to at all...

It looks like you haven't played older KSP versions they sucked in that aspect the newer ones are very optimized. Also its mostly only relevant with large crafts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
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...