Post your FPS, lets see if I have a bug or if it's "a feature".

[Jimbodiah]

Hi Guys,


Just splurged on a new graphics card as the new RTX2080 line is on it's way and the 1080Ti was on sale. 

I've been running KSP 1.3.1 in a nicely modded RSS install and am getting 37-39fps with a 4790K/16GB/EVO850/GTX970. After sticking in the GTX1080Ti I am getting the exact same FPS at 37-39. I've turned off V-sync in the nVidia panel, in the KSP settings and also raised max framerate for KSP from 60 to 180, but to no avail. I know KSP is heavily CPU reliant, but I was hoping to at least get a consistent 60fps :)))

Could you guyzez post your specs here so I can get and idea of what frame-rates you are getting?

 

[Geonovast]

The GPU really just helps having one to take the graphics load off the CPU.  The GPU can't help with the actual physics calculations, so beyond just installing a GPU, getting a beefier one won't really help.

As for framerates, they're all over the place for me.  Doesn't seem to be anything consistent with them.  I'll get a solid green clock a lot of the time... then a solid yellow with a noticable slowdown with the exact same craft in the exact same situation.  I wish I knew what was going on, because right now I have no graphics mods installed, and on an i7-7700K with a GTX-1050Ti I shouldn't be seeing that kind of behavior with a ~130ish part craft in LKO.

I guess I've just never expected any kind of consistency out of this game, and it gets worse with mods installed.

[Jammer-TD]

I would have to believe to accomplish your goal of FPS by spec check. you would have to establish parameters of a scientific method.

 so to that, each system maybe too different to get a clear answer, you only have 16 gigs(@26.6GB/s) and a gen4 cpu(I have seen the ksp thread go to 13+ at times).

your quote "( I know KSP is heavily CPU reliant)".. should include and memory, this 4790 indicates your "frontside bus" speed and "mem specs" upgrades should effect the results more than the add-on card.

to get additional gpu performance you might get some by adding a second card (sli) and dedicating physx to one card.

so I think the expectation is a little hard on the game.

as to validate KSP. Run un-modded for your tests as the 35 your getting are pretty good with mods.

I have an I7-8700(gen8) 32gig @ 41.6 GB/s and 970(same as you)and I get about 50-60FPS with 70 mods 10k patches when launching a stock aiers 3a and flying around the runway. but with that I had no issue building this

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/22565-show-off-your-awesome-ksp-pictures/&do=findComment&comment=3455849

2000 part ship and flying to duna. sure the FPS varied as it went but for the most part it was very fun and I hadn't felt laggy at all with an average of only 26FPS.

now I would of course love it if the Dev's could improve this but with time comes improvement.
I did have a gen 4 (using V1.4.4) and after my system MB\CPU\mem upgrade I did see a big improvement, which ties to the hardware aspect as well, which is what I am trying to relay here.

hope this helps

Jammer

Edited September 25, 2018 by Jammer-TD
fix link

[Jimbodiah]

I checked memory usage just now, and KSP peaks at 10GB. Not sure if more memory will give any advantage.

Re running physics on a second gpu... I have the GTX970 as a spare now, maybe that's an option. Not sure how to aproach that, will check into it.


That's some crazy base you built there      

 

[Kerbinchaser]

100+ mods, 2015 iMac retina, 24 GB:

I get about 40/60 FPS average. Not bad for a Mac, especially since I'm running SVE, EVE, and PlanetShine installed.

I can tell you though, my computer works HARD. 

[Jimbodiah]

Ok, did some digging.

 

Physx is an nvidia feature, but is not supported by ksp and even only marginally supported by unity. So having a second gpu and running Physx will not give any advantage.

Secondly, because of the craft consisting of seperate parts that gave joints, they are run on a single core. This means ksp does not optimize multicore processing if I read it correctly.

It would seem the game itself (and/or unity) is the bottleneck here and this would explain why fps is directly related to partcount. Single core performance would be the biggest factor in fps.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Jimbodiah

[Dafni]

48 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

...It would seem the game itself (and/or unity) is the bottleneck here...

I came to the same conclusion when I was doing research for my new PC, which I basically built to improve my KSP experience.

In the end the biggest difference in FPS came from getting an i7-8700 and overclock it to the max (as far as FPS goes on physics-heavy scenes).

All other components yield very little gain when you compare the top level gear with the stuff you find one or two steps below, like 1080Ti VS an 1070, or DDR3 VS DDR4 ram etc.

I would like to note that the overclocking also only gives you a marginal improvement. You may only feel a bit of a difference on really high part count craft. These days I play with stock speeds again FWIW.

Sorry for not supplying you with absolute FPS numbers. IME its just too complicated, too many factors, to directly compare absolute numbers. KSP itself can be moody too, as has been noted by Geonovast above.

[steve_v]

16 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

Just splurged on a new graphics card

It won't make any difference, KSP is as CPU bound as it gets.

 

1 hour ago, Jimbodiah said:

It would seem the game itself (and/or unity) is the bottleneck

It's both. KSP uses a lot of rigid-body physics, and Unity doesn't support GPU acceleration or threading of the same.
As it has always been, single-threaded CPU performance is king.

I'm running ye old i7-4960X @ 4.2GHz and a Nvidia 1070. KSP still runs like crap, my GPU is essentially idle, and the performance degradation is almost exponential with single-vessel with part count.

Edited September 26, 2018 by steve_v

[SpaceMouse]

Never really checked much. Always feels like around 60 to me. I've got a 1080 and a archaic FX-8350.

[Dafni]

1 hour ago, steve_v said:

...and the performance degradation is almost exponential with single-vessel with part count.

That is unfortunately still true. But at least we have a significant improvement over the old days, 1.0.5 comes to mind. We have to give them that. The part count ceiling for acceptable performance is now a bit higher. Not much to hang on to, development wise, but its something.

Not defending anything here, you know me. Just throwing in a lil bit of glass-is-half-full, for a change.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Dafni

[Jimbodiah]

I'm on the fence whether to spend my money on a new 120fps 3440 UW monitor to match my GPU for other games, or spend it on a new CPU/MB/MEM, but I think there is not much to be gained by going from my 4790K to a 8700K just for KSP. As there seems to be no solution for KSP that brings any advantage...


BTW: MY frame rate are for when I am viewing my largest station around the earth. I tested it with my old GPU and the same scene with my new GPU.

 

 

As a tip, instal MemGraph, removes a lot of the hickups/freezes aevery few seconds.

[Shadowmage]

On 9/25/2018 at 12:29 PM, Jimbodiah said:

I've been running KSP 1.3.1 in a nicely modded RSS install and am getting 37-39fps with a 4790K/16GB/EVO850/GTX970. After sticking in the GTX1080Ti I am getting the exact same FPS at 37-39. I've turned off V-sync in the nVidia panel, in the KSP settings and also raised max framerate for KSP from 60 to 180, but to no avail. I know KSP is heavily CPU reliant, but I was hoping to at least get a consistent 60fps :)))

KSP really is that CPU reliant.

Chances are your old GPU was only at ~20% utilization (I have a gtx970, and it doesn't even turn on the fans most of the time when I'm playing KSP).  Your new one is probably taking a nap and only being used ~10% of max.

The only thing you can do is to limit how much 'CPU using resources' you employ; mostly physics.  Fewer parts = lower physics load (all on the CPU).

17 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

Re running physics on a second gpu...

Unfortunately, not supported by KSP (and I don't even think Unity supports GPU physics yet).  Nvidia supports PhysX on the GPU, sure, but the game engine and the game have to support it as well.

1 hour ago, Jimbodiah said:

4790K to a 8700K just for KSP.

You wouldn't notice much/any improvement.  There likely would be one, but so minimal that it would be below human thresholds of perception.

 

Edit:  One thing I've not seen tested in regards to KSP is memory timings.  More memory only helps if you were running out previously... but faster memory?.... IDK... would love to see some numbers though.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Shadowmage

[Geonovast]

30 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

but faster memory?.... IDK... would love to see some numbers though.

I've had the same thought, which is why I will be going from 2400mhz memory to 3600mhz shortly.  I'll try to do some kind of benchmarks between.

Unfortunately for the test, but fortunately for me, there will also be other hardware being upgraded at the same time... so I'm not sure how telling it will be.  I am keeping the same CPU, though.

[Jimbodiah]

I'm running DDR3 CL9 1600 or 1800, can't recall. Check some reviews on youtube about faster memory, as they all pretty much state that memory speed has next to no improvements. 2166 to 3600 was like 2-3% gain in performance. Just FYI before you spend a lot of money.

BTW< I didn't buy the 1080ti for KSP, but for the other games like FO4/WOT that were running at 40-50Hz at 3440x1440 and my monitor not having any kind of g-sync functionality. Had hopes ofcourse that KSP would go higher, but nah

 

Quote

The only thing you can do is to limit how much 'CPU using resources' you employ; mostly physics.  Fewer parts = lower physics load (all on the CPU).

I know this mod, made by this fella, that is geared towards reduced part count... 

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by Jimbodiah

[Geonovast]

31 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

2166 to 3600 was like 2-3% gain in performance. Just FYI before you spend a lot of money.

I need to buy more memory anyway, as all my old parts are going to become a seconds computer... which is essentially my original computer...without me getting a new computer.  Kinda devolved into a Ship of Theseus the other day.

3600 vs 2400 is like another $1 a gig, so I figured why not.

[KSPFanatic102]

I7-8750H, GTX 1050ti, 16 Gigs of RAM DDR4 and all i get is 28-32 FPS with all of these

https://imgur.com/a/wRZXrxE

Not that it is low for all of these mods, Especially scatterer, AVP, and KS3P, but on stock KSP, i get around 47-70 FPS. depending on my location.