I have a big problem

[linuxgurugamer]

46 minutes ago, Commissioner Tadpole said:

Oh, neat! Still, I don't really think my current computer could handle 1.9, since it's already aging, and I was wanting to wait 'til I could afford a Ryzen 5 3400G CPU and upgrade to 16 gigs of RAM (versus my current 8 gigs) and an SSD anyway.

And yeah, but the point I was trying to make is, if KSP 2 fails like 76 did, people would overwhelmingly stick with KSP 1 anyway

You might be surprised.  1.9 has significant performance improvements

[dave1904]

3 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

You might be surprised.  1.9 has significant performance improvements

compared to 1.8.1 too? 

[linuxgurugamer]

13 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

compared to 1.8.1 too? 

Yes.  1.8.1 had a good improvement over 1.7.3, but it did have more bugs as a result of the engine upgrade.  1.9.1 is the same engine, som many of the bugs have been fixed

[mcwaffles2003]

On 3/10/2020 at 7:07 PM, HansonKerman said:

people will leave ksp1. it’s the human way. The biggest problem is that KSP2 seems so. Absolutely frickin amazing. My god. Even if Squad says so I don’t believe it. Pick me up at the SwSh DLC hype train.

Does this really matter? It's a single player game anyways

17 hours ago, Commissioner Tadpole said:

Oh, neat! Still, I don't really think my current computer could handle 1.9, since it's already aging, and I was wanting to wait 'til I could afford a Ryzen 5 3400G CPU and upgrade to 16 gigs of RAM (versus my current 8 gigs) and an SSD anyway.

If your motherboard has a slot, don't get an SSD but an NVME instead. They're the same price now and NVME is like 5x faster than an SSD

[Curveball Anders]

39 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

If your motherboard has a slot, don't get an SSD but an NVME instead. They're the same price now and NVME is like 5x faster than an SSD

While I fully agree with this statement one should also look at what that's actually slowing your game down.

• CPU power, divided over single-core and multi-core.
• GPU power, doesn't really mean much in KSP except when it's integrated and uses shared memory
• Available RAM. critical in KSP since it tends to eat RAM like nuts.
• RAM bandwidth, an often forgotten issue, (also see integrated graphics above).
• Available disk, not really an issue, either you have enough or you don't.
• Disk bandwidth, a more critical issue since it doesn't only matter for load times, but also for general performance.

And then there is Unity's annoying behavior of looking for drives that aren't actually used by the game but might actually be available.
I actually got rid of several annoying delays by un-mounting my gdrive (which was not used by the game in any way what so ever).

As a side note and only for Linux I switched my /tmp to tmpfs and it was a major boost.
Not only for KSP but in general, there's a lot of pipes and other 'virtual' files on /tmp, and tmpfs is lovely for that (and reduces unnecessary access to my SSD).

 

 

[HansonKerman]

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Does this really matter? It's a single player game anyways

it does bc I like having friends. It sucks to play a single player dead game, but it is true that it sucks more to play a multiplayer dead game.

[Curveball Anders]

48 minutes ago, HansonKerman said:

it does bc I like having friends. It sucks to play a single player dead game, but it is true that it sucks more to play a multiplayer dead game.

And having friends means that you have to play the same game?

(I don't know anyone in my social circuit who plays KSP, even my own kids frown at it and when I try to explain I'm met with a dead stare and "ok boomer")

 

[Bej Kerman]

On 3/10/2020 at 12:02 PM, HansonKerman said:

right. So, I’ve been playing KSP since I was like, idk, in 0.23 I think. I played it for years... then put it down in 1.4.4. When I got back, everything changed. 1.6 was out, KSS was cancelled, etc. I was out of the loop. So I got back into the game... until 1.8 when my computer broke. And now... a lot of stuff happened. Negative got more team members, KSP2 was announced. 1.9 was out. And that’s fine. But... KSP2 worries me. Again, I saw lil KSP grow up, giving parts nicknames, adding asteroids, part variation, DLC, and then KSP2 steals the spotlight. And then Squad is obviously like other games, forget that the first video game I ever played exsisted. It’s... sad. So, sorry, but the hype train left me at the last stop. KSP2 seems amazing! But I just can’t bear it. Y’all are gonna have to be patient with this fellow forum member. Thanks for reading this long drawn out post. Like if you agree I guess...

1. KSP 2 isn't being developed by squad, this is quite obvious given the constant stream of updates that KSP is still getting.

2. "And then Squad is obviously like other games, forget that the first video game I ever played exsisted." Refer to 1. Also, the world doesn't revolve around you. Even if Squad was developing KSP 2, you can't expect a piece of software to be developed for many decades.

On 3/10/2020 at 12:10 PM, 5thHorseman said:

If my first favorite video game was still around instead of any successors, Elite Dangerous would look like this.

Change is good, frequently. We fear it and it's not ALWAYS good, but it is good more often than not.

Also, KSP isn't (reportedly) going anywhere and no one can uninstall it from your computer except you (and hackers with mad skillz I suppose)

This is important. Hanson, can you imagine being a dev trying to keep Elite up to date? It's simply not possible, no matter how many fans look at your old games through extreme-power rose-tinted glasses.

Also, I bet a lot of people liked the release version of No Man's Sky, even though a lot more people thought it was horrible. No Man's Sky simply had to update so that Hello Games wouldn't be forever seen as another greedy company, and KSP 2 has to be released to stay in the spotlight and inspire people who want to be rocket scientists. And like the first versions of NMS, KSP isn't going anywhere, just that there might be less people playing it. But that doesn't change the game in any way.

59 minutes ago, HansonKerman said:

4 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Does this really matter? It's a single player game anyways

it does bc I like having friends.

KSP isn't multiplayer.

[Commissioner Tadpole]

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Does this really matter? It's a single player game anyways

If your motherboard has a slot, don't get an SSD but an NVME instead. They're the same price now and NVME is like 5x faster than an SSD

What's an NVME, and how do I tell if a motherboard can use it? Due to getting a new CPU that is incompatible with my current mobo, I'll have to upgrade to a new one - a Gigabyte GA-A320M-S2H Micro ATX AM4, to be specific - and I'm wondering if it'd have a slot to put it in.

2 hours ago, Curveball Anders said:

While I fully agree with this statement one should also look at what that's actually slowing your game down.

• CPU power, divided over single-core and multi-core.
• GPU power, doesn't really mean much in KSP except when it's integrated and uses shared memory
• Available RAM. critical in KSP since it tends to eat RAM like nuts.
• RAM bandwidth, an often forgotten issue, (also see integrated graphics above).
• Available disk, not really an issue, either you have enough or you don't.
• Disk bandwidth, a more critical issue since it doesn't only matter for load times, but also for general performance.

And then there is Unity's annoying behavior of looking for drives that aren't actually used by the game but might actually be available.
I actually got rid of several annoying delays by un-mounting my gdrive (which was not used by the game in any way what so ever).

As a side note and only for Linux I switched my /tmp to tmpfs and it was a major boost.
Not only for KSP but in general, there's a lot of pipes and other 'virtual' files on /tmp, and tmpfs is lovely for that (and reduces unnecessary access to my SSD).

Hey, KSP isn't the sole reason I intend to get an SSD for - I have plenty of other games that are extremely slow to load (Paradox games, heavily-modded Starbound, heavily-modded Fallout: New Vegas, etc), so there are still plenty of reasons for me to get an SSD ^^;

Hopefully the 16 gigs of RAM would greatly help out as well. I also hope that my new build will also be enough to run KSP 2...

[Curveball Anders]

6 minutes ago, Commissioner Tadpole said:

What's an NVME, and how do I tell if a motherboard can use it?

NVME is a pcie card with a controller and an SSD attached to it.

The thing is that currently most SSDs are attached to your computer using an interface (SATAx) designed to deal with old hard drives.

The end result is that the transfer rates between the SSD and memory is c:a 5x faster.

But what that actually means to your overall performance is unknown.

(If your computer is less than 10yo than it most likely has pcie slots).

 

[razark]

3 hours ago, HansonKerman said:

It sucks to play a single player dead game...

As long as you're playing it and having fun, it's not a dead game, no matter what anyone else is doing.

[Incarnation of Chaos]

On 3/17/2020 at 10:55 AM, Commissioner Tadpole said:

What's an NVME, and how do I tell if a motherboard can use it? Due to getting a new CPU that is incompatible with my current mobo, I'll have to upgrade to a new one - a Gigabyte GA-A320M-S2H Micro ATX AM4, to be specific - and I'm wondering if it'd have a slot to put it in.

Hey, KSP isn't the sole reason I intend to get an SSD for - I have plenty of other games that are extremely slow to load (Paradox games, heavily-modded Starbound, heavily-modded Fallout: New Vegas, etc), so there are still plenty of reasons for me to get an SSD ^^;

Hopefully the 16 gigs of RAM would greatly help out as well. I also hope that my new build will also be enough to run KSP 2...

I've honestly gotten more of a performance improvement in loading times with more and faster system RAM, and more VRAM on the GPU. If you have already maxed out all other components then I'd recommend a NVME SSD, but your system looks budget.

So I'd say you should get a 256GB Sata 3 SSD as a boot drive, and a 1-2TB 7200RPM HDD for storing games. Then focus on the RAM and GPU for the most part. 

Are you planning on running the APU until you can save up for a GPU? If that's the case I'd invest in a kit of 3200mhz DDR4, 16-32GB capacity. Also I'd honestly say that you should look for a B350 micro ATX board at the minimum (Full ATX preferred). That A320 is ending up in the garbage if you plan to upgrade.

[Curveball Anders]

On 3/17/2020 at 4:55 PM, Commissioner Tadpole said:

What's an NVME, and how do I tell if a motherboard can use it? Due to getting a new CPU that is incompatible with my current mobo, I'll have to upgrade to a new one - a Gigabyte GA-A320M-S2H Micro ATX AM4, to be specific - and I'm wondering if it'd have a slot to put it in

NVME is a better way of accessing an SSD and your mobo appears to have a slot for it.

However.
It makes sense to consider NVME if upgrading from an old HDD to SSD,, but not so much if you already have a SATA SSD,

While the performance of an NVME vs SATA SSD might be up to 5x it only about disk access, not in anyway about general performance.

 

[HansonKerman]

I also want to mention that the magic science of KSP is very fun. I don’t want to lose that.

PSA : IMPORTANT

 

Spoiler

PKSA (Public Kerbal Service Announcement) - this is not the thread to discuss CPUs and processors. This is the thread to  talk about my insecurities with KSP2 as well as others’. Again, move to the Kerbal Network if you want to talk about CPUs and processors.

 

On 3/17/2020 at 11:45 AM, Curveball Anders said:

(I don't know anyone in my social circuit who plays KSP, even my own kids frown at it and when I try to explain I'm met with a dead stare and "ok boomer")

pretty much the same. Maybe I’m just uncomfortable. But yeah, pretty much the same thing (except the okay boomer.  [well there is this one annoying kid])

[jost]

On 3/17/2020 at 4:50 PM, Bej Kerman said:

 

This is important. Hanson, can you imagine being a dev trying to keep Elite up to date? It's simply not possible, no matter how many fans look at your old games through extreme-power rose-tinted glasses..

There is quite a nice free variant with a improved graphics and a great modding community: Oolite

 

But of course not so great as in EliteDangerous et al

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, jost said:

On 3/17/2020 at 3:50 PM, Bej Kerman said:

This is important. Hanson, can you imagine being a dev trying to keep Elite up to date? It's simply not possible, no matter how many fans look at your old games through extreme-power rose-tinted glasses..

There is quite a nice free variant with a improved graphics and a great modding community: Oolite

Yeah, but that's not really Elite. It's similar, but it's not Elite.

[έķ νίĻĻάίή]

I doubt I'll buy KSP2 that early. Wait untill Matt Lowne or Scott does an review, and then get KSP2.

[HansonKerman]

11 hours ago, έķ νίĻĻάίή said:

I doubt I'll buy KSP2 that early. Wait untill Matt Lowne or Scott does an review, and then get KSP2.

even if they say it’s endless trash?

in all seriousness that’s an interesting way to go. I might just do that too!

[έķ νίĻĻάίή]

7 minutes ago, HansonKerman said:

even if they say it’s endless trash?

in all seriousness that’s an interesting way to go. I might just do that too!

If it's trash then I'm not buying, obviously

[VoidCosmos]

16 hours ago, έķ νίĻĻάίή said:

I doubt I'll buy KSP2 that early. Wait untill Matt Lowne or Scott does an review, and then get KSP2.

Or danny2462

[HansonKerman]

5 hours ago, VoidCosmos said:

Or danny2462

Danny review in a nutshell:

look at ALL THESE PARTS!

i made a HUGE SPACE STATION, and I’m currently SCIENCING!

<boom>
look at this!

<spaghettifiction>
OWOW!