How much RAM do you need to Run KSP Smoothly with no lag

[StanE]

Cores are the number of CPU's you computer has(simply put, core=CPU=brain). newer computers can have 2 or 4 cores.

Umm... not really. CPU != Core. A CPU can have one or more cores. But consumer PCs normally have only one CPU. I think only servers (can) use multiple CPUs on special MBs.

Edited September 17, 2012 by StanE

[KleptoKat]

All of the ram. You need all of it.

All of the CPU. You need all of it.

All of the GPU. You need all of it.

Forget it, just get all of the computers.

You need all of them.

(If you want to make a decent rocket!)

[nhnifong]

The only thing you can do to make KSP faster is get a CPU with a higher clock rate or over-clock the one you have.

I'm running at 3.8 Ghz and it's pretty nice I can build ships with about 500 parts before I get intolerable lag of 1 FPS.

[Semi]

I got a new pc, x4 955 BE @ 3.6 Ghz, 8GB ram, HD6870

Funny thing is without any changes, at default settings it runs at around 15 to 29 fps, so I thought I was not gonna be able to play the game on this machine.

However changing the OceanPQS setting allows me to run the game at 1920x1080 60 + frames, all settings possible maxed out.

This can't be right? I mean it turns it from barely playable to butter smooth. Can't notice any visual difference other than the floating water, of course.

[Jo7hs2]

I have a Core i7 3770k quad-core running at 3.5-3.9GHZ, with 16GB of RAM, a reasonably fast GPU with PhysX, and an SSD. I can still get some lag during the first kilometer of atmo if my ship exceeds five stages or so with commensurate struts to hold it together. I'm not sure you can completely escape it right now.

[Spearka]

2GB RAM

ksp uses 1.2GB to run smoothly on fullscreen

[hjalfi]

A standard Windows process can only address 2GB of RAM (because the 4GB address space is divided into 2GB for the user process and 2GB for the kernel). So more than about 3GB of physical RAM is wasted.

*But* there's a magical Windows option to change the address space split, to give 3GB to the user process and 1GB to the kernel. I've never tried this. Does anyone know if KSP is smart enough to use the extra RAM if it's available or if it just assumes that 2GB is the maximum it can allocate?

[vexx32]

I'd say as long as Windows can allocate it, KSP will be able to use it. Unity isn't exactly a botched engine, after all.

But realistically, as long as you've got 2GB physical RAM and a good CPU and decent GPU, you'll have no problems. The problems arise when you start installing ridiculous amounts of mods. That is when you need more RAM.

[bomberJV]

How can I give more RAM for KSP to run on? The devs will probably make it so KSP takes advantage of multiple cores too.

[ddavis425]

If you need more RAM, this website can help you out: http://www.downloadmoreram.com/

RAM isn't the only thing you need to get the game to run smoothly, you need to have good graphics and processing power.

[draeath]

Seems it shouldn't be too hard to make this multi-thread. Each object should get it's own thread, and "ask" the other threads for their information when required instead of directly reading the values.

[Vague]

I get no lag, at full screen 1920x1080 with vsync, except for like 2 seconds when loading the launch pad.

I've got 16gb of RAM and an i5 2500k OC'd to 4.5ghz also an Nvidia gtx 570.

So besides bragging on the internet, perhaps these specs will give you an idea of what you need. Before you buy more RAM though, look at your processor as many others have said. And if you have an unlocked proccessor, definitely try to overclock it if you think you can do so without melting your computer.

[spikeyhat09]

A common misconception is that more DRAM = faster computer. while having a good chunk of ram is fine and dandy, what you really need to run many games smoothly is a fast CPU and a fast GPU (with lots of dedicated GPU memory of its own). KSP being a really math-heavy game, I fast processor will do you well. My processor has a Windows Experience Index rating of 7 (out of 7.9 possible), so KSP runs fairly well, even though I only have 4 gigs of DRAM.

...if you have an unlocked proccessor, definitely try to overclock it if you think you can do so without melting your computer.

also don't listen to this advice. while overclocking your processor may sound like a good idea, it will greatly shorten its lifespan, and you will end up shelling out more cash when your PC dies prematurely. your better off buying a decent processor in the first place.

Edited September 30, 2012 by spikeyhat09

[_Aramchek_]

also don't listen to this advice. while overclocking your processor may sound like a good idea, it will greatly shorten its lifespan, and you will end up shelling out more cash when your PC dies prematurely. your better off buying a decent processor in the first place.

No, it won't, unless you go crazy with over volting it etc, otherwise you can overclock your cpu and it will still last long beyond it's useful lifespan.

[cardgame]

The new iX series of processors are practically designed to be overclocked, at least temporarily. Just make sure you have adequate cooling, especially for long sessions.

[phoenix_ca]

Seems it shouldn't be too hard to make this multi-thread. Each object should get it's own thread, and "ask" the other threads for their information when required instead of directly reading the values.

Nothing about multi-threading is as easy as that. Nothing. If it were, programmers would be doing it all the time. The amount of problems that come-up even just spitting a program into two threads is incredible. And you also lose a lot of control when doing it, without some serious programming voodoo. It's...a complex and messy problem. Multi-core processors didn't arise because it was a good idea to have multi-threaded programs. They arose because hardware engineers had essentially run out of ways to make single-core units significantly faster than their predecessors, so they slapped two on the same chip and dared software engineers to program it.

No, it won't, unless you go crazy with over volting it etc, otherwise you can overclock your cpu and it will still last long beyond it's useful lifespan.

Perhaps the better answer then is to overclock so long as you have adequate cooling. OC'ing the components of a laptop or iMac, say, would be a pretty bad idea, as those devices are designed with very tight limits on heat (how much thermal energy can be removed from the unit over time is quite limited, though in the case of many Apple products, the solid aluminum exterior confers an advantage, though not enough to get away with over-clocking). The biggest issue with OC'ing anything is inconsistencies that can crop-up by doing so. As an example, OC'ing a graphics card will inevitably draw more power, and produce more heat from the components. Excess heat can impact the efficiency of the VRM (Voltage Regulator Module, which produces a lot of heat), and when the VRM starts getting a bit silly, a spike in voltage to the card could occur (though it's more likely that an error is detected and the system shuts-down to prevent damage).

It's why I've said that if you want to over-clock like a madman, then it's best to have a nice open platform with lots of space inside, and liquid-cool the major components. Liquid-cooling is way, way, way more effective than air cooling, and can allow for a lot of room to overclock components well beyond their rated limits.

[Vague]

snip...

also don't listen to this advice. while overclocking your processor may sound like a good idea, it will greatly shorten its lifespan, and you will end up shelling out more cash when your PC dies prematurely. your better off buying a decent processor in the first place.

If you know what you're doing and have proper cooling, it's much cheaper then buying a new processor, and like someone else said the new iX processors are made to do so. However I would not reccommend doing it with the stock heatsink. Shell out $30 for a decent heatsink if you're gonna try it.

[0jam3290]

My computer is a multi-core 64-bit laptop with 8GB of RAM and not much downloaded content on it, however, I use alot of mods, so it can be laggy when near Persistant Debris and large ships and with other programs open. Although, I dont have a graphics card installed, so........

Edited October 1, 2012 by 0jam3290

[spikeyhat09]

I know that this would probably be incredibly difficult and out-of the question, but, theoretically, could squad rebuild the game using a different engine in order to have multicore support? that would, theoretically, be AWESOME (*hint, hint)