I have a I7 that runs at 2.80 ghz and wonderful video card yet FPS sucks

[rexscates]

even if I load on a clean boot with no other programs running

my FPS sucks!!!

8 gigs ram

2 gig video card

etc.......

heck my stupid laptop that runs at like 1.4 ghz low power processor runs at the same speed.

sigh

-rex

yes even with basic installs the FPS sucks

[Pecan]

I believe with the "wonderful" card you need to run the game with the "-dontSuck" switch.

Alternatively; i) what card is it?, ii) what do you mean by 'sucks'?, iii) what graphics settings are you using?

[rexscates]

well its not that wonderfull but much better than the previous one

[h=1]Radeon R7 250 2GB[/h]

and what the issue is why my laptop B950 (which I think is worse than a celeron chip) 2.1 Ghz is almost same speed (in KSP) as the i7 that goes up to about 3.2 Ghz.

is the game CPU clock really the only thing that matters that much because its 32 bit? if so then I can not wait tell real 64 bit happens so I can take advantage of I7.

Since I got my new video card graphics settings do not really seem to have an effect its just FPS by CPU it seems.

still just shocked its all Ghz based because of the physics calculation. I am also slowly goign through mods to see if something causes most of the issue. I never get above 2.3 gig usage and still just shocked its all Ghz based because of the physics calculation. I am also slowly goign through mods to see if something causes most of the issue. I never get above 2.3 gig usage anyways.

[Hodo]

Are you running any mods? Because it sounds like you are having a string of errors that is causing a memory issue that is killing your performance. Also how many parts are you puting on your ships, is it all the time is it part of the time.

Just saying the performance is bad, is like saying you dont like food when you just don't like onions. You have to be a bit more specific than that.

[Padishar]

ii) what do you mean by 'sucks'?, iii) what graphics settings are you using?

Can you answer those two questions?

Also, what actual FPS do you get with a very simple craft (e.g. just a command pod in the VAB and on the launch pad)? Does the FPS on the launchpad vary a lot depending on whether the horizon is in view? How about whether the KSC buildings are in view? Chances are that your "decent" machine is using some graphic setting that doesn't play nicely with your particular video card (or video driver) though, without more information we can't really do any better than slightly educated guesswork...

[Alshain]

In this case a higher end graphics card could be making it worse. You listed specs at 8GB and 2GB Video, but KSP is 32bits which means you get 4GB total addressable space (video + system). Most systems will use all the video RAM and limit system ram to allowable specs which means your actually operating on 2GB of physical ram when playing KSP. Hopefully this will all be resolved in the next week or two.

[rexscates]

fps does not seem to be effected much by parts count of ships

and 4 gigs addressable if it includes video memories is a new one to me for 32bit. (34 years with computers and I never thought of it that way)

any easy way to check for memory errors?

I will do some of the testing about FPS and its environment and how it effects it. something to play with tonight

[The Fleet Master]

I've always used the Windows rating to see what was bottlenecking computers, On my current Hp 2000 Notebook it's the AMD E-300 dual core with Radeon HD Graphics (Runs at 1.30ghz). 64bit will help me because I upgraded my RAM so from my understanding it'll be able to access more memory. I'm used to running KSP at 6-8 fps, you get used to it after time

[Megalodon 720]

I also hope that I can put all my RAM to use when .24 comes out.

[rexscates]

I've always used the Windows rating to see what was bottlenecking computers, On my current Hp 2000 Notebook it's the AMD E-300 dual core with Radeon HD Graphics (Runs at 1.30ghz). 64bit will help me because I upgraded my RAM so from my understanding it'll be able to access more memory. I'm used to running KSP at 6-8 fps, you get used to it after time

so if this guy runs at 6-8 fps with a 1.3 ghz machine i must have errors somewhere that causes hanging. does debug info help? i can add to the beta testing info

[The Fleet Master]

I also play the game on higher settings than I should, I prefer beauty I guess

[Mandelbrot]

Just wanted to chime in and give some data to the OP. I am running KSP on a 2.66 ghz I5, with a Radeon 1GB 6770, and get good frame rates. With .23.5, I have to go above 500-600 parts before I get under 30fps, and then it seems to be both graphics and processor, as it starts lagging even in the VAB at that point. So your case seems weird.

[rexscates]

I also play the game on higher settings than I should, I prefer beauty I guess

so are are saying a I7 3.2 GHZ runs slower than this guys 1.4 GHZ laptop? i must really have some memory issues that cause my physics engine in unity to hang

[rexscates]

Just wanted to chime in and give some data to the OP. I am running KSP on a 2.66 ghz I5, with a Radeon 1GB 6770, and get good frame rates. With .23.5, I have to go above 500-600 parts before I get under 30fps, and then it seems to be both graphics and processor, as it starts lagging even in the VAB at that point. So your case seems weird.

I guess i need to check where the FPS lags in differnt modes. and see if its also the VAB I guess.

we testing i like testing when I have some goals fo testing

[The Fleet Master]

Here try this, It's what I use and it works pretty well

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/59005-0-23-5-Release-3-1-Active-Texture-Management-Save-RAM-without-reduction-packs%21

Another tip is get something like Razer Gamebooster, they actually do help a little

[rexscates]

Here try this, It's what I use and it works pretty well

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/59005-0-23-5-Release-3-1-Active-Texture-Management-Save-RAM-without-reduction-packs%21

Another tip is get something like Razer Gamebooster, they actually do help a little

active texture mng helped with load times but it seems like there is a beta memory issues that people suggested will need to test and get back to people, thanks!

-rex

[Alshain]

fps does not seem to be effected much by parts count of ships

and 4 gigs addressable if it includes video memories is a new one to me for 32bit. (34 years with computers and I never thought of it that way)

Well I'm not certain about that for 32bit applications like KSP running on a 64 bit OS, it may be that since the OS knows about it, it can be used fully. I know for fact that's how it works for 32-bit Windows. If you've ever run Windows XP on a system with 4GB of system memory and a video card with dedicated ram you will see it only uses a portion of the system ram and the amount missing is equal to the video ram. Easy to see on the System in CP.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Alshain

[cantab]

You may want to check your graphics drivers. Really bad framerate, even on the title screen, can be caused by not having the proper drivers for the graphics card. KSP isn't GPU-intensive, but it is still a game that needs 3D acceleration.

[Epthelyn]

This may not apply at all depending on the processor, but:

Is KSP, for whatever weird reason, using the integrated graphics chip inside your CPU instead of the graphics card it should be using? That would probably cause some kind of issue depending on what that actually is.

[Hodo]

fps does not seem to be effected much by parts count of ships

and 4 gigs addressable if it includes video memories is a new one to me for 32bit. (34 years with computers and I never thought of it that way)

any easy way to check for memory errors?

I will do some of the testing about FPS and its environment and how it effects it. something to play with tonight

Easiest way to check, is to check your output log. But the other way is to load up the game and hit ALT-F2. This will show the log as it happens.

[KvickFlygarn87]

I'd go OCing. KSP is singlecore (err.. mostly) so individual clock speed is the only thing that matters.

[rexscates]

when you do the Alt F2 is there a list of errors to look for?

is it basically anything that is red is bad?

some errors just say something like node invalid or somesuch.

is there a place I can look for what errors show up in Alt F2 to help me trouble shoot?

thanks folks

-rex

[Comcain]

so if this guy runs at 6-8 fps with a 1.3 ghz machine i must have errors somewhere that causes hanging. does debug info help? i can add to the beta testing info

Sometimes video is done "on the cheap" by sharing memory between normal things (programs, data) and video (lots of little dots).

The problem is that video can't wait -- that little scan line is always moving. So video must get priority if there's a conflict between regular RAM and video-use RAM. So video kicks the CPU out of memory.

This can really slow things down.

Another thing I've seen is more than one instance of KSP running. (You'll have to look for that in the Task Manager, e.g., ctrl-alt-del).

Believe me, when there are three KSP's running, my machine is really, really slow! Check out "Processes" on the Task Mangler window.

I hope this helps,

Dave