The CanineCraver

@StarCrusher96 Thanks for the reply,I'll further investigate the texture issue, because after visiting more celestial bodies, I realized they didn't all have the pixelation problem. I did use cheats to place my craft on the surface, so perhaps this is the root of my encounters with this issue. I'll try placing a craft in an orbit and traveling to the surface from there. Regarding FPS however, your pack isnt the only one that effects my PC, Beyond Home effects it in a similar fassion. This leads me to believe it's either a setting or component that's mutual between those of us having framerate issues. Planet packs have always effected my computer, usually causing a reduction in the game's clock speed, I suppose all those orbital calculations are hard on my CPU... or maybe I'm overestimating my PC's abilities. Thanks again!

Firstly congratulations on release, this pack has a lot of high-quality content. Secondly though, I seem to be having some fairly severe performance issues when using your pack. I've been using a replica Millennium Falcon with 342 parts as a benchmark, and while using only Kopernicus and MFI, I get ~80-90 FPS while flying on Kerbin. When replicating the same scenario but with your pack installed, I'm reduced to ~30-40 FPS. My components are: CPU = I7-9700K GPU = RTX 2070 Super RAM = 32 Gb's DDR4 Install Directory Drive = Samsung 970 Evo NVME Not sure if this is normal or not, my I7 has never seemed to like KSP for some reason, it tends to impact one core disproportionately. One more thing as well, I've tried a few planets, and I seem to recall all of them having very pixelated terrain textures, the one I remember specifically being Syro. Perhaps I did something wrong, thanks in advance! Edit : I also forgot to mention that I don't even have terrain scatter turned on.

If it ends up getting bad enough I'll probably use that method, but at the moment it isn't too extreme. It's mostly launches and large fixed-wing aircraft. Thanks for suggestion none the less! Funny thing is of course Interstellar relies on beamed power for many applications, so I'll need a lot of satellites, oh well...

Thank you for the response, I suppose it is just how KSP is, being an old game and all. I do suppose the benefits outweigh the negatives, providing I'm efficient enough to avoid frequent reverts/quicksaves... Let's hope they fix these types of things when KSP 2 finally rolls out.

Computer Components: CPU : Intel I7-9700K GPU : Asus ROG RTX 2070 Super RAM : Corsair 2x16Gb DDR4 1600MHz Game's Drive : Samsung 970 Evo NVME SSD Mod list: ^Mods that where packaged with Interstellar as well as universal texture packs and non-impactful(?) utilities were not included. Problem: Low and inconsistent FPS using moderately sized vessels on save with 40+ active flights. Context: I started a career world in KSP v1.6.1 with mods, the focus being Interstellar Extended and Event Horizon. I was off and on the past couple years since I started it, but recently returned to it, finding my comprehension of game mechanics having improved dramatically. As a result I've spent a lot of time recently expanding my space program, currently at 43 flights, everything from landed vehicles, bases, deployed science, and orbital probes and relays. However, I started to notice that I wasn't getting anywhere near the performance I felt I should be getting, considering my only visual mod was EVE with SVE, as the game was set to 1.7.1 to run the mods. I updated the game to 1.10.1 and found improved performance, but large craft(100-200 parts) still didn't do too great, causing the clock to slow and FPS to drop to ~20/s. I've seen Youtube videos with much bigger vehicles, more visual mods, and some with weaker systems I assume, running with better frames and relatively smooth physics performance. I've conducted quite a bit of research, and tried many of the suggestions, including messing with the "Max Physics Delta-Time Per Frame" setting, going both ways and seeing nearly no difference. Of course I've also tried this in fresh saves, modded and stock, using the same vessels, both rockets and fixed wing aircraft, and the only factor that made significant difference being flight count. The save with higher flight count had overall lower frames when compared to a no flights save using the same mods and settings, as much as ~30 frames/s in some cases. This doesn't seem to be effected by distance either, an outpost on Minmus containing no more than 150 parts at the highest estimate, still only receives 50 frames on the surface, with frequent frame stutters, despite only having a few, low part count relays in orbit above it. This remains the case regardless of physics-less time warp, graphics settings, or visual mods. A large aircraft sitting on the runway with 179 parts receives a fairly smooth ~60 FPS on a fresh save, and upper 30's to low 40's on the career save, with near unbearable frame inconsistency, and after harshly removing parts via kinetics, the FPS improves with every part lost. Troubleshooting Efforts Thus Far: Clean Install Clean Save Transferred Active Craft Data To New Save Tested Different Values Of Physics Delta Timing Setting Tested Different Graphics Settings Removed Visual Mods Ran Stock Cleared All Debris Conclusion: I usually only ask for assistance when I've exhausted the vast majority of my options to fix a problem that, based on current findings, would only get worse as I progress in my save. So before advancing further, I figured asking the community for help would be wise. I don't see how my system would underperform when handling 100-200 part vessels, when I've seen videos of people's vessels containing mind-boggling amounts of parts and stages not killing the game's clock. Therefore I figured something must be configured incorrectly. Thank you in advance for any feedback, and I'll get you any information you feel I've missed in explaining my predicament, providing you ask for it.

If I had one thing I could submit as a request for the game, it would be improving and furthering the anomalies aspect of the game. Allowing more variety of anomalies and scientific data to be gathered from them or some other form of reward would really make anomalies that much more special. The "Breaking Ground" expansion did something similar, but I would like anomalies to receive the same attention ground based collection receives. Potentially going so far as to include contracts offering large sums of currency to find various anomalies or tourist contracts where you take them to visit pre-discovered ones. I think this would add depth of gameplay to singleplayer as well as another facet to multiplayer space races, with the science and financial gain going to the first player to find the "moon arch" sorta' thing. Mods have somewhat attempted these things in the past, but nothing beats having an aspect of the game integrated into it by the developers and a promise to keep it maintained and updated. Also as a side note, I hope they keep obelisks, even if they have to slap their own logo on it or something like that, please keep them, or at least randomly located anomalies of some sort.

Banned for excessively long title.

y? this is a great mod, so once again.....y? and y don't you join in on the celebration? y?

Banned for banning someone who banned someone else who banned someone else who banned someone else who banned someone else who banned someone else who banned someone else who banned someone else...then banned someone else...

MUCH EXCITEMENT!!! SUCH YAY!!!

Oh ok I gotcha, I'll keep running tests, thanks.

Thank you for clearing that up @StarCrusher96, I guess that that does make the planets, moons, and other stuff more interesting to visit. I only have ~260-ish hours in-game, but I was also unable to land on Jeln. You know the tiny UFO shaped moon like thing that orbits Voon. I cheated a probe into orbit of Jeln(I test out most, if not all of the celestial bodies of new mods to make sure that they are worth keeping, Jeln caught my eye, and seeing as odd shaped bodies tend to have issues I thought I would send a probe out.). I was able to make contact with the surface, but was unable to actually stay on it, even though I greatly reduced the dampening of my probes legs and used low powered rcs to try and hold the probe on the sruface so I could time warp, it never worked, guess low gravity has that effect. My probe bounced off at an escape velocity(which granted isn't much), so the surface kinda still has some issues, I also understand that some bodies are meant to be orbited instead of landed on. Just thought you should know.

Banned for being a square cat with a misspelled name

I totally agree with @Julio974, realism is what kerbal space program was born for, but at the end of the day it's still a video game and is made for fun.If it makes you sit there for several minutes while your craft slowly drifts toward the surface of a moon with little to no gravity, it may not be that worth it, especially if that atmosphere has no purpose but to add to a more realistic aspect of the celestial body. Also a bit of a side note, you clip through the surface of churn the comet...might wanna fix that.

wow thanks for the quick reply, I was considering going into the configs and disabling the "atmosphere", but I don't think I will now. It's just a bit of a pain trying to switch craft while flying on the moon, like I just dropped a probe from a sky crane and I couldn't switch to it after I got a little bit of distance between the skycrane and the surface probe. Plus I just found out the after disabling the atmosphere it kills the whole mod, well guess I gotta live with it. Not that big of a deal.

Is the moon supposed to have an atmosphere?

Long range com satellite orbiting scatterer Eve.

Banned for being a senior.(Although I have nothing against seniors)

Banned for stopping a celebration.

10/10 Don't know which galaxy it is...but I like it.

Banned for not thinking rainbows are happy places filled with wonder and gold(obviously I'm joking ).

Always remember Apollo 13 10/10

Banned for colliding with TWO stars...

Banned for not realizing it is a wolf,and it is a kerbal wolf.