Jognt

ModuleManager patches can go anywhere in the GameData folder. I recommend keeping patches you add yourself in a personal folder in GameData though as it makes it a lot easier to manage your personal tweaks and copy them over to a new KSP install. The name for the directory doesn't really matter, whatever floats your boat, as long as it isn't the name of an actually existing mod. (So don't go naming your personal patches folder "SCANsat" unless you're really curious about the effects) The patches themselves can also have any name you want, as long as the extension (what the name ends with) is ".cfg". So again pick a name that'll help you identify your own patches

Small update. No conclusions, just datapoints: When the FPS drops, my CPU and GPU usage drops by quite a bit as well, so whatever it is, it's not bottlenecked by processing power, I'm guessing it may be getting stuck in a loop or something? When I dropped my graphics settings to 1080p and turned off lots of things, memgraph reported per frame garbage creation of 20MB on the Mun in my uploaded save. Setting everything back to normal/higher settings made it drop back to 10-15MB. Enabling/disabling vSync did nothing (a bit of a stretch, but I 'had a theory') I also tried setting the max physics delta time to it's rightmost position in the slider to see if that did anything, no impact on performance, still in the "feels like 5 fps" zone with a constant yellow clock. If I have new findings, I shall return. o7

Besides the memgraph readout I’m _very_ curious how KSP performs with my save. Sounds like it would perform nominally, though I hope you'll forgive me if I hope that it performs similarly to local. Edit: and yes, that video is a fresh 1.7.3 KSP install with just Kopernicus, memgraph, and dependencies.

Hmm, interesting. My FPS is usually capped at 80 and with vsync disabled but I uncapped it during the tests. 60 -> 57 fps sounds like the usual per-frame fluctuations. Looking forward to the memgraph results and how my persistent.sfs faires on your machine. What CPU do you have if I may ask? I'll do some more tests tomorrow if the temperature here is survivable (heatwave..). I've got a few things I want to check as well. Thanks for the help!

That's interesting, thank you for checking. Could you elaborate on how/where you tested? Could you perhaps check the persistent save I uploaded earlier? The screenshots with memgraph were taken with that save by going to the tracking station and loading up Bill on the Mun. If you're not seeing the same memgraph numbers, my mind is probably going to explode.. Yes, there have been a number of reports of horrible framerate problems with Kopernicus. At the moment it's still unclear what exactly is the cause and more importantly what may fix it, but hopefully someone has an "aha!" moment. For now you can reduce the impact of the performance hit by disabling Terrain Scatter and/or disabling the new Breaking Ground ROCs via a savefile edit. (own risk! so i suggest going with disabling just the terrain scatter) Good point. I am not nearly skilled enough in C# to know what/how. Even trying to piece together what's going on in the first place is a learning experience by itself. I wish it was possible to analyze the code in realtime to see how much time the game's thread spends in certain methods, but writing that debug code itself is also out of my league

Yeah I can see how that would be a surprise! I'd have just reinstalled the whole mod, I admire your dedication to recreating it manually!

What kind of news would you want? As far as I know the author is still very much engaged in the thread and besides some CFG moduleCargoBay fixes there's not much that'd need work? edit: do you perhaps mean the topic title not showing explicit 1.7 compatibility? If so, don’t worry, it works fine.

Personally I'd do away with the distinction between Probes and Crew entirely at least when it comes to milestones. Though I admit that there may be cases where the distinction is important, it caused me to go "Why?! Why is this a thing?" most of the time.

So uhm, about that framerate thing.. I did some more testing and found it indeed isn't specifically linked to ROCs, ROCs and terrain scatter just add to the problem. I still do not know an exact cause, but when I installed MemGraph into my test install I noticed that with Kopernicus KSP is generating excessive amounts of garbage. And by excessive, I mean excessive. I loaded the save both with and without Kopernicus+dependencies (+memgraph&dependencies): Stock: 752KB garbage per frame; Kopernicus: 10.000/18.000 KB garbage per frame; Funnily enough, going within unpack distance for the lander (and experiencing the subsequent FPS crash) reduced the amount of garbage to a more 'reasonable' 2000KB per frame. The garbage creation differed in amount depending on CB and what was loaded in, but it was consistently higher than stock. Increasing the GC heap did not improve performance, so I don't think GC itself is the cause of the slowdown. I am going to guess that whatever is causing the garbage is also attributing to the FPS drop mentioned by people both here and in the GitHub issues. Screenshots: https://imgur.com/a/Utxf79b Save: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hx1k0yytdbmy4ce/persistent.zip?dl=0 Log: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zo8vuz5j6imgid1/output_log.txt?dl=0 Oh. A funny quirk I also noticed from the screenshots is that all the scatter is mirrored in orientation with Kopernicus. I doubt it's related though. I really hope this helps to get this figured out. Not just for me, but for everyone using Kopernicus. Pinging those with interest: @Diddly Feelerino @Starwaster Edit: Just in case it's not clear; Considering the amount of refactoring that was done I would be surprised if there weren't any bugs. It's a massive piece of work, and I appreciate the effort that has gone into it. Edit 2: Maybe it's related to the foreach in FixedUpdate() in ring.cs?

Yes, thank you for apologizing for not having finished that thing you are under 0 obligations to do and are doing in your free time. (sarcasm heavily implied) Dude. You guys do amazing work and I'm very thankful for what you've given us to play with. Please don't feel the need to apologize for this! Seriously!

Ahh, so no actual changes except that KSP has to ask windows "plz sir, can I have some more RAM?" every once in a while. Sounds good!

You sure? It looks a lot like this one:

So the space savings here are from reduced mono heap sizes? If so, wouldn't that increase GC stutter frequency with this?

Good point. My apologies

Ah, it was worth a shot. :p You could remove BV and do a CKAN install to see if that makes a difference?

It reminds me of a bug I used to have. Could you check your gamedata/bonvoyage/plugins/plugindata/bonvoyage/config.xml for the controlWindow position? I used to have a problem where those would get set to a negative (offscreen) value. Maybe that's it? (setting both x and y to 0 got the window back onscreen for me back then) Ps. If you're uninstalling mods using CKAN, be sure to check if the mod's folder is actually gone from GameData. CKAN doesn't remove the folder if it contains files that weren't in the download (like configuration files), which can cause problems with mod interactions.

Awesome! Any word on whether the JNSQ ground features implementation suffers the same performance problem as the stock+Kopernicus ones? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znriOxMEExA (0:55 vs 8:38)

Ive never actually done the math. Could you give an example of how it affects rewards?

Well, at least you have the ladders unlocked! Good luck!

You can still drag the slider in the Graphics menu and it'll save the correct preset. It just won't give you visual feedback on the actual preset. Short version: Deleting settings.cfg will create a fresh one. You'll need to re-do your settings, but the Terrain Detail slider will show the correct names. Editing it is also an option, see the "Long version" below. Long version:

Huh.. So that's what all those "One simple trick to make it bigger" spam mails meant!

Good point.. I’ve been too busy building stations (or monstrosities that’ll pass for one) to say it: Thank you Nertea!

In that case you'd expect to see an increase in frametimes proportional to the amount of objects. Which considering the (relatively) small amount of parts/object(s) of the lander would mean very little change in frametimes and poor performance all around. The kerbal on EVA is technically a vessel/craft too so I don't get why everything is fine when I move that vessel around, but everything goes down the drain when that other vessel is around. You did remind me that I forgot to check how much CPU the KSP thread was using.. I'll see if I can check that later. In the meantime I figured I'd send the same lander again, but this time without solar panels to check if the KopernicusSolarPanel module had an impact. Framerate still tanked so that wasn't it, but now I have more kerbals and two vessels to test with later. Edit: I probably sound annoyed in previous posts. If so, it isn't aimed at Kopernicus itself or any person. Just wanted to say that.

Partmodules and buoyancy you say? I’ll see if I can dig deeper in that regard. There is a slight drop in FPS on unpack regardless of whether or not Kopernicus is there. It’s this massive constant FPS drop that occurs only with Kopernicus. In what file does Kopernicus listen to unpack?

I have no clue. Considering the responses I'm guessing nothing should clash in the first place. At this point I don't think I can test 'deeper' considering the video showing the problem is introduced when Kopernicus is installed.