Jump to content

Kilhmar

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    38

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Kilhmar

  1. Kilhmar
    Launching from the SPH/VAB will not activate the bug. Only launching from the runway or launchpad, or taking control of a craft from the tracking centre. If you hit 60 fps, I'm betting your fps is capped at 60 either by v-sync or the fps limit in the gfx settings. You may very well be incurring an fps drop for each consecutive launch, but still getting more than the cap at 60.
  2. Kilhmar
    Yes, but I've learned to work around it. What FPS do you get?
  3. Kilhmar
    The same bug, or a bug with the same effect, also affects reverting flight to launch. If you need to revert flight you also need to go back to the space center and launch a new probe (which you can recover later) and use the map to switch to the craft you reverted to. Or revert to hangar/VAB and re-launch.
  4. Kilhmar
    Nah, it's not a mem leak, but a bug in the KSP scene. Thanks, I'm very happy with my rig. Use it for all kinds of gfx related work in addition to gaming.
  5. Kilhmar
    This bug is ancient... 1.0.5 is the oldest version I have laying about and the bug is there... Amazing that no one noticed it before.
  6. Kilhmar
    However you will suffer from this bug whenever you need to use the tracking station to fly a vessel already in orbit. The only way to circumvent it is to launch something (a probe or something) from the VAB/SPH and then switch to the other vessel via the map view.
  7. Kilhmar
    Yes, I've updated the bug report continually with this thread.
  8. Kilhmar
    Yup... The problem is definitely in the Space Center scene. Simply launching via the VAB mitigates the problem.
  9. Kilhmar
    After doing some more testing I can confirm that simply moving back and forth from a vessel and KSP Space Center or the Tracking Station will trigger the same bug and tie up some CPU resources. Simply switching between vessels in the map view will not trigger the bug. Exiting to the main menu will release the CPU load. So basically I'll have to exit to the main menu and reload the saved game every time I visit the Space Center. I also get 25-30% more FPS (100+) if I launch from inside the VAB rather than from the launch pad menu. The bug is likely somewhere in the KSP Space Center scene-change to the vessel where some process is not released when it should be..
  10. Kilhmar
    Why don't you just repeat my very simple test and see if you get the same results? I assume you're not on a Ryzen system.
  11. Kilhmar
    The i5-3570k does not outperform a Ryzen 7 1800X, even on a single core. Stop trying to make this about the CPU. It's irrelevant. http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-3570K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X/1316vs3916
  12. Kilhmar
    I'm not going to debate the pros and cons of parallelization of physics calculations. The fact is that my CPU has no problem running KSP at 80+ FPS on the first launch of a new game, and the first launch of loading a saved game. This has nothing to do with physics calculations. After running it down to less than 20 FPS in the last video I simply restarted KSP, loaded the saved game, and launched again with 80+ FPS.
  13. Kilhmar
    Will do. Thanks.
  14. Kilhmar
    Not like every video game really, but that's a different discussion. The Ryzen easily runs KSP at 80+ fps on my rig, on the first launch after reloading the game again. And this has nothing to do with garbage collection or memory leaks. The FPS reduction is constant, not stuttering, and mem usage does not change noticeably. Ran MemGraph on my install and had no garbage collection issues.
  15. Kilhmar
    Hi all! Completely stock install (1.3.1). GFX-options to full screen, full res textures, very low aero-fx, no fps limit and 2x AA. For each consecutive launch of a craft the FPS drops; from 80+ during the first launch down to less than 20 after a few launches. See video. Win10 X64, Ryzen 7 1800X, GTX 1080Ti, 64 gigs of RAM.
  16. Kilhmar
    Love this mod! Thank you!
  17. Kilhmar
    Awesome! I love these parts!
  18. Kilhmar
    I didn't mean to imply any underhandedness. Limiting liability is perfectly legitimate. That's why limited liability companies (LLC/LTD) exist and are legal.
  19. Kilhmar
    In that case none of us are in business with SQUAD. We're in business with their subsidiary which probably is nothing more than a worthless mailbox company. Heck, it may not even be a subsidiary. Just a separate company set up by SQUAD's owners for tax and liability purposes. A shell company that's easy to just discard if needed.
  20. Kilhmar
    Lol. That you think Swedish law or a Swedish court has any jurisdiction over a Mexican legal entity is... well, what can I say. Have a nice day.
  21. Kilhmar
    What you obviously fail to realize is that it is not SQUAD who's doing business in the EU... It is you who are, via the internet, doing business with a Mexican company in Mexico. SQUAD has no EU affiliate or office, no EU registered subsidiary or anything that would bring them under any EU law or regulation whatsoever. You're like a virtual tourist on the streets of Mexico City crying about EU regulations because your burrito taste funny. If you want to pursue legal proceedings against Squad you'd have to do that in Mexico under Mexican law. Good luck.
  22. Kilhmar
    Lol this FlyingKiwi guy is off his rocks. Early access games fail regularly and the consumer has no legal recourse what so ever. An EU citizen can cry about EU regulations all he likes but that's not going change a thing in Mexico.
  23. Kilhmar
    I'm also glad I'm not the admin
  24. Kilhmar
    It's pretty simple really. Oops, a feature in the software is broken: We fix for free. Guys we've added a new feature or improved an existing one: Please pay us, or keep using the old version if you prefer. Your choice to update or not. Be happy this is not an Adobe product. You'd have to buy the software, then pay a subscription to keep using it.
  25. Kilhmar
    It's not about "running out of money". It's about making more money. And that is perfectly legitimate. Saying anything else is just hypocrisy, unless you are one of those rare individuals who would say no to a pay raise because you don't need it. As for paying for updates. This is actually very common in the software industry. Not for minor bug fixes, but for feature updates. So going from 1.1 to 1.1.3 should be free, but it wouldn't be unreasonable for SQUAD to charge you a small amount for 1.1.3 to 1.2 if it is a feature update (and it is).
×
×
  • Create New...