steve_v

Did you mark it executable? IIRC the first hack kspflo posted needs root too... The simplest solution to this bug is to just make the symlink, as I described. All of those solutions achieve the same thing however, so if one doesn't work, that's not the problem.

Grab the binary, mark it executable, then './pulsenomore.x86_64 ./KSP.x86_64', IIRC. Or compile with ' gcc -std=gnu99 -O2 -o pulsenomore pulsenomore.c -ldl '. All in the bug report. As for the alternative (symlinking libpulse to /dev/null), I really don't know how to explain it any more simply.

@Mrsupersonic8: The Unity5 pulseaudio bug? (but you should get some log output in this case, IIRC). Launch with pulsenomore linked from the bugreport above, or 'ln -s /dev/null libpulse-simple.so.0' in the KSP root dir.

Try the above, if that's not it it's probably the garbage collector. Inspect with Memgraph. AFAICT, Contract Configurator is the biggest contributor to the garbage problem at the moment.

Ed. nevermind, I'm blind. On the topic of EC, does Kerbalism do anything WRT vessel orientation (if it matters i.e. fixed solar panels) when on-rails? I am finding I have to switch back to re-orientate from time-to time, intended?

I'll admit I was a little surprised that CC is so bad for garbage. I do have Waypoint Manager installed, but I haven't gone looking to see how bad garbage it is... yet. Waypoint Manager is all good, or at least buried in the noise. Hard to spot just eyeballing it though, wonder if I can convince Padishar to add some kind of external logging to Memgraph... The GC thing is a bugger because it's both sneaky and cumulative - many mods making a little garbage is just as bad. I'll point out particularly bad cases I find in the respective mod threads (though I'll probably play a bit first now that I have removed CC), IMO others should too now that we have a tool(s) to visualise it... since we can't fix the game engine, avoiding programming styles that create garbage (you have already admitted to heavy use of linq and foreach ), and bugging squad to do the same is the only real option. If you do find time to optimise [x]Science, it'll be one more small step towards a stutter-free game.

There's nothing stopping you from running an engine on an H2 + O2 mix, but there's little point in using a mix (free O2 fron the atmosphere and all that) and it makes storing it ludicrously dangerous. H2 is bad enough on it's own. You would need extensive re-tuning of the ECU though, either for gas only operation of for a constant ratio. Poking some H2 in every now and then is bound to confuse the computer. Given the inherent problems safely storing hydrogen, I really doubt it's worth the effort - perhaps if one was using it to run a fuel-cell, but then you're talking electric, and batteries are pretty good these days. Just get an EV and use your windmill to charge it.

Yeah, turned out that the biggest offender was Contract Configurator, by such a large margin that benchmarking anything else was a little pointless. Made things somewhat confusing though, as it scales with active contracts, not mods installed. As for yours, there is an impact but it's way down in the noise and rather hard to quantify... I guess this is a good thing? All of this is just using Memgraph in-game, and looking at the "last" (heap allocated in last second - I think) value to get an idea of garbage creation. Installing / uninstalling mods between runs is time consuming to say the least.

I didn't test this as comprehensively in the flight scene (kinda keen to actually play one I 'fixed' my stutter issues by removing CC) but it was pretty close to the results I had in the space centre... off the top of my head, going from 5-6MB/s to 15-25 MB/s if I had an active contract. I'll try to get some numbers tomorrow though. What I can say right now is no CC == no appreciable GC stutter in flight scene. Where I started (~6 active CC contracts) it was unbearable. So numbers aside, there's still too much garbage in flight. I don't know anything about the internals of CC, but when you say 'generation' I take it you mean the generation of new contracts? If so, and contract generation is the main source of garbage, why does it seem to scale so neatly with number of active contracts?

And cliping is pretty much required for area ruling supersonic aircraft with FAR

In stock, carefully and with low takeoff / landing speeds. There is a stock seaplane to look at. In FAR, dunno. Water is evil and all my planes flip or loose their pontoons.

Once upon a time, there were same-craft collisions. Parts on the same vessel, when placed too close together, caused explosions, phantom forces and other fun effects. People complained, same-craft collisions went away.

LOL, that was my day too. ~60% "play" time spent tracking down stutter issues due to Unitys bogus garbage collector. Excepting mucking about trying to get the thing to run properly, about 50/50.

Do you have Contract Configurator installed, and how many active contracts do you have? ~3.5MB/s is almost exactly what I see with zero active CC contracts in my game, Increasing by 10-12MB/s per. My recent investigations, YMMV:

Nope, though I have removed CC entirely now. Guess I'll just play stock contracts until the garbage issues are sorted This is somewhat boring, but it's better than the stutter.

Okay, so what's going on WRT to the garbage creation / stutter thing? I've been trying to alleviate the stutter in my (modded) install, and removing mods one at a time brings me to the minimal set that causes it: Contract Configurator + any contract pack + active contract from said pack. I have been down this road before, with the same conclusion. I don't want to sound ungrateful, and I do love Contract Configurator... but the effect it has on the garbage collector is a bit ridiculous and it's really impacting playability here. I have 42 other mods installed ATM, and nothing else comes close to CC for inducing stutter. Heap allocations according to Memgraph: Sitting in the space centre (or mission control) view, 1 stock contract active: ~3MB/s. Same situation, 1 Tourism plus contract active: ~15MB/s. 4 stock contracts active: ~3MB/s. 4 Tourism plus contracts active: ~45MB/s. etc... Same (or worse) goes for any other contract pack, AFAICT. I can toggle my stutter problems at will, just by accepting and cancelling CC contracts. Each active CC contract adds ~12MB/s to heap allocations, and it appears to be cumulative. This comes with a corresponding effect on observed GC stutter. What I see in the space centre is much the same in the flight scene (though somewhat more laborious to test). I can grab logs if they would help, but I'm not seeing anything suspicious there, and nothing is throwing exceptions. Pretty much all the "stutter" threads have a mention of Contract Configurator as a primary culprit somewhere, is this something that is being worked on?

I've been doing a bunch of testing, in an attempt to identify the mods causing GC stutter in my game. Buggrit, forget everything I just (didin't) say, now I can't repro it. Benchmarking this GC business is a royal pain.

[snip] coustomers who should be busy playing their shiny new game are instead here complaining... because it doesn't work, so they can't play it. The answer to a squeaky wheel is oil. The quicker the oil-man cometh, the sooner the squeaking will stop. Those with a non-functional product have a legitimate reason to be upset. OTOH, if it doesn't concern you, just stroll on by. What I fail to comprehend is why someone always stops by to complain about all the people complaining. What purpose does that serve? If this was a physical product, I would have expected it to be pulled from shelves until this was sorted. My guess is that this is not so simple with Sony/MS.

They wouldn't.

@Red Iron Crown Indeed, of the air cleaners we tested, some did indeed improve performance. The negatives were likely due to the stock intake arrangement on the vehicle we were testing being pretty good already. Car manufacturers often do know what they're doing after all. Point was: big-name bolt on bits don't automatically mean better performance. There are a great many things one can do to improve performance and efficiency, but all of them are trading agianst something else (as you say, usually noise or emissions), and most need to be tuned for the engine in question. If it boasts 30% and you can mail order it for "any vehicle" I'd be very dubious. Case in point: Modifying the exhaust to reduce restriction can actually hurt performance on some engines, unless you also remap the ECU to account for it. Many high performance 2-stroke engines have tuned exhaust systems and won't run properly without a certain amount of back-pressure. @Tex_NL I was just trolling, I'm pretty sure there's no conspiracy to supress this 'HHO' technology.

Maybe the car manufacturers are in cahoots with the oil producers, and they want you to burn more oil...

I once had an engineering tutor who delighted in debunking gizmos like this... and had access to a dynamometer & exhaust gas analyser. I don't have hard data (any more), but HHO was one we played about with. According to our semi-scientific testing it actually hurts both power output and economy. Others I recall: Magnetic fuel conditioner: No measurable effect. Passive intake "mixer" (I forget the marketing name): Decreases performance. Aftermarket air cleaners: Mixed results, I do recall the [brand redacted] recomended by local auto shop was significantly worse than standard unit. Concentrated "fuel additives": several tested, no measurable effect from any. There were many more, but alas, it was long ago now. Of course you don't have to take my word for it, just take your vehicle to your nearest auto-tuner and have them put it on the dyno.

Yeah, what he said. Even a basic understanding of physics says this is pure BS. It's a scam, and an obvious one at that... yet from time to time I still run into people who claim it works.

SN:AFU. I feel for those on console, this one is worse than the usual fare. Can't say I didn't expect it though, given Squads track-record. Pretty much every release since 0.90 has had some serious, obvious (parachutes don't work, ships randomly explode are 2 that spring to mind) bug on release day. 1.1.x on PC still crashes, and wheels are still bung. And that's after the hotfixes. Give the console port 3 hotfixes (average for PC version to reach playability) and it might actually work. Meanwhile people are left with a non-functional product, and IMO, should expect to be refunded.

Quick question: I failed one of the "Give airplane ride" contracts (forgot about the g-force requirement ), but as I had completed several other contracts with that flight I recovered anyway, with the tourist still on board. Am I supposed to get to keep him? Actually, he's now on the roster and I can't seem to get rid of him. Here's the contract state from my save: And Munfren is now on the roster, though I no longer have any use for him besides filling a seat: Is there a way to dispose of of unwanted tourists, or should I get, err, creative?