TheFireRodan

You're joking.... I went from 1080p d3d11 max settings no AA at 40-60capped fps, to 900p no d3d11 reduced settings no aa at 20-40fps... Layman's: That's ≈1/5.5 of the performance I normally get. The server file takes 0% of my CPU, so it's not that.

Does this hammer anyone else's framerate? Running DMP Client and server, using about 600mb of addons that I made sure my friend has as well.

Alright, so the Aggressive version seems to have absolutely no effect whatsoever. Any help? I don't want to run OpenGL

What's the average effect of Basic edition? Mine was reduced from ~3000mb to ~2700mb. I can't use KSPx64 because Ferram's mod.

That's likely from the cache inside from using the basic then upgrading to aggressive, and/or mods you uninstalled.

ActiveTextureManagerConfigs/KWrocketry.cfg - entire file "ACTIVE_TEXTURE_MANAGER_CONFIG { folder = KWRocketry enabled = true }"

40% of my flights are mach 7 high atmosphere planes, so i'll take my pass.64-bit ksp had no problems whatsoever for me, excepting that FAR disabled itself. It appears I had an old mod I forgot to remove that adds a few new constructions around the KSC, which somehow totalled to .4 gigs of RAM. Adding novapunch 2 had minimal impact on RAM usage. So, therefore, anything not listed in the /gamedata/boulderco/activetexturemanagerconfigs will likely have a substantially higher memory impact. Right?

Error log? RAM usage? (task manager should be <3,200mb for KSP.exe)

However, the models+meshes of a singular level outweigh the universe; also, I could go on about Skyrim (visually modded), Watch_Dogs, ect. END OF IRRELEVANCY. Wouldn't switching to DX11/OpenGL from DX9 cause some visual bugs? no other game i have played had a smooth transition without the feature hardcoded.

My point was purely memory usage, as my BF4 client doesn't use 3.5 GiB regularly, despite the textures being multiple times higher res. I don't expect different engines to run at the same speed, assassin's creed unity says it all. Its just, for any game, that is insanely high ram usage coming from seemingly nowhere.

how would that ever help a RAM issue? especially if minecraft is any sort of reference. *shudder* -Issue Solved. I tweaked for a half hour and got my ram down to 2.7-2.9GiB.

Running b9, KW, Near Future, and Basic tex management: 3.5 GiB... Aggressive: 3.3 GiB (on runway, i don't dare take flight) KSP running maximal settings, no scatters. Why? And/Or Help? Windows 8.1, 64-bit 8GiB GDDR3, Zotac GTX 560 ti 1 GB GDDR5 (teh new one) -Driver 344.75, i5 4 cores 3.4ghz (2400), 498GiB free of 919 HD. -SHORT VERSION: Battlefield 4 runs 40fps on High graphics, no probs. Why does KSP with either version of this mod this mod use more ram than a 60GiB game?

Im used to running games like space engineers/battlefield 4/shadow of mordor on ultra/high quality. To some people the shaders of ksp are minecraftish (although there is a glsl shaders mod for minecraft).

If a genie were to grant me 3 wishes, they would be: 1:Enhanced visuals/shaders, as i barely use any of my gpu. The minumum system specs would be the same, but add the ability for bloom, hbao, light shafts, ect. This would come with an updated visuals pannel, instead of "Fast, Good, Fancy, Fantastic" -High priority 2:Better 64-bit support, to add hd textures & mods. 3: More genies @Reichtangle, im pretty sure, despite cargo bays, the current aerodynamics model would still cause items inside to produce drag. Simply making objects inside cargo bays dragless would be a poor solution. @Everyone. I'd recommend ideas that AREN'T Covered by mods.

Im running KW Rockentry, all near future packs, b9, some 8k textures for clouds and universe(texture replacer, astronomer's visuals) and some other smaller mods. Try removing the texture reducer, as the whole point of 64-bit is to use high res textures and/or 9 million parts, assuming you have more than 4 gb of ram. My ksp uses 4.5 gb.