Search the Community

Does the Scatterer addon have an adverse effect on the performance of KSP when it is running on a Mac? Does it slow the game down?

Given the extreme environment of Eve, I’ve always wondered what effect this has on engine performances. The Vector, Dart and Mammoth are often recommended for Eve, but I never really saw any quantitative numbers backing them up. Fortunately, the staging interface in the VAB lets us set the environment to Eve at sea level and it’s only a matter of using math to derive Isp values from the deltaV values. As expected, I found that the Vector, Dart and Mammoth do pretty well while most other engines suck. Interestingly, the Thud also performs pretty okay. The highest Isp values for Eve are: Dart: 267; Vector: 152; Thud: 101; Mammoth-II: 97; Mainsail: 96; Spider: 74. All others are below 50 (except possibly the Rapier; I forgot to test that one). The Isp values translate to the highest thrust values: Mammoth: 1332; Mainsail: 501; Vector: 411; Bottle-Rocket: 230; Clydesdale: 228; Dart: 142; Kickback: 115; Thud: 92. Using Eve’s gravity of 16.68 m/s2 (1.7x Kerbin), the highest TWR values are: Dart: 8.5; Vector: 6.2; Hammer: 5.6; Mammoth-II: 5.3; Mainsail: 5.0; Thud: 3.5; Kickback: 3.3. Optimal launch configuration While the Dart has the highest efficiency and TWR, it lacks absolute thrust and an efficient engine is useless if it can’t get its payload off the ground. Since the delta-V calculation doesn’t account for gravity pulling the rocket down, I find that instead the most useful quantity for a launch is the total change in momentum (or impulse) that an engine can deliver, which is equal to the net upward force integrated over time: J = integral (F - g*(mpayload + mengine+ mfuselage + mfuel - R*t)) dt Here F is the engine thrust, g is the local specific gravity and R is the fuel burn rate in kg/s. We can assume that for most cases mfuselage = 0.125 * mfuel . The total burn time can be calculated from t = mfuel /R. The equation then results in: J = (g/R) * ((F/g - mpayload - mengine)*mfuel - 0.625*mfuel2) By solving for dJ/dmfuel = 0, we can find the amount of fuel for which the maximum impulse is achieved: mfuel = 0.8*(F/g - mpayload - mengine) Interestingly, this means that for every ton of payload, you need to substract 800kg of fuel to keep the impulse maximized. From this, we also get the optimal launch TWR: TWR = 1 + (F/g - mpayload - mengine) / (9*F/g + mpayload + mengine) This means optimal launch TWR is always <1.111, getting lower with increasing payloads and gravity, depending on the engine. By adding the optimal fuel mass to the impulse equation, we find the maximum impulse: Jmax = 0.4*(g/R)*(F/g - mpayload - mengine)2 Since g=16.68 m/s2 for Eve, and F, R and mengine are constant for each engine, the only remaining free variable is mpayload. Engine comparison As you can see, the Mammoth-II can potentially deliver the most impulse by far for any payload. In second place is the Vector for payloads below 12t, but above 12t the Mainsail would be a better second choice. Without any payload, the Dart has almost as much maximum impulse as the Mainsail, but that quickly drops off. However, to get the most out of the Mammoth, you’d need an enormous amount of fuel. Without local production, this would all need to be brought in from Kerbin and you would need to manage to land it on Eve without burning up in the dense atmosphere or smashing too hard into the surface due to the high gravity. So, maybe the best value to look at would instead be the maximum impulse per kg of starting mass. The math becomes a bit more complicated at this point, but the Dart would now become the best choice for payloads below 2.5t. Between 2.5t and 5.3t the best choice would be the Vector and for payloads above that the Mammoth-II brings the most impulse per kg: Now, do keep in mind that these are the values per engine. Given the LG size of the Mammoth-II, you could argue it should actually be compared to 7 SM or 3 MD engines for similar footprints. In that case, the Mammoth becomes completely inferior to 7 Vectors and would only be better than 7 Darts for impractically heavy payloads of over 40t. It would perform about the same as 3 Mainsails or 36 Thuds: 7 Vectors would however require much more fuel for maximum impulse than a single Mammoth. So yet another way is to compare the amounts of engines that need a similar starting mass to achieve their optimal impulses. For very large payloads, that would be the case for either 7 Darts, 3 Vectors or 1 Mammoth-II. For smaller payloads, the 7 Darts would deliver far more momentum, followed by the 3 Vectors: Staging configurations For a final comparison, I considered a payload of about 3t (a command pod, a Terrier, sufficient fuel for a circularization burn and some appendices) and an asparagus staging configuration. Using 7 Dart engines would require 3.6t of fuel for the center engine and 13t of fuel for each of the 3 outer stages (so 6.5t per engine), giving a total of 24,000 kNs of impulse and a starting mass of 58t. Using 3 Vectors would require 14t of fuel for the center engine and 34t of fuel for the outer stage (so 17t per engine), giving a total of 22,500 kNs of impulse and a starting mass of 70t. A single Mammoth-II would require 50t of fuel for a total impulse of 18,300 kNs, with a starting mass of 74t. Again the Dart comes out on top, but I do have to note that I used sea-level values for all stages. Performances of the Vector and the Mammoth would especially improve a lot while gaining altitude, while the Dart would only improve a bit. You could consider using a Vector at the center stage with 6 Darts on the outer stage, but the additional fuel for the Vector would then count as a higher payload for the prior stages. This makes the Darts much less effective and it would only result in a total of 19,300 kNs of impulse, while having a starting mass of 74t. In fact, since the Dart suffers so much from higher payloads, asparagus staging is probably not even the most efficient way to use it. Just using 7 Darts without staging would give us a much larger impulse of 43,200 KNs, for a starting mass of just 55t. Using drop tanks while keeping all the engines would be even better. Of course, this doesn’t account for the effects of drag as a result of the wider rocket and the increased acceleration, so the best results might actually be achieved by an in-between solution. Conclusion Given all these results, I would at least have to conclude that the Mammoth-II and the Mainsail are never good picks, at least not when they have to be brought in from Kerbin. The optimal choice would be to use Darts. For larger payloads the Vector is a viable choice to lower the amount of engines, or when stabilizers aren't enough and you really need thrust vectoring (which the Dart doesn’t have). The only advantage that the Thud brings is that it’s radially attachable, but you would need a lot of them to make them work. This was pretty interesting to work out as preparation towards the Under Pressure mission, but it's all just theoretical. I don't have a lot of actual experience with Eve, so I'm wondering how this all corresponds with your experiences.

Jan Hloušek on Space Engineer's developer team has a rather interesting thread on various third-party physics engines. In particular if you scroll down, Havok physics 2022 seems much better than the rest of the alternatives. If KSP 2 is still using Unity's PhysX underneath, would it be beneficial to swap it out during early access to see if there are performance and stability improvements? What are people's thoughts on his thread?

Credit goes to TypicalSim. His og video helped me figure out how to fix my save. 1. Devs, please fix this. 2. Thank you. here's my take on it:

Here is a link to my video on a quick fix. Please fix how the game saves as soon as possible. It impacts game performance heavily. I went from 30 FPS and the game freezing constantly to 40-60 fps on the surface of Duna.

Im going to keep it simple with this one. So I have no clue why, but ksp 2 makes debris very laggy, to the point where simply deleting non-important debris from the tracking station improved my fps from 10 to 40. Hopefully this will be fixed soon, as I'm the kind of of guy to make a debris field around kerbin and don't delete any debris (1. Because I'm lazy. 2. Because I like the realism there in that there is a massive debris field around kerbin. ) Anyways, this helped me, but it might help some others, cheers!

Hi I'm having a strange problem right now, so I'm building a base on the moon with modules and fps drops caught my attention. So when I'm looking any different direction that other vessels its fine (50-70fps) but when I'm looking at my base landers fps can drop to 15. Anybody have the same problem?

Greetings to all KSP 2 lovers and developers! Sorry for my English, I'm using google translator. I hope he translates correctly. The fact that optimization is extremely important for KSP 2, and that everyone really wants it, has long been known to everyone. But I want to touch on a more specific topic. Where exactly is the very border when optimization can be considered sufficient? I personally think that optimization should be such that owners of not the most top-end computers can build orbital stations, planetary bases or interstellar motherships from 1500-2000 parts without a critical FPS drop. Someone will say that I've lost my mind, but ... we really are all waiting for interplanetary flights and colonization, aren't we? And how do you imagine a starship of 50-200 parts? In my opinion it would be a rather dull sight. In the first part, with mods for interstellar flights, a decent interstellar ship cost me about 1200-1500 parts. And yes, I played with 3-5 fps. In CPS 2, with such crafts, there should be at least 25-30 fps. There are many, many lovers of building complex, grandiose, large crafts. Yesterday I launched a rocket as close as possible to Saturn 5. With a lander and a command module. The craft consisted of 275 parts and I played with 7-11 fps. It's not bad. Before the release of the patch, it was even worse. But... it's only 275 parts. What happens if I want to build an orbital station with 1000 parts? As I liked to do in KSP 1. 1200-1500 parts in crafting at 30 fps, I propose to make it the very bar to which we should strive to optimize the game. Another question is how to achieve this? I have a suggestion. But I suppose the developers may not like it, because. this will require a major overhaul of the game. Now all parts in crafting are physical. Those. each piece carries a rigid body component. I'm right? It turns out that if a rocket consists of 300 parts, then during its flight the physics of 300 components is simultaneously calculated! And their interaction with each other! This is a performance disaster! And most importantly, this is absolutely not necessary for the game. It doesn't help the gameplay in any way. It just brings dangling, flexible rockets like sausages or jelly into the game. And he forces everyone to use uncomfortable struts that only irritate and spoil the appearance. Physics is not needed on every detail! And what is needed? We need one common rigidbody component for the whole craft! The rocket consists of 300 parts, but the rigidbody is one for everyone, common! If a stage separates from the rocket, it has its own rigidbody. Now we have two rigidbody on stage. Not 300, but only 2! If some part undocks, shoots back, falls off, gets damaged, overheats, it gets a rigidbody component and behaves like a separate physical body. But until the craft fell apart - it has only 1 rigidbody component for all its parts. Those who work in the Unity probably understand what I mean. How should parts be attached to each other, if not with the help of physics? With the help of inheritance to each other! Everything is simple! As soon as the part should fall off from crafting, it ceases to be a child for crafting and the rigidbody is activated for it. Why is it necessary? Productivity will increase not by percentages, but at times! Many times! It will be possible to create crafts from 1000-2000-5000 and even possibly 10,000 parts! And this is much more important for the game! Do you agree? Players will be able to build epic interstellar ships, huge bases on planets, complex rockets with complex payloads, cool orbital stations!

I'm noticing that the more I play, the worse the performance of the game becomes, especially when I save, both automatically and quick saving I only have 7 ships on the go currently and a limit of 100 debris I don't understand how its becoming worse and I don't know how to fix it. Deleting saves did nothing I have noticed Unity crash handler appears in my task manager when this freeze happens.

Im not sure if its the 4 engine plums that are causing it or something else and the fuel lines are not currently working for me. not sure if anyone else has come across this problem plus after the R.A.P.I.E.R. test there another bug about the engine working, but not working during time warp (using fuel but going know where) and the camera separating from the ship but i would stick to the fuel lines, camera, and R.A.P.I.E.R. if these are going to be fixed \/ video demo

So there is bugs, yea we expected some. but looking at the most common bugs raises concerns that they need to go "back to formula" see what outers think is simply a annoyance bug points to much larger issues. and there are a few "gotcha's" First off is simply user interface, how key and button input is handled. but also how it is processed. an example is when writing a ship's name, M key takes you to a map view. this shows inputs are global instead of mode specific and/or the mode swapping is not handled properly. then there is the lack of response from interface when crafts of extreme loads are being launched, lets say you get time to pass once every 10 seconds, pressing esc you wait up to 10 seconds to see map. this is first a ticking issue, shows the menu is not calculated independently and have to wait for the world render cycle to complete before it is acted upon. the menu us a slave function to rendering. this should not be so. next there is time itself. time should pass once every second, no lag or load should reduce that. any function should be a slave of time and use "time passed since last action" as part of its calculations. instead of relying on each action's output to calculate the next, formula's should allow passing of any amount of time and be able to adapt to those. an example is rotating to a position over time, instead of needing to take action at every passing unit of time, a simple formula can be used to see how far it would be towards its goal giving this amount of time passed. so if a craft would need 8 seconds to rotate from prograde to retro, and you are on 10x speed, then simply assume that in the passing of 10 seconds it made the rotation and set it as such, and deduct the propellant it would have used for that. simple this will fix rotation and acceleration not functioning over time warp of any kind. then as for physics, this should be simplified where you can pre-calculate it take the assembled craft in its current state, then do a linetrace from it from every direction, get the relevant angle of the hit and assign a value to it. do an additive overlay for control surfaces and other moving parts. now simplify it into center of drag, and center of mass use this along with speed to calculate everything else needed, bit you now get to treat it as a single part and not 100's of parts, and only needs to recalculate if the assembly changes. you can further pre-calculate each part and in the final calculation use those as an is visible basis. you're welcome. the current setup looks to prioritize visual priority of execution should be: 1 - time 2 - interface input and response 3 - control input and response 4 - vehicle movement 5 - actual rendering, here going LOD or even complete basic Low poly will be acceptable as long as time keeps passing, input responding and actions happening reliably. next assembly again looks like rendering is prioritized. it looks like everything is as movable and lighting is dynamic, this is wrong and even bad for performance. treat every placed object as static, use directional light and pre-bake light as much as possible, then calculate dynamic shadows for the single combined model. also VAB should have better uniform lighting with less shadows, it's a rocket factory after all so can assume its getting at least 4x light from each side and from on top, this makes baking light easier. as for placement sockets, sure snapping to anything is a function now, but how about if we mid-mouse-button select something to then prioritize snapping to the object that we are focusing our view on? also you dont have to make an entire assembly as moveable to attach it, simply rendering a 2d version of it for the current view and using a depth offset, use that as a card for the moveable part, and hide the static once you render the card, then you dont even need movables. there is also collision issues with many parts, the simple solution is to do a visual interrace and get tangent at location, use that instead of collision, so a surface mount item will mount to the visual outer surface. these are just a few bug fixes and performance booster i would have looked at. again this is speculative and only the opinion of a play test, and I have no actual knowledge of how the code actually functions

I put about 40 of the RCS components that can fire in 4 directions on a ship with 16 of the capsule RCS tanks, and turning them on drops my frame-rate to 5 from my usual 20. I don't think this a crazy thing to do given the relative weakness of the available control mechanism for large ships in space. Not as high priority as the numerous game-breaking bugs obviously, but definitely a problem if you want to go somewhere further than the Mun.

Hello all, I've noticed a massive drop in my fps as the number of ship around the system increase KSP Version 0.1.0.0.20892 Operating System and version Windows 11 CPU and GPU models, I5-10600K, 3070 8Go Description of the bug. average fps with one active ship is around 50, and the more I have deployed ships, the more the fps drop once all of the unused ships are destroyed with the map, my fps rise up again (sorry for this little guy stranded on eve) Steps to Replicate increase the number of ships deployed Fixes / Workarounds (if known..) delete the ships via map No mod thx for reading

Recently I was wondering why there were such fierce performance problems on my PC build. I started the game with a profiler and to my horror saw an absurdly huge number of calls to create a GPU device in DirectX 11. This is very similar to the bug and the main reason for the fps drop on my build: RTX 3080 i7-7820 64gb ram It looks very much like the game is trying to recreate the GPU device every frame. If you believe third-party sources regarding such a problem, then this is a bug directly with DirectX 11, probably related to an error in the execution of some shader. Screenshot from Vtune Profiler: https://imgur.com/a/yGEkXrE

As the title states, the game always freezes for me when I stage/decouple or when I crash into something. I assume that is due to the number of parts changing and it recalculating in the background. The same issue is somehwat noticeable inside the VAB, although it is not as bad there. If my fully built rocket crashes on the launch pad, I basically get to sit and stare at a still frame for 10-20 seconds before even beeing able to hit the revert button. Out of interest I have tried playing around with the Affinity of my CPU cores and priorities in task manager, thinking it may be related to it not multithreading properly, as the CPU usage rarely exceeds 20%. Sadly that had no noticable effect on things. My system definetly meets even the recommended specs. (Running the game at 1440p) System Specs are as follows: OS Name Microsoft Windows 10 Pro Processor AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core Processor, 3793 Mhz, 12 Core(s), 24 Logical Processor(s) GPU NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 with 10gb vram RAM 32Gb 3200Mhz Nvme SSD Game is installed on a Samsung SSD 960 EVO

Creating maneuver node reduces FPS in map view, from 60 to 35-40. If I delete maneuver node FPS increases back to 60 again. GPU usage is around 9%. It must be CPU related but I don't understand why. Any idea to fix this?

As the title says, I am having near unplayable performance with any of these mods. (30-15 fps on planet surface and slow-mo) My mission clock is solid yellow and about half to one third speed compared to normal, even with a 1 part rocket. -PC: MSI 2080 super, Ryzen 9 3900x, 64 GB ddr4, 1 TB m.2 ssd, 1440p monitor I have tested my CPU on cinebench, since it seems to be the problem, but my cinebench results are only a couple percent slower than a couple tests I found on youtube. I have talked to Stratzenblitz about it, who has made a whole video on CPU performance (ryzen 9 3900x VS ryzen 9 5900x) with scatterer loaded up, and he got much better performance. I have talked to Linx, the parallax dev, and he gets 60 fps at 4k with a similar power intel cpu and a worse gpu (1080ti). I have talked to people with mid gen i5's and 1060 6GB's, who got 60 fps at 1440p. I have even talked to someone who was using integrated graphics who got better performance than me. I have tried turning my windows power options to highest performance. I have tried a fresh install. I have tried sending my computer to get fixed. Nothing has worked. Is there anything I can do? Is it maybe a motherboard throttling issue? Did I miss some setting?

I usually play ksp a lot! But the problem is it using too much RAM! I can't even open my browser cuz it would use up all remaining memories and crash the System. Many people said that add the -force-opengl to the shortcut but everytime I switch from the game to the desktop it just automaticly crash. Same thing happen with -force-glcore. I haven't try -force-d3d11 though but my GPU's DirectX version is 12 so it should able to run DirectX 11 right? If I do that what is the impact? I currently install ClickThroughBlocker, ToolbarControl, FMRS, KER, ModularFlightIntergrator, RecoveryController, StationPartsExpansionRedux, ZeroMiniAVC, ModuleManager and 2 Expansion Pack!

KSP: 1.3.1 Problem: Massive lag spikes at varios places Mods installed: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vuzgq6kbri0duwt/AAAfZwSOka2M86JrZw328-G0a?dl=0 (btw. are .ckan mod lists allowed?) Reproduction steps: Just play the game. At game menu/open the deltaV map/sometimes scrolling in build menu/placing blocks/ etc. Log: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vuzgq6kbri0duwt/AAAfZwSOka2M86JrZw328-G0a?dl=0 Hardware: Graphics Card: Radeon software version - 19.9.3 Radeon Software Edition - Adrenaline 2019 Graphics chipset - AMD Radeon (TM) R9 200 Series Memory size - 2048 MB Memory type - GDDR5 Core clock - 975 MHz Note: there is like 4GB out of 12GB virtual vram used and the full 2GB dedicated vram is used. Other: Windows version - Windows 10 (64 bit) System memory - 24 GB CPU type - Intel (R) Core (TM) i5-4690 CPU @ 3.50GHz Thanks for the help! I hope that is not too much work but i am trying to fix this for like 5 months now and i dont know what to do anymore. PS: When you want you can locate other errors/corrupted things like the module switch bug (MKS)(near end). Cause i am trying to fix that bug for months now.

Hi guys! Hope everyone is doing great today! I am writing to try and solve an increasing doubt I've been having lately: how on Earth to improve performance in KSP? I have a super-heavy modded install (100+ mods, +100,000 MM patches) and I'm not willing to let any of the installed mods go. Loading time is roughly 15 min. Game works just fine with small vessels (<100 parts) but gets sluggish when exceeding that limit. Given that I play with RO, RSS, Principia and the sorts, a normal Moon rocket with a payload usually consists of 100-150 parts. Space stations, surface bases and complex orbital structures are the worse, as they receive docking vessels and part count multiplies to well over 300 parts. I have what I consider a decent PC (i7 4770k @ 3.8ghz, 16GB ram & GTX 780ti - the game is installed in a WD Black @ SATA 7200 RPM) and I can't stand the poor performance any longer. I want to create massive crafts and stations without the pain & suffering! What I really want to know is what makes a modded KSP creep and crawl, and how to make it better. Do I need more computation power (i.e. CPU)? Do I need more RAM, more GPU? Can I make my GPU help my CPU? Do I need all of the above? Please halp!!!

Hey there, when I'm in the flight scene, I have a massive fps drop when turning reflectionshader settings on for every frame. My mods are (KSP1.8.1): EVE Scatterer Planetshine Distant Object Enhancement Reentry particle Effect Real-Plume AVP (8k and 43k textures) Texture Replacer Chatterer My rig: [email protected] singlecore, 4.6Ghz allcore Gtx1660ti 32GB of Ram I wanted to know whether this is only for me the case or if it's a general problem. I know that these are mods which are heavy on GPU load, but I think whether my system is good midrange and I shouldn't have such a massive fps Drop. (All other settings on Max) With shaders on Max : 16-17fps (bottlenecked by shaders) Off : 60fps (bottlenecked by visual mods) Thanks in advance

Pretty much this: https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/24221 I'm sure that I'm not the only one experiencing this, you can pretty much see this on every stream on twitch from time to time. I'm not the expert in Unity, but is there really no way this can be done? I highly doubt that.

This is just a rant about KSP's memory and GPU/CPU usage. How good/bad do you think it is?Can it be improved? KSP isn't, by a long way, the most graphically taxing game out there. Compared to the kinds of graphics demands we see in other modern games - even on their lowest settings - the graphics demands in KSP are minimal by comparison, especially in vanilla. Which makes it so frustrating how this game can grind to a virtual halt just because you wanted to install one or two mods, or because you happened to have been playing for 5 hours straight. Even though my PC is at least 7 years old (2GB video RAM, 16GB of installed RAM, an i7 multicore processor) it still more than meets the game's current MINIMUM specifications as set by Squad. The fact an old bucket like mine can still run this game fairly well, even with many mods installed, says it all. But do I sound like an entitled little gamer when I say that if I have 7GB of RAM available (as shown in Task Manager) I expect the damn thing to be able to access it, and it can't. Even in 64-bit! Or perhaps this is still more of a Windows problem than a Unity problem? Or both? I just get the feeling that KSP could and should be able to run at least 60fps even with many mods installed, and it's frustrating that it doesn't. Depending on the scene I can get maybe 24-30fps (in v 1.6.0), but that depends heavily on how busy the scene is. While docking with a moderately sized station it can drop to 9-12fps (I thought 1.6.0 was suppose to improve multicore rendering for multiple ships, but I really can't see any difference); in maximum time warp I've seen it drop to 6fps and then shoot back up to 20 then back to 8. Indeed the framerate can be VERY inconsistent with frequent lag, and again I can't tell if it's my PC (toggling V-sync makes little difference, nor does setting a frame limit) , the mods, or the game engine. And please don't tell me to stick to vanilla; mods have defined this game just as they have defined SkyRim. Even Squad members themselves (Nova Silisco for example) contributed mods to this game. KSP just isn't appealing to me any more in vanilla, because I KNOW KSP can do so much better. The forums are always full of players suggesting or requesting new mods, especially visual enhancements, which says to me the community wants this game to be as good as it can be, and we really need to be asking if it is. Even after Unity5 and 64-bit mode were introduced. I'm not a programmer but I can't help feeling that despite the move to Unity5 and its undoubted improvements, KSP still isn't running at its full potential; and it feels as if it never will as long as it's still using Unity. Programmers, mod-makers feel free to disagree. My suggestion to Squad-Private Division: stop producing DLC and focus instead on continuing to improve how this game already uses available resources. No point in creating more 'stuff' for the game if in turn the game becomes so bloated and slow no-one can play it. No-one should need a StarCitizen-type setup to play this game satisfactorily, it ain't Star Citizen!

I'm playing KSP 2 years already and I always thought that only stock KSP can load faster then 5 minutes. My modpack was loading 15 minutes until yesterday. Now it loads in 5 minutes. The same modpack. What changed? I shrinked almost all addon textures in half! I had some issues and need to take a look at addon resourses and I was shocked. People, are you serious? 2k textures??? I mean, it's not Star Sitizen! 2k textures even for a tiny parts!!! That's beyond good and evil. I'm in 3D modelling for games since 2001 and I'm always asking myself "how large will be an object on the screen in the game?" And playing KSP, 90% of time my screen looks like this: Now think about this: every part has a texture of 2048x2048 pixels. Every ~40 pixels wide part has 4000000 pixels texure!!! What a RAM waste. Thus I spent 2 hours shrinking textures and I don't regret this. I got tripple performance gain with no visual difference. So thi is my public appeal to all mod developers. I beg you, review all your textures or release optional low-res packs. 2048 only for huge >5m parts,1024 is more then enough for 2,5-5m parts, 512 for smaller parts and 256 for various bells and whistles. Remember: it's Kerbal Space Program, it's vulnerable to RAM wasting, so pay attention to it. P.S. Near Future Tech mods don't need any optimization. Respect, guys!

I play KSP at 3440x1440, modded, near max settings. GSYNC monitor. Usually it's fine, and I get upwards of 60 frames per second and it runs perfectly; however, at random points during play the FPS will tank down to 10-20 fps (as a side note, it always tanks the frame rate if I alt-tab out and back into the game). Every time this frame rate drop occurs, a scene change will fix it (i.e. switching from active vessel play to tracking station, or from VAB to space center view). I've tried uninstalling and reinstalling different mods and uninstalling mods completely, but I haven't found a specific mod to attribute the issue to. Does anyone have any ideas?